HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007
Robert I. Scott, Jr., Chairman
Darline 1. Duffy, Assessor
Kevin W. Webster, Assessor
Southold Town Hall, 53095 Roule 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
Fax: (631) 765-1356
Telephone: (631) 765-1937
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
We, the undersigned, do (severally) depose and swear that, to the best of our
knowledge and belief, the foregoing final assessment roll conforms in all respects to the
tentative assessment roll with the exception of changes made by the Board of Assessment
Review and assessments made by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment.
The numerical designations used to describe parcels of property within this
assessment roll are a reference to the Suffolk County Tax Map Identifier assigned to each
parcel so described on the Suffolk County Tax Map. The Suffolk County Tax Map
Identifier consists of the Suffolk County District number, Section number, Block number,
and Lot number listed in such sequence and which has been assigned to each parcel so
described.
Dated: June 29,2007
~~: !AI~~
Kevin W. Webster, Member
Received and filed this 29th day of June 2007.
L/
('~~t;~t?~-~,..
hzabeth A. NevIlle
Southold Town Clerk
RECEIVED
JUN 2 9 2007
TO:
Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk
Southold TOInI CIeri
FROM: Board of Assessment Review
RE: REPORT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW - TAX YEAR 2007/08
DATE: June 27, 2007
Attached herewith please find for public filing in your office, complete file covering the
public hearing(s) ofthe Board of Assessment Review, together with changes ordered by
this Board to the assessment roll, Assessors' acknowledgement, etc.
The duties of the Board of Assessment Review for the grievance period covering the
2007/08 assessment roll are completed.
J:2-/ +J .1hk
Chairman /
OJ<< tJd()
Member
~dJr
y=>~~. ~
Member
Me~~?1 ~lc
Form BAR-4
TO: Town Assessor
FROM: Board of Assessment Review
RE: ORDER FOR CHANGE IN TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL
DATE: June 19, 2007
The Board of Assessment Review for the Town of Southold, has duly met to hear
Complaints or grievances on the tentative town assessment roll for the tax year 2007/08
as prescribed by law.
The Board, having duly convened, has considered each and every complaint or grievance
on the assessments for the tax year indicated, as filed with this Board, as prescribed by
law.
A majority of the Board has determined that all the changes indicated on the attached
page(s) will be made on the assessment roll by the Assessor.
Total number of complaints submitted by Assessor
580
5
32
77
694
36
0
-
0
-
549
-
Total number of complaints received on Grievance Day
Total number of signed stipulations
Total number of correction of errors
Total number of complaints reviewed by the Board
Total number of reductions in assessment
Total number of withdrawals
Total number of dismissals
Total number of grievances without a change
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Assessment Review hereby orders the Board of
Assessors to make all changes in assessments as determined by the Board of Assessment
Review on the assessment roll of the Town of Southold, for the tax year 2007/08, in
conformance with this order.
STATE OF NEW YORK}
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK}
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD }
The undersigned, being duly sworn do severally depose and say that deponents
are members of the Board of Assessment Review; that deponents have read the
foregoing and know the contents thereof; and the matters set forth are true to the best of
the deponent's knowledge.
'q%.
Sworn before me this / day
of June,J'O 07. -
~~~
~N,,~
Chairman
RPTSA - 200 - 4/72
BAR-2 - Page 3 of 3
Claire L. Glew
Notary Public, Stale of New York
No.01GL4879505
Qualified in Suffolk Count.l7 Ll/ .\
Commission Expires Dee, 8,..J:;;;;;;.l U
C4 fq W tl1s
Member
r=:::tr~
Q ,C~
~Member
;0--1/ j;fcC4--
ember t7
GRIEVANCE 2007
RESIDENTIAL
1 McCall, Robert 116-1-5 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 12000
2 Kermanshahchi, Phillip 126-10-1.2 210 5/09/07 Reduction to 6600
3 Lessard, Diane 125-1-11 210 5/14/07 Reduction to 7750
4 Lisowy, Michael 106-9-7.5 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 6400
5 Scalia, Thomas 109-2-12.5 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 8500
6 Latney, Douglas 1001-2-4-13 210 5/15/07 Denied
7 Delsman, Barbara 1001-3-3-21 210 5/15/07 Denied
8 Frank Field Realty 1001-4-1-13 210 5/15/07 Denied
9 Finne, Tina 1001-4-2-40 210 5/15/07 Denied
10 Ficurilli, Antone Jr 1001-4-8-17 210 5/15/07 Denied
II Leete, Susannah 1001-5-1-9 210 5/15/07 Denied
12 Fairweather, Ian 1001-6-7-4 210 5/15/07 Denied
13 Zemsky, Dena 1001-6-7-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
14 Rowsom, Peter 1001-7-3-10 210 5/15/07 Denied
15 Strife, Peter 1-2-12 210 5/15/07 Denied
16 Buckner, Elizabeth 4-7-14 250 5/15/07 Denied
17 Demenil, George 11-1-5 250 5/15/07 Denied
18 Piperakis, Emmanuel 15-1-3 220 5/15/07 Denied
19 Oliver, Barbara 15-1-19 210 5/15/07 Denied
20 Patti, Clement 15-1-34 210 5/15/07 Denied -
21 J ett, Joseph 15-5-24.30 210 5/15/07 Denied
22 Campo, Gary 15-6-24 210 5/14/07 Denied
23 Seewald, John 15-8-26.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
24 Cuozzo, Joseph 15-9-1.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
25 Baker, Charles 19-1-14.5 210 5/15/07 Denied
26 Angelson, Perry 21-1-12 210 5/15/07 Denied
27 Milano, Nancy 21-3-15 210 5/15/07 Denied
28 Gianukakis, Ida 21-5-16 210 5/15/07 Denied
29 Politis, Antonios 22-4-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
30 Squitieri, Andrew 22-5-32 210 5/14/07 Denied
31 Hulsman, Robert 26-2-24 210 5/15/07 Denied
32 Lampl, Mark 30-2-81 210 5/15/07 Denied
33 Misthos, George 30-2-123 210 5/15/07 Denied
34 Sotiropoulos, Konstantinos 30-3-3 210 5/15/07 Denied
35 Hartofilis, Michael 31-2-3.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
36 Phi1ippou, Harry 31-2-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
37 Brountzas, Peter 31-3-1 210 5/15/07 Denied
38 Drenis, Athanasios 31-4-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
39 Costello, Jack 31-4-16.9 210 5/15/07 Denied
40 Dzenkowski, Daniel 31-6-23 210 5/15/07 Denied
41 Fischer, Diana 31-7-10 210 5/14/07 Denied
42 Meshover, Stephen 31-7-17 210 5/15/07 Denied
43 Fleck, Joan 31-8-10 210 5/15/07 Denied
44 Nimonitakis, Mike 31-14-12 210 5/15/07 Denied
45 Mulhall, Harry 33-2-30 210 5/15/07 Denied
46 Stamboulidis, Andrew 33-3-1 210 5/15/07 Denied
47 Lettier, Bernice 33-3-19.16 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 9720
48 Biggs, Marianne 33-3-27 210 5/15/07 Denied
49 Karagiorgis, Nicholas 33-3-35 210 5/15/07 Denied
50 Spe1eotoes, Vassilios 33-4-60 210 5/15/07 Denied
51 Dinizio, James 33-4-73 210 5/15/07 Denied
52 Patane, Santo 33-5-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
53 Heins, Janet 34-3-2 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4400
54 Klinge, Rory 34-3-17 210 5/15/07 Denied
55 Berson, David 34-3-29 210 5/15/07 Denied
56 Verity, Joseph 35-1-11 210 5/15/07 Denied
57 Carlson, Lynne 35-1-17 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4500
58 Key, Carl 35-5-5.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
59 Israel, Richard 35-5-11 210 5/15/07 Denied
60 Kings & Alphas LLC 35-6-26 210 5/15/07 Denied
61 Jacobs, Peter 38-2-10 210 5/15/07 Denied
62 Cahill, Robert 38-4-12 210 5/15/07 Denied
63 Erey, Iskender 38-6-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
64 Goldsmith, Richard 38-7-10.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
65 Tsirnikas, Isidoros 40-2-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
66 Tzanopou10s, Demetra 40-2-21 210 5/15/07 Denied
67 Hanly, Patrick 40-5-1.11 210 5/15/07 Denied
68 Mims, Francis 48-2-17 210 5/15/07 Denied
69 Whitecavage, Lewis 48-2-25 210 5/15/07 Denied
70 Hughes, Ted 48-2-29 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 2860
71 Frank Field Realty 48-3-20.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
72 Rigas, Angelo 50-4-2.4 210 5/14/07 Denied
73 Andrejack, Joseph 50-6-5.9 210 5/15/07 Denied
74 Ernest, Herbert 51-3-2.10 210 5/11/07 Denied
75 Koukounas, Konstantinos 51-6-15 210 5/15/07 Denied
76 Klician, Antuan 52-3-15 210 5/15/07 Denied
77 Perinuzzi, Luigi 52-3-17 210 5/15/07 Denied
78 Brasca, John 52-8-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
79 Penny, George 53-2-23 210 5/15/07 Denied
80 Cerreta, Kenneth 53-4-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
81 Weber, Jeffrey 53-4-35.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
82 Lastihenos, Diann 53-4-44.5 210 5/15/07 Denied
83 Gayson, John Jr 53-4-44.6 210 5/15/07 Denied
84 Pembroke, Dennis 53-4-44.1 0 210 5/15/07 Denied
85 Denicola, Carol 53-4-44.19 210 5/15/07 Denied
86 Wieck, Albert 53-5-5 210 5/15/07 Denied
87 Woodall, William 54-2-3 210 5/15/07 Denied
88 Robison, Mary Ann 54-2-13 210 5/15/07 Denied
89 Kruszeski, Frank Jr. 54-3-26.6 210 5/15/07 Denied
90 Sawicki, Joseph Jr. 54.-3-26.1 0 210 5/15/07 Denied
91 Schroeder, Diane 54-6-4.3 210 5/1 0/07 Denied
92 Fickeissen, Albert - 54-7-14 210 5/15/07 Denied
93 Burk, Ronald 54-9-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
94 Conway, William 55-2-9.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
95 Higgins, Robert 55-3-26 210 5/15/07 Denied
96 Campbell, William 55-4-18 210 5/15/07 Denied
97 Kraehling, Paul 55-6-5 210 5/15/07 Denied
98 Hansen, Melvin 55-6-15.28 210 5/15/07 Denied
99 Sferlazza, Joseph 56-1-2.9 210 5/15/07 Denied
100 Batterman, John 56-1-2.24 210 5/15/07 Denied
101 Teeven, Judy 56-5-26 210 5/15/07 Denied
102 Zustovich, Fulva 56-5-31 210 5/15/07 Denied
103 Mazzella, Stephan 56-7-13 210 5/15/07 Denied
104 Manno, Guisseppe 59-3-16.2 210 5/11/07 Denied
105 Falkowksi, Carol 59-4-5.4 210 5/15/07 Denied
106 Braslow, Robert 59-4-5.13 210 5/11/07 Denied
107 Kanz, Isabelle 59-8-1 210 5/15/07 Denied
108 Coutsouros, Helen 59-10-12 210 5/15/07 Denied
109 Cagliuso, Joseph 61-3-8.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
110 Morizzo, Ronald 63-7-8 210 5/15/07 Denied
III Skwara, Antone Jr 63-7-13 210 5/15/07 Denied
112 Charles, Barry 63-7-14 210 5/14/07 Denied
113 Quist, Gary 64-1-32 210 5/15/07 Denied
114 Field, Genevieve 64-2-19 210 5/15/07 Denied
115 Dinoto, John 64-4-14.3 210 5/11/07 Denied
116 Criscitelli, Perry 64-5-9 210 5/15/07 Denied
117 Indelicato, Joseph 64-5-25 210 5/15/07 Denied
118 Gotbetter, Marion 68-2-13.2 210 5/14/07 Denied
119 Sepenoski, John Jr 69-4-9.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
120 Romeo, Steven 69-4-10.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
121 McDowell, Kathleen 70-2-1 210 5/15/07 Denied
122 Rubin, Lawrence 70-2-26.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
123 Kandora, James 70-3-14 210 5/15/07 Denied
124 Inamorato, Michael 70-3-22.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
125 Barry, William 70-4-35 210 5/15/07 Denied
126 Bais, Harry 70-4-42 210 5/15/07 Denied
127 Benic, Petra 70-5-39 210 5/15/07 Denied
128 Evans, Jeffrey 70-8-21 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4750
129 Cosmadelis, James 70-8-34 210 5/15/07 Denied
130 Sommo, Donna 70-8-46 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 6250
131 Strauss, Marc 70-9-16 210 5/15/07 Denied
132 Bennett, Robert 70-9-37 210 5/07/07 Reduction to 4500
133 Radich, Joseph 70-10-12 210 5/15/07 Denied
134 Rempel, Garv 70-10-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
135 Mehr, Michael 70-10-45 210 5/15/07 Denied
136 Baydala, Ann 70-10-46 210 5/15/07 Denied
137 Flinn, Betsv 70-10-53 210 5/15/07 Denied
138 Gundersen, James 70-11-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
139 Ofrias, GreGorv 70-11-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
140 Catania, Joel 70-12-26.2 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 6200
141 Decarlo, Donald 70-13-20.9 210 5/15/07 Denied
142 Princioe, Jeannette 71-2-15 210 5/15/07 Denied
143 Stankewicz, Cathy 74-1-8 210 5/15/07 Denied
144 Tenedios, Panaoiotis 74-1-17 210 5/15/07 Denied
145 Harvev, Michael 74-1-19 210 5/15/07 Denied
146 Hendrickson, Robert 74-1-37.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
147 Damianos, Herodotos 74-1-42.6 210 5/11/07 Denied
148 Calderale, Frank 74-1-44.10 210 5/15/07 Denied
149 Heins, Janet 75-3-1 210 5/15/07 Denied
150 Troiano, Anne 75-3-12 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4790
151 Brantuk, Joseph 75-6-7.2 210 5/11/07 Denied
152 Sieael, Charles 76-2-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
153 Milowski, Christooher 76-2-24 210 5/15/07 Denied
154 Willott, Richard 77-3-21 210 5/15/07 Denied
155 Mathers, Allen 78-1-10.15 210 5/15/07 Denied
156 Berkhan Family Ptnershio 78-1-18 210 5/15/07 Denied
157 Brittman, Joseph 78-2-11.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
158 Cortale, Joseph 78-2-39 210 5/15/07 Denied
159 Wessels, Georoe 78-3-58 210 5/14/07 Denied
160 Mitchel, Raymond 78-3-60 210 5/15/07 Denied
161 Wenchell, Walter 78-3-65 210 5/15/07 Denied
162 Broderick, Judy 78-3-66 210 5/15/07 Denied
163 Bishop, Christopher 78-7-32.10 210 5/15/07 Denied
164 Spaeth, Peter 78-7-40 210 5/15/07 Denied
165 Schwanke, Euoene 78-8-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
166 Klipstein, Robert 78-9-58 210 5/15/07 Denied
167 Perez, Judith 79 3-4.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
168 Derosa, Robert 79-3-11 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 6450
169 Kilcommons, Patrick 79 3-26 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 5500
170 FreY,Robert 79-4-8 210 5/15/07 Denied
171 Abele, John 79-4-41 210 5/15/07 Denied
172 Ostroski, Garv 79-4-50 210 5/15/07 Denied
173 Hobbs, Steohen 79-4-65 210 5/15/07 Denied
174 Lazio, Carmela 79-5-16.6 220 5/15/07 Denied
175 Mellas, Richard 79-6-29 210 5/15/07 Denied
176 Kentrotas, Steven 79-7-36 210 5/15/07 Denied
177 Boeraesson, William 79-7-38.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
178 Pellicano, Russell 79-8-13.1 250 5/15/07 Denied
179 Hart, Thomas 79-8-19 210 5/15/07 Denied
180 O'Brien, Ann 80-2-21 210 5/15/07 Denied
181 Kalas, Jerrv 83-1-10 210 5/15/07 Denied
182 Aliano, Nicholas 83-1-12 210 5/07/07 Denied
183 Aliano, Maroaret 83-1-13 210 5/07/07 Denied
184 Aliano, Nicholas 83-1-14 210 5/07/07 Denied
185 Aliano, Marnaret 83-1-15 210 5/07/07 Denied
186 Casarona, Joseph 83-1-26 210 5/15/07 Denied
187 Reiter, Josenh 83-1-31 210 5/15/07 Denied
188 Vlacich, Ezio 83-2-4.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
189 Bank, Charles 83-2-13 .4 210 5/15/07 Denied
190 Fasolino, Umberto 83-4-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
191 Oman, Henrv 85-2-5 210 5/15/07 Denied
192 Damianos, Alexander 85.-2-13.1 210 5/11/07 Denied
193 Corazzini, Robert 86.-1-4.7 210 5/15/07 Denied
194 Jacobsen, Frank 86-1-4.12 210 5/14/07 Denied
195 DeSimone, Scott 86-1-7 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 8500
196 Parma, Erik 86-4-1.6 210 5/15/07 Denied
197 Rosen, Carla 86-4-1.1 0 210 5/15/07 Denied
198 Jacobs, Peter 86-4-5 210 5/15/07 Denied
199 Daskin, Richard 86-4-6.5 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 7350
200 Safalow, Linda 87-1-23.4 210 5/11107 Denied
201 Mathie, Joan 87-2-14 210 5/15/07 Denied
202 Lohn, Patrick 87-3-55 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 10200
203 Schmit, Richard 87-5-17 210 5/14/07 Reduction to 4500
204 Marelic, Luka 88-4-18 210 5/15/07 Denied
205 Parker, Melvin 88-4-34 210 5/15/07 Denied
206 Fox, Thomas 88-4-35 210 5/15/07 Denied
207 Hodeli, Jeffrev 88-5-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
208 Honio, Klas 88-5-62 210 5/15/07 Denied
209 Connollv, Donald 88-6-13.5 210 5/15/07 Denied
210 Piselia, Bartolomeo 88-6-13.23 210 5/15/07 Denied
211 Laviola, Anthony 88-6-13.33 210 5/15/07 Denied
212 Draoo, Joseoh 88-6-13.42 210 5/15/07 Denied
213 Hurley, Britt 88-6-13.49 210 5/15/07 Denied
214 Maouire. Thomas 95-3-9.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
215 Petersen. Joseoh 95-4-18.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
216 Zuhoski. Steven 95-4-18.12 210 5/15/07 Denied
217 Giannaris. Georoe 95-4-18.14 210 5/15/07 Denied
218 Koster. Marla 95-4-18.46 210 5/15/07 Denied
219 Connollv. John 97-3-11.9 210 5/15/07 Denied
220 Imbriano. Anthonv 97-5-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
221 Forte. William 97-6-12.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
222 Schmidt. John 97-7-26.4 210 5/15/07 Denied
223 Steonoski. Frank 97-8-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
224 Horton,Richard 98-1-26 210 5/07/07 Denied
225 McNab. Glenn 98-3-4.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
226 OUav, David 98-3-8 210 5/15/07 Denied
227 Greenbern. Michael 98-4-16.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
228 Kitz. Marouerite 99-3-21.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
229 Gianoukakis. Georoe 99-4-16 210 5/15/07 Denied
230 Termini. Andrew 99-5-21.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
231 Lamoroooulos, Theodoros 100-1-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
232 Keller. Brian 100-1-3 210 5/15/07 Denied
233 Contoveros. Paul 100-1-13 210 5/03/07 Denied
234 McCarthv. Charles 100-1-16 210 5/15/07 Denied
235 Mazzarese, Charles 100-1-22 210 5/15/07 Denied
236 Boomer, James 100-1-33 210 5/15/07 Denied
237 Straker. Nancy 100-1-43 210 5/15/07 Denied
238 Staoias. Karen 100-3-15.9 210 5/15/07 Denied
239 Boken, Michael 101-1-15.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
240 Beebe. Susan 102-1-4.3 210 5/14/07 Denied
241 Fuchs, Joseoh 102-2-6.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
242 Pufahl. Josenh 102-2-6.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
243 Lizewski. Joseoh 102-2-12.5 210 5/14/07 Denied
244 Hamid. Lillian 102-2-18 210 5/15/07 Denied
245 Gambaiani. Scott 102-7-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
246 Sallee. Charles 102-7-7 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 9000
247 Micelli, Nunzio 102-8-11 210 5/15/07 Denied
248 Oliver. L10vd 103-1-20.12 210 5/15/07 Denied
249 Krauza. Steohen 103-4-30 210 5/15/07 Denied
250 Santafianos, Andreas 103-4-37.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
251 Wolf, Jefferv 103-4-46 210 5/15/07 Denied
252 Menendez, Manuel 103-9-3 210 5/15/07 Denied
253 Schwartz, William 103-9-11 210 5/15/07 Denied
254 Welcome, Lawrence 103-10-14 210 5/15/07 Denied
255 Trentacoste, Diane 103-10-17 210 5/15/07 Denied
256 Holder, Neron 103-12-9 210 5/15/07 Denied
257 Lufrano, Lucille 1041-3 210 5/15/07 Denied
258 Libassi, Paul 104-1-4 210 5/15/07 Denied
259 Klein, Jordan 104-1-9.2 210 5/04/07 Reduction to 7300
260 Branker, Claudia 104-5-31.1 210 5/14/07 Denied
261 Schneider, Kenneth 104-5-36 210 5/15/07 Denied
262 Santora, Eileen 104-12-10.4 210 5/15/07 Denied
263 Pavlou, Andreas 106-1-29 210 5/15/07 Denied
264 Livanos, Bill 106-1-30.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
265 Franaas, Emanuel 106-2-31 210 5/15/07 Denied
266 Elisseou, Evan 106-2-33 210 5/03/07 Denied
267 Elisseou, Evan 106-2-33 210 5/11/07 Denied
268 Baktidv, Theofani 106-5-13 210 5/15/07 Denied
269 Paoadooulos, Dimitri 106-5-29 210 5/15/07 Denied
270 Sweenev, Steven 106-6-33 210 5/15/07 Denied
271 Bailak, Roman 106-7-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
272 lazarides, Chris 106-7-14 210 5/15/07 Denied
273 Diakun, Nick 106-7-34 210 5/15/07 Denied
274 Moshier, James 106-8-47.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
275 Brisotti, Daniel 106-8-50.7 210 5/15/07 Denied
276 Schmidt, Michael 106-9-4.5 210 5/15/07 Denied
277 Ariosto, Salvatore 106-9-4.8 210 5/15/07 Denied
278 Eidler, Alan 106-12-3.1 210 5/07/07 Denied
279 Delehantv, Sean 107-1-14.1 210 5/14/07 Denied
280 Berman, Sandra 107-1-15 210 5/15/07 Denied
281 Renzi, Kathleen 107-2-3.8 210 5/15/07 Denied
282 Kaufer, Adam 107-2-16 210 5/15/07 Denied
283 McLauahlin, Edward 107-3-4.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
284 Piacente, Christine 107-4-2.5 210 5/14/07 Denied
285 Gaebel, Ernest 107-7-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
286 Confusione, Michael 107-7-9 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 8000
287 Pindar Vineyards 107-7-12 210 5/11/07 Denied
288 Moscato, Lisa 107-7-17 210 5/14/07 Denied
289 Ezzard, Robert 107-7-21 210 5/15/07 Denied
290 Burns, Steven 107-8-38 210 5/15/07 Denied
291 Ravnor, Frank 107-9-15 210 5/07/07 Reduction to 7000
292 Wolf Pit LP 107-10-4.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
293 CorriQan, Kenneth 108-3-10 210 5/15/07 Denied
294 Shipman, Joseoh 108-4-7.5 210 5/15/07 Denied
295 SchlessinQer, Dennis 108-4-7.52 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 6400
296 Beebe, Constance 109-1-20.3 210 5/14/07 Denied
297 Cutolo, Louis 109-2-12.7 210 5/15/07 Denied
298 L'Hommedieu, GreQorv 109-2-12.8 210 5/15/07 Denied
299 Nolan, Thomas 109-3-2.7 210 5/14/07 Denied
300 Corso, Joseoh 109-5-14.14 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 10000
301 Fallon, James 109-5-14.16 210 5/14/07 Denied
302 McBurnie, Marilvn 109-5-24 210 5/15/07 Denied
303 Hulbert, Ravmond 109-5-28 210 5/15/07 Denied
304 Zanoni, Richard 110-2-13 210 5/14/07 Denied
305 Iovino, Philip 110-5-35 210 5/15/07 Denied
306 Soto, John 111-2-4 210 5/14/07 Denied
307 Manaia, Anaelo 111-3-9 210 5/14/07 Denied
308 Schleipman, Peter 111-4-8 210 5/15/07 Denied
309 Gluckman, Thomas 111-5-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
310 Brantuk, Joseoh 111-14-5.4 210 5/11/07 Denied
311 Racz, Michael 112-1-4.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
312 Mantzouranis, Emmanuel 113-2-15 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4200
313 Paooas, Teddv 113-3-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
314 Katz, Paul 113-4-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
315 Lobasso, Lisa 113-7-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
316 HoeQ, Thomas 113-7-23 210 5/15/07 Denied
317 Pfennia, Pamela 113-7-25 210 5/15/07 Denied
318 SprinQer, Rvan 113-10-15.5 210 5/15/07 Denied
319 Campbell, Bruce 113-10-15.8 210 5/15/07 Denied
320 Warner, Dennis 113-11-6 210 5/14/07 Denied
321 Wovchuk, Kenneth 113-12-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
322 Raacke, Robert 113-13-19 210 5/15/07 Denied
323 Bourekis, Elias 113-14-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
324 Harkoff, Dennis 114-1-5.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
325 Blessinaer, Lawrence 114-7-10.2 210 5/11/07 Denied
326 Blessinaer, Lawrence 114-7-10.6 210 5/11/07 Denied
327 Schenone, William 114-7-11.3 210 5/15/07 Denied
328 Testa, Stephen 114-9-9 210 5/15/07 Denied
329 Monahan, Joseoh 114-10-24 210 5/15/07 Denied
330 Perkins, Richard 114-12-14.2 210 5/15/07 Denied
331 Rose, Garv 114-12-16.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
332 Schenone, William 115-1-3 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 5500
333 Cianfroana, Ronald 115-4-6 210 5/14/07 Denied
334 Ferchau, Otto 115-5-4 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 5200
335 Grosbera, Israel 115-5-10 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4900
336 Zaremba, Sandra 115-6-4 210 5/15/07 Denied
337 Drurv, Lorraine 115-6-23 210 5/15/07 Denied
338 Mitchell, Michael 115-11-18.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
339 Othen Drobet, Carolvn 115-13-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
340 Fish, Garv 115-13-9 210 5/15/07 Denied
341 Manoelli, John 115-15-26 210 5/15/07 Denied
342 Kirbv, Donald 115-16-1 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4800
343 Deointo, Josenh 115-16-3 210 5/15/07 Denied
344 Stewart, John 115-16-18 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 4030
345 Hoeo, James 115-17-17.10 210 5/15/07 Denied
346 Francica, Joseoh 115-17-17.16 210 5/15/07 Denied
347 Reichardt, Dennis 115-17-17.20 210 5/15/07 Denied
348 Tvree, Barbara 116-1-8.3 210 5/07/07 Denied
349 Koehler, Frederick 117-3-6 210 5/07/07 Denied
350 Sullivan, Richard 117-9-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
351 Ranieri, Nick 120-3-8.24 210 5/15/07 Denied
352 Paparatto, Anthonv 120-3-8.25 210 5/15/07 Denied
353 McKee, Ruth 120-3-8.30 210 5/15/07 Denied
354 Hvland, Patrick 120-3-8.35 210 5/14/07 Denied
355 Kennv, Phvllis 122-4-41 210 5/11/07 Denied
356 Doroski, Gene 123-2-11 210 5/15/07 Denied
357 Kramer, Steven 123-3-4.1 210 5/11/07 Denied
358 May, Thomas 124-1-3.1 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 8000
359 Commander, David 125-2-1.25 210 5/14/07 Reduction to 9500
360 Keatina, William 125-4-10 210 5/15/07 Denied
361 Olsen, David 125-4-24.12 210 5/15/07 Denied
362 O'Brien, John 125-4-24.19 210 5/15/07 Denied
363 Kowalski, Daniel 126-3-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
364 Parianos, Anastasios 126-5-13 210 5/15/07 Denied
365 Norell, Robert 126-6-4 210 5/15/07 Denied
366 Lahana, Sonhia 126-8-8 210 5/15/07 Denied
367 Zahram, Constance 126-8-15 210 5/15/07 Denied
368 Munz, Edward 126-8-22 260 5/15/07 Denied
369 Clarke, O'Connor 126-8-25 210 5/14/07 Denied
370 Motherwav, Nicholas 126-13-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
371 Morris, William 127-4-1 210 5/15/07 Denied
372 Gammon, Robert 127-5-2 210 5/15/07 Denied
373 Kellina,m Barbara 127-5-8 210 5/15/07 Denied
374 Small, Susan 127-7-16 210 5/15/07 Denied
375 Fedun, Deirdre 127-9-4 210 5/07/07 Denied
376 Krause, Carl 127-9-16 210 5/15/07 Denied
377 Greoorv, Scott 127-9-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
378 Raoozzine, Kenneth 127-9-26 210 5/15/07 Denied
379 Detrano, Salvatore 128-1-19 210 5/15/07 Denied
380 Detrano, Salvatore 128-2-14 - 210 5/15/07 Denied
381 Cassidy, James 128-3-13 210 5/14/07 Denied
382 Johnson, Robert 128-5-6 210 5/15/07 Denied
383 Levin Familv LId Partnershio 135-2-10.1 210 5/11107 Denied
384 Kemoner, Stanley 135-2-21 210 5/15/07 Denied
385 Goldblatt, Bruce 135-3-1 210 5/07/07 Denied
386 Dumas, Geornia 135-3-51 210 5/15/07 Denied
387 Lenerides, Gregory 137 2-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
388 Suolia, Beniamin 137-3-7 210 5/15/07 Denied
389 Sledz, Clare 137-5-4 210 5/14/07 Denied
390 Jayamaha, Don 140-1-8 210 5/15/07 Reduction to 7300
391 Wilcenski, John 140-2-33 210 5/15/07 Denied
392 Brioham, Theo 140-2-45.1 210 5/15/07 Denied
393 Toner, John 144-1-2 210 5/14/07 Denied
394 Covne, Maureen 144-1-4 210 5/15/07 Denied
395 Herrmann, Edward 144-2-40 210 5/15/07 Denied
396 Enderle, Robert 144-3-20 210 5/15/07 Denied
397 Loiacono, Dennis Sr 144-4-3 210 5/15/07 Denied
Grievance Commercial 2007
398. 7-Eleven Inc 46-1-2.2 450 5/15/07 Denied
399. 7- Eleven Inc 62-3-37 484 5/15/07 Denied
400. 38-44 Front St. LLC 1001-4-10-31 454 5/15/07 Denied
401. 372 Jericho Corp. 84-1-26.3 449 5/11/07 Denied
402. 53795 Southold Prop. LLC 61-1-16 481 5/11/07 Denied
403. 633 North Management LLC 59-9-30.4 484 5/15/07 Denied
404. 808 Realty Corp 102-5-26 432 5/7/07 Denied
405. Aliano, Nicholas 83-1-11 591 5/7/07 Denied
406. Angelina Properties LLC 114-12-2 484 5/10/07 Denied
407. Angelson, Perry & Melinia 1001-4-7-20 411 5/15/07 Denied
408. Angelson, Perry & Melinia 1001-5-4-26 481 5/15/07 Denied
409. Badger Enterprises Inc 121-3-7.4 120 5/11107 Denied
410. Bauer Farms Inc 74-4-13 443 5/15/07 Denied
411. Beachcomber Motel 83-2-1 415 5/7/07 Denied
412. Beachcomber Motel 83-2-2 554 5/7/07 Denied
413. Benalli LLC 59-3-29 485 5/15/07 Denied
414. Blocker, Julius G., P.C. 87-6-12.1 311 5/7/07 Denied
415. Bostwick Bay Co. 45-6-4 431 5/15/07 Denied
416. Breezy Sound Corp. 45-1-2.1 411 5/15/07 Denied
417. Burton, Sigrid 1001-4-10-14 418 5/15/07 Denied
418. Carnation Properties Inc 109-1-10.1 120 5/1 1107 Denied
419. Chase, JP Morgan 1001-4-10-5 461 5/1 0/07 Denied
420. Cove laJ Southold 87.1-1-1 to 33 411 5/11107 Denied
421. Cozy Corp. 79 60-2-4 483 5/10/07 Denied
422. Cozy Corp. 79 70-2-11 485 5/10/07 Denied
423. CSC Acquisition 52-5-59.5 449 5/7/07 Denied
424. Cutchco Corp. 60-2-3.1 438 5/3/07 Denied
425. CVS Albany LLC 143-2-30.2 453 5/15/07 Denied
426. Damianos, Alexander 85-2-11.1 311 5/1 1107 Denied
427. Damianos, Alexander 85-2-13.2 311 5/1 1107 Denied
428. Damianos, Herodotos 59-3-28.5 130 5/1 1107 Denied
429. Damianos, Herodotos 74-1-38 105 5/11/07 Denied
430. Damianos, Herodotos 74-1-42.7 120 5/1 1107 Denied
431. Damianos, Herodotos 74-4-3.2 152 5/11107 Denied
432. Damianos, Herodotos 84-4-10 .1 129 5/1 1107 Denied
433. Daminaos, Herodotos 85-1-9 152 5/1 1107 Denied
434. Damianos, Herodotos 85-1-10 152 5/1 1107 Denied
435. Damianos, Herodotos 85-2-9.2 152 5/11107 Denied
436. Damianos, Herodotos 86-1-15 152 5/11/07 Denied
437. Dank, Leonard & Beryl 97-1-1 120 5/15/07 Denied
438. Driftwood Cove 46-1-31.1 411 5/7/07 Denied
439. Droskoski, John & Susan 83-3-8 449 5/15/07 Denied
440. FHV LLC 61-1-13.1 452 5/7/07 Denied
441. FHV LLC 61-1-13.1 452 5/15/07 Denied
442. FHV LLC 633 N Mgmt. 59-9-30.4 484 5/7/07 Denied
Name
SCTM#
Property
Code Date
Result
443. First Settlers Ltd 70-2-3 471 5/15/07 Denied
444. Genovese Drug Stores Inc. 142-1-26 452 5/7/07 Denied
445. Georgiades, Elias 31-2-17.1 417 5/15/07 Denied
446. Getty Petroleum Mktg. Inc. 1001-4-8-35 432 5/7/07 Denied
447. Giannaris, John & Ors. 35-2-14 421 5/15/07 Denied
448. Grattan, Joseph S. 140-3-30 471 5/15/07 Denied
449. Greenport Food 1001-4-8-35 432 5/15/07 Denied
450. Greenport Group 45-2-10.5 280 5/15/07 Denied
451. Greenport Realty Corp. 35-1-21 421 5/15/07 Denied
452. Greenport Realty Corp. 35-1-22 418 5/15/07 Denied
453. Greenport Yacht & Shipbuilding CO I 1001-5-3-10 448 5/15/07 Denied
454. Greenporter Motel & Spa 1001-4-8-29 312 5/15/07 Denied
455. Greenporter Motel & Spa 1001-4-8-30 415 5/15/07 Denied
456. Greenporter Motel & Spa 1001-4-8- 31 415 5/15/07 Denied
457. Handv Pantry Stores, Inc 114-12-3.1 480 5/11107 Denied
458. Hawkeye Energy Greenport 1001-1-1.1 853 5/7/07 Denied
459. Homer, Inc. 1001-4-10-32 481 5/15/07 Denied
460. Imbriano, Anthony 97-5-6 120 5/15/07 Denied
461. Junge, Arthur 96-1-19.1 440 5/11107 Denied
462. Kaplan's Market LLC 1001-4-1-10.2 484 5/15/07 Denied
463. King Kullen Grocery Co Inc 97-5-12 452 5/7/07 Denied
464. L&R Vineyards Associates 101-1-4.1 120 5/10/07 Denied
465. L&R Vineyards Associates 101-1-5.2 152 5/10/07 Denied
466. Lajibrda, LLC 75-1-14 431 5/10/07 Denied
467. Leon Petroleum LLC 74-4-7.1 432 5/7/07 Denied
468. Leon Petroleum LLC 115-3-9 432 5/7/07 Denied
469. Levin Family Ltd. Ptnshp. 44-2-22 415 5/11107 Denied
470. Levin Family Ltd. Ptnshp. 44-2-23 415 5111/07 Denied
471. Levin Family Ltd. Ptnshp. 44-4-5.1 240 5/11107 Denied
472. Levin Family Ltd. Ptnshp. 135-1-15.1 311 5/11107 Denied
473. Levin Family Ltd. Ptnshp. 135-3-19 417 5/11107 Denied
474. Levin Family Ltd. Ptnshp. 135-3-20 417 5/11107 Denied
475. Levin Family Ltd. Ptnshp. 135-3-21 312 5/11107 Denied
476. Levin, Rachel Murphy 44-2-20 421 5/11107 Denied
477. Lewis Family Properties Ptnshp 48-2-44.3 440 5/15/07 Denied
478. Lizewski, Joseph J. 102-2-12.6 480 5/14/07 Denied
479. Lizewski, Joseph J. 102-2-12.7 311 5/14/07 Denied
480. Lucas, Howard C. Sr. 59-3-32.1 431 5/10/07 Denied
481. Maiorana, Aldo 1001-5-4-17 481 5/7/07 Denied
482. Malon Industries, Inc. 97-5-4.5 462 5/15/07 Denied
483. Marlake Islip Co. LLC 73-3-1.1 120 5/3/07 Denied
484. Marlake Islip Co. LLC 84-2-4.1 120 5/3/07 Denied
485. Mattituck Laundry Inc. 114.-12-3.1 480 5/15/07 Denied
486. Mattituck Products Co. LLC 122-7-3.1 426 5/15/07 Denied
487. McKenna Trimble Assoc. 108-3-13.6 473 5/15/07 Denied
488. Merlot, LLC 75.-2-2.1 311 5/11/07 Denied
489. Merlot, LLC 75-2-2.2 311 5/11107 Denied
490. Monica & Mike LLC 114-3-1 570 5/15/07 Denied
491. Montgomery, Michael J & Maria C 140-3-31 483 5/15/07 Denied
492. Mooney, Maureen M. 122-3-5.1 484 5/11107 Denied
493. NFPRA, LLC 63-1-19 465 5/15/07 Denied
494. Neuburger, Werner 44.1-1-7 411 5/7/07 Denied
495. North Fork Bank 1001-4-10-10.1 461 5/3/07 Denied
496. North Fork Bank 61-2-12.2 460 5/3/07 Denied
497. North Fork Bank 102-6-13.1 463 5/3/07 Denied
498. North Fork Bank 122-6-22.1 463 5/3/07 Denied
499. North Fork Bank 141-3-30 311 5/3/07 Denied
500. North Fork Bank 141-4-2 311 5/3/07 Denied
50!. North Fork Bank 141-4-3 330 5/3/07 Denied
502. North Fork Bank 141-4-6.1 463 5/3/07 Denied
503. NF Professional Realty Asoc 63-1-19 465 5/3/07 Denied
504. Ostroski, Gary 1001-4-10-17 422 5/15/07 Denied
505. Ovsianik, Allen 97-2-15 432 5/15/07 Denied
506. Oyster Point Condo Bd of Man IOOj-7.1-1-1 to 7.1- 411 5/15/07 Denied
1-34
507. Peconic Homes Corp. 121-3-7.4 120 5/15/07 Denied
508. Penny, George L Inc 53-2-27.2 444 5/15/07 Denied
509. Penny, George L Inc 141-3-38.1 444 5/15/07 Denied
510. Pindar Associates 85-2-14 120 5/11/07 Denied
51!. Pindar Associates 85-2-15 120 5/11/07 Denied
512. Pindar Associates 108-4-1.1 120 5/11/07 Denied
513. Pindar Associates 113-7-19.24 120 5/11/07 Denied
514. Pindar Associates 113-7-19.25 120 5/11107 Denied
515. Pindar Associates 113-7-19.26 129 5/11/07 Denied
516. Pipes Cove Condo 49-1-25.2 411 5/7/07 Denied
517. Pipes Cove Condo 49-1-25.3 411 5/7/07 Denied
518. Pipes Cove Condo 49-1-25.4 411 5/7/07 Denied
519. Pipes Cove Condo 49-1-25.5 411 5/7/07 Denied
520. Pipes Cove Condo 49-1-25.6 411 5/7/07 Denied
52!. Pipes Cove Condo-VOID 49-1-25.6 411 5/7/07 VOID
522. Pipes Cove Condo 1001-7-1-16.2 411 5/7/07 Denied
523. Pipes Cove Condo 1001-7-1-16.3 411 5/7/07 Denied
524. Pipes Cove Condo 1001-7-1-16.4 411 5/7/07 Denied
525. Pipes Cove Condo 1001-7-1-16.5 411 5/7/07 Denied
526. Pirrera, Anthony 55-2-20 485 5/7/07 Denied
527. Pirrera, Anthony 55-2-21 350 5/7/07 Denied
528. Pirrera LP 110-4-12.2 311 5/7/07 Denied
529. RHX Corp. 96-2-7 120 5/11/07 Denied
530. Riverhead Building Supply 46-1-2.3 444 5/15/07 Denied
53!. Romanelli Realty 60-1-6 441 5/7/07 Denied
532. S T Preston & Son Inc 1001-4-10-1 481 5/15/07 Denied
533. Schenone, William & Marie 140-3-3.1 484 5/15/07 Denied
534. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-1 411 5/7/07 Denied
535. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-2 411 5/7/07 Denied
536. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-3 411 5/7/07 Denied
537. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-4 411 5/7/07 Denied
538. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-5 411 5/7/07 Denied
539. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-6 411 5/7/07 Denied
540. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-7 411 5/7/07 Denied
54!. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-8 411 5/7/07 Denied
542. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-9 411 5/7/07 Denied
543. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-10 411 5/7/07 Denied
544. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-11 411 5/7/07 Denied
545. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-12 411 5/7/07 Denied
546. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-13 411 5/7/07 Denied
547. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-14 411 5/7/07 Denied
548. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-15 411 5/7/07 Denied
549. Sea Breeze Village Condo 44.1-1-16 411 5/7/07 Denied
550. Serota Cutchogue LLC 97-5-12 452 5/15/07 Denied
55!. Silver Sands Motel Inc 45-6-1 311 5/7/07 Denied
552. Silver Sands Motel Inc 45-6-2 464 5/7/07 Denied
553. Silver Sands Motel Inc 45-6-8 323 5/7/07 Denied
554. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-1 311 5/7/07 Denied
555. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-8 311 5/7/07 Denied
556. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-9 415 5/7/07 Denied
557. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-11 415 5/7/07 Denied
558. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-12 210 5/7/07 Denied
559. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-13 415 5/7/07 Denied
560. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-14 415 5/7/07 Denied
56!. Silver Sands Motel Inc 47-2-15 210 5/7/07 Denied
562. Smith, William J. 75-3-3 130 5/15/07 Denied
563. Sterlington Commons @J GP 1001-6-2-23.5 452 5/3/07 Denied
564. Suffolk Bancorp & SCNB 97-5-12 452 5/4/07 Denied
565. Suffolk Bancorp & SCNB 143-3-4.2 462 5/4/07 Denied
566. Terranova, Giacomo 121-2-1 485 5/15/07 Denied
567. Theo Associates LLC 1001-4-7-21 481 5/15/07 Denied
568. Townsend, Joseph & Johnson, Susan 1001-2-2-41.1 465 5/15/07 Denied
569. Townsend Manor Inn Inc 1001-2-3-9 415 5/10/07 Denied
570. Townsend Manor Inn Inc 1001-2-3-10 414 5/10/07 Denied
57!. Tvree, Tamara J. & ors 116-1-8.1 311 5/7/07 Denied
572. U Stor It LLP 63-1-10 484 5/11/07 Denied
573. US Postal Service 25-1-18 481 5/7/07 Denied
574. US Postal Service 102-5-2 484 5/7/07 Denied
575. US Postal Service 140-3-42.3 485 5/7/07 Denied
576. Van Bourgondien CJ Inc 85-2-7 170 5/15/07 Denied
577. Vans Family Farm LLC 85-2-31 311 5/15/07 Denied
578. Vitale, John 1001-5-4-33.1 481 5/7/07 Denied
579. Waldbaum's Inc 142-1-26 452 5/1 0/07 Denied
580. Watts, Harold 1001-6-2-17 432 5/15/07 Denied
58!. Weiss, Russell 100-2-5.4 473 5/7/07 Denied
582. Weiss, Russell 100-2-5.5 129 5/7/07 Denied
583. WMS Realty Inc 97-5-4.7 452 5/11/07 Denied
584. Woodhaven Manor Realty 95-1-7.2 120 5/11/07 Denied
585. Woodhaven Manor Realty 95-1-8.3 120 5/11/07 Denied
586. Zahra, Jean 141-4-5 425 5/15/07 Denied
Stipulations 2007
1 Mancini, John 1001-3.-4-46.2 11700 to 10800
2 Pafitis, Anna 1000-15.-9-1.14 10300 to 9500
3 Laporta, Alfred 1000-18.-3-3 9900 TO 9400
4 Coffey, Richard 1000-35.-2-16.1 16700 to 12300
5 Brady, Emily 1000-35.-8-5.7 9450 to 8150
6 Kremer, Valerie 1000-48.-1-2 11000 to 7750
7 Witherspoon, John 1000-54-1-10 6900 to 5200
8 Mcinerney, Timothy 1000-54-7-23.7 10400 to 8500
9 Woods, Daniel 1000-55.-4-7 7300 to 6000
10 DKS Ltd Partnership 1000-56.-7-14 11600 to 8900
11 V onEiff, Keith 1000-59.-3-17.2 12900 to 10900
12 Bufkins, John 1000-59-4-2.5 6700 to 5400
13 Bufkins, Douglas 1000-59-11-4 9000 to 7200
14 Grattan, Steven 1000-62.-3-36 4300 to 3900
15 Krukowksi, Joseph 1000-63.-3-22.1 4300 to 3000
16 ZBL Properties 1000-63-3-25 12100 to 9400
17 Zeneski, Paul 1000-70-1-6.3 6384 to 5200
18 Moore, Patricia 1000-70.-2-8 11300 to 8000
19 Sucich, Victor 1000-70.-9-17 6200 to 4700
20 Lederer, Robert 1000-78.-9-5.1 71 00 to 6200
21 Callis, Jerry 1000-81.-3-19.3 19000 to 8000
22 Thumser, Raymond 1000-88-6-13.12 7800 to 6600
23 Heffernan, Dennis 1000-97-3-11.7 11200 to 10200
24 Bordsen, Charles Jr 1000-99.-3-4.8 11 000 to 8600
25 Gold, Franklin 1000-99.-3-4.9 10100 to 8200
26 Bryan, James 1000-99.-5-15 5600 to 5250
27 Gold, Cheryl 1000-103-1-20.8 9100 to 8000
28 Watroba, Roman 1000-110.-2-17 6200 to 5800
29 Sidlauskas, Thomas 1000-115-15-15 7500 to 6000
30 Sciacchitano, David 1000-115-16-7 5400 to 4400
31 Sciacchitano, David 1000-120-3-8.11 6300 to 5400
32 Domenici, Marie 1000-120.-3-8.26 8050 to 7500
,.
..
COE-
;2007
1 Watson, Mav 1001-2.-5-29 Delete STAR -8100 to 7400
2 Watson, May 1001-3.-5-19.1 Add STAR - 10700 to 8500
3 Dunlap, Alice 1001-4.-1-16 Change Basic to Enhanced
4 Schiavoni, C Trust 1001-4.-6-19.2 Add Basic STAR
5 Kempner, Christina 1001-6-7-2 5700 to 5300
6 Inerfeld, David 1001-7-1-5 Remove STAR
7 Madden, Edward 4.-3-9.1 Delete Vets, Add Pro-rata
8 Benkard, James 9.-10-22.1 Delete STAR
9 Parsons, Harris 10-7-10 Delete Vets, Add Pro-rata
10 McCall, William 10-9-14 Delete STAR
11 McDermet, James 15.-1-26 10800 to 9600
12 Svrcek, James 15.-9-1.8 13200 to 11200
13 Gazza, John 15.-9-1.22 18000 to 13900
14 Reybine, Lawrence 17.-4-23 Delete Exemptions - Add Pro-rata
15 Schiller, Edward 22.-5-6 8400 to 8000
16 Wachtel, Philip 30.-2-2 Add Basic STAR
17 Hartman, Martin 36.-2-14 5800 to 5500
18 Hoch, Laura 40.-5-1.28 Delete Basic STAR
19 Konstantas, Katy 51-3-3.5 Add Basic STAR
20 Clarry, James 54.-3-26.9 11700 to 10000
21 Betsch, John 54.-4-24 13900 to 13400
22 Schroeder, Robert 54.-6-4.3 17100to 15100
23 Ryan, Patrick 54.-7-8 9600 to 8100
24 Hall, C Steven 55.-6-15.10 Add 2 Fire Fighters Exemptions
25 Morrelly, Kenneth 55.-7-4 10700 to 10500
26 County of Suffolk 59.-1-21.8 To R1S 8
27 Barbara, Stephen 59.-3-16.4 19100 to 14000
28 VonEiff, Keith 59.-3-17.2 Add Basic STAR
29 Bufkins, Douglas 59.-11-4 Add Basic STAR
30 Davis, Julie 64.-3-7 Basic to Enhanced STAR
31 Unknown Owner 68.-2-2.1 Wrong # should be 68.-2-21
32 Gotbetter, Marion 68.-2-13.2 7600 to 7300
33 Perrella, Patrick 71.-1-32 4400 to 6000
34 Catapano, Michael 74.-2-12.2 14800 to 12000
35 Catapano, Salvatore 75.-4-29 7600 to 6400
36 Leone, Robert 78.-4-39 4200 to 3400
37 Donahue, Edward 83.-3-1 4800 to 4700
38 Sturcken, Anthonv 85.-2-12.3 7500 to 7000
39 A J Homes Corp 88.-5-51 10800 to 8600
40 McGill, William 88.-6-13.36 9200 to 9000
41 Zannikos, Harriet 99.-1-22 Add Basic STAR
42 Bordsen, Charles 99.-3-4.8 Add Basic STAR
43 Catullo, Dante trustee 99.-3-9.5 Delete Exemptions
44 Samolewski Liv Trust 101.-1-19.1 Add 41101 Vets Exemption
45 Best, James 102.-4-4 6700 to 6300
~ - .....
46 North Fork Bank & Tr 102.-6-13.1 14425 to 12000
47 Sormeley, John 102.-8-30 7000 to 6800
48 Smith, Jeffery 103.-7-22 7700 to 6900
49 Groocock, Christopher 103.-13-8 12200 to 12100
50 Bauer, Arthur 104.-4-33.2 Add Basic STAR
51 Jacaruso, Matthew 104.-11-1.8 10300 to 9700
52 Neumann, James 107.-1-1.1 21700 to 21400
53 Smith, Ronald 107.-7-2 Add Vets 41121
54 Hansen, Frederick 107.-7-25 Add Vets 41101 - 1300
55 Wolf Pit 107.-10-4.1 8100 to 7900
56 Scalia, Thomas 109.-2-12.5 9700 to 9200
57 Visser, Joseph 113.-6-17 5600 to 5000
58 Hoffman, Kyle 113.-11-18.1 6400 to 6200
59 Durkin, Christopher 113.-12-7 11200 to 10500
60 Talbot, Thomas 113.-12-10.3 7400 to 7300
61 Fox, Edward 114.-12-13.1 9600 to 7600
62 Kruth, Daniel 115.-6-2 Delete Exemptions - Add Pro-rata
63 Mockler, Edward 121.-3-5.3 Delete Basic STAR
64 Finnegan, Martin 121.-7-5 5750 to 7350
65 Roache, James 122.-3-23 Add Vets 41121
66 Bokina, Adeline 125.-1-11 10000 to 9600
67 Pfaff, Joseph 125.-4-24.8 16400 to 15500
68 Conrad, Peter 126.-2-11 7400 to 7300
69 Kramer, Louis 126.-7-19 3200 to 2800
70 Kermanshahchi, P 126-10-1.2 10100 to 9500
71 Patchell, Gregory 126.-12-2 16800 to 14900
72 Fox, Robert 127.-7-8 8700 to 8300
73 Kozel, Joseph 136.-1-28 Vets 41101-3700
74 McCourt, Kathryn 139.-1-6 Add Enhanced STAR
75 Fohrkolb, Andrew 141.-3-29.3 14200 to 10700
76 Fohrkolb, Andrew 141.-3-28.1 12600 to 12000
77 Teleport 555.-5-8 Add parcel 438
Communications
r":r'r'IVI'D
."..,... ...
J",~92007
~outholrl To\\'{J Cieri
Chairman Gerard Schulteis called the meeting to order for the Grievance Day hearings
for 2007 for the Town Southold at 9:00 am. We will swear in the Assessors.
Grievance Day
May 15, 2007
Schultheis: Would you please stand one at a time. O.k. you can all stand together. Raise
your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in these
proceedings and all adjourned proceedings will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God. Would you state your name please.
Webster: Kevin Wayne Webster
Scott: Robert I. Scott, Jr.
Duffy: Darline Duffy
Schultheis: Thank you. Be seated.
McConlogue: Would you please stand and raise your right hand. You do solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give in this proceeding be the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth. Just say I do, be seated, state your name and address.
Petitioner: My name is Robert McCall. My address is 10725 New Suffolk Avenue,
Cutchogue. I want to thank you folks for taking the time to look at my application. I
have lived in my home since 1998 and we recently did some renovations and remodeling.
I got a big a... I thought the taxes were too high before and I still think they're too high;
but, anyway, sorry to make this grievance and ask for a reduction in the assessed value
and in my taxes. I've spoken to a number of people and I basically made the presentation
based on a number of people's advice. It's very difficult to find any comparables in this
area, but I think I did find a couple of recent sales of houses that are about the same size
and same type oflocation. This one is on Pine Neck Road in Southold that runs along
Jockey Creek and this house is on the Jockey Creek side of the road. The other one is on
Orchard Lane in Southold and that's way at the end of Cedar Beach road - Cedar Beach
area. Again, that's pretty close to the water - and that house is about the same size -
3,500 square feet. This other one looks like it's about 3,000-3,500 square feet. Myhouse
is 2,850 square felt. When you look at the property card and you look at the picture there
on the left side of it, most of that is garage - an oversized garage, it's unheated. The
house and living space is not quite as large as it looks in the picture.
Schultheis: Is there living space above the garage?
Petitioner McCall: No. There's storage space. The whole garage on both sides is
unheated.
Schultheis: What's the height of the ceiling above the garage?
Petitioner McCall: Inside the garage?
Schultheis: The second floor of the garage.
Petitioner: Probably 8 or 9 feet. That whole area is unheated. There's a separate
staircase in the garage to go up since have no attic in the house. We have been there for
41 years and we have a lot of stuff. So, that's the place for the stuff. So, anyway, we are
on the creek, our property is more than half of it is salt marsh which you can't do
anything with, build on it cause the guy down the way is not able to build a bigger house
on a smaller piece of property cause he had a lot of salt marsh. It is not navigable.
Anyway, the two that were about the same size and about the same type oflocation the
values are in the 1.2 million area. As you can see on those things there, the taxes are a
whole lot less than mine currently. I did found another one that was kind of interesting, I
know that it's not that you don't consider assessments based on asking prices but this one
was interesting on Soundview Avenue in Southold. They're asking 5.75 million dollars.
This property happens to be assessed for exactly the same as mine -- $16,000. It's 9
acres on the Sound, 4,000 square foot house and it's a lot bigger, a lot more property, 9
acres there is all high and dry and it's directly on the water and not on a non-navigable
creek. So, I think that that's - mine should be assessed for a lot less than that particular
property. If it sells for half of that asking price, it's still not much bigger property, more
valuable than mine.
Atkinson: So, you're basically you're on marsh even though it's says Downs creek,
you're on the marshy end of it towards the avenue.
Petitioner McCall: Correct. We're on the north side of New Suffolk Avenue.
Atkinson: So, there's no possibility of putting in a dock? Or there's no access to the
bay?
Petitioner Mc Call: No. That creek is this deep at low tide and we just got another lot of
sand there after this last storm that's take away sand along the bay in Mattituck and that
area.
Webster: Do you want me the tax map?
Atkinson: I have it right here. That's why I'm looking - I see up further north on the
map it says Down Creek but then down where the subject property is, it all indicates
marshland.
Schultheis: We would like copies ofthe comparables that you are presenting today.
Petitioner Mc Call: I don't know how many copies I made.
Schultheis: That's o.k. as long as we have them.
2
Schultheis: Now, you have a separate guest cottage on the property as well?
Petitioner McCall: Yes. It's been there since the (inaudible) I'm not sure the previous
owner converted a garage into a cottage.
Webster: It appears it was put up in '72 and then there was a conversion done in 1974
converting this to 896 square feet and it that was converted in July '74 building permit
and there was an increase in April of '75.
Atkinson: Is it heated?
Petitioner McCall: It's got electric heat, so it takes the chill of, if anybody can afford
and there's not much insulation up there.
Atkinson: Oh, oh.
Petitioner McCall: When we renovated our house, we added about -- the footprint is the
same - we didn't change that. We added a porch which, I think, you probably can see in
the picture and we added the garage, buf the rest of the footprint is the same. The house-
we probably added 150 square feet ofliving space which is really on the second floor.
There was two bedrooms and a bathroom and now there's two bedrooms and two
bathrooms. That shows the floor space and a bunch of windows.
McConlogue: Could you give me your comparables again? You had two comparables?
Oh, we have them here. Alright, thank you.
Petitioner McCall: The only thing that was really about the same size house and the same
type of a location.
Atkinson: And, you're currently assessed at $16,000?
Petitioner McCall: Yes.
Schultheis: So, you are basically feel if you sold your house today, you could get $1.2
million for it.
Petitioner McCall: Yeah, I guess so - I don't know I mean I have no plans of selling it
really. We love it there. My mother lives across the street - you know I grew up summer
across the street from that house. My great grandfather purchased some property there in
1910 and that was a summer house and it's still a summer house. Our plan is that our
children will inherit the house that we're in, so...
Atkinson: Do you have something to give us?
Webster: Not right now. I can supply you with something if you'd like.
3
Atkinson: Oh, okay.
Petitioner McCall: If! can say something - I don't know ifit makes sense but... other
houses in my neighborhood.
Webster: You can if you like.
Petitioner McCall: Okay, well Well, listen you know it's tough but I didn't give you any
information. There are two other houses that are very similar to my house in property
type and location. There's one right across the creek from me on Moore's Lane. The
house was built in 2000.
Atkinson: Is it a Windell house? Bob Windell- Windsway building?
Petitioner McCall: No, I don't know who built it. The owners name is (inaudible). It's
across, you go down Moore's Lane, you go on the 9th fairway, it's on the right-hand side,
right there. That house is twice the size of mine and he's got 5,400 square feet. He's got
twice the property and his assessment is $20,500 - twice the space in his house and twice
the property and his assessment is 25% higher than mine. If you go down -to the next
street, the West Creek, there's a new house there. In the neighborhood we kinda of call it
the Motel on the Creek - it's that blue thing. Now it has pink trim around the windows.
He has 9,500 square, 9 acres ofland that triple the size of my house, triple the size of my
property and his taxes are only 40% higher than mine. His assessment is $25, I 00. So,
it's all out of whack. I just think that mine should be lower, mine are too high.
Webster: And, Mr. McCall- we've had many discussions about this. And, eh, this is
problem in the entire town. When you go to Greenport Village or you go to Laurel, you
have assessments that vary and he has an example, his last listing - I told him that the
assessment is $16,000 - the same as his for a property in Southold. The property had the
same assessment probably for 45 years since 1962. We really. ..
Atkinson: On Orchard - are you talking about.. .
Webster: I'm looking at the listing that he gave us as well.
Atkinson: On Soundview?
Webster: Right, on Soundview. The assessed value is $16,000 - the same as his for
listing for 5.7. Now nobody here is saying that his house is worth 5.7 but we have this
problem with assessments in the town where you, in my opinion, and the laws prove that
you can't compare assessments to each other. You have to look at what the value is on
your property compared to what the state is interpreting your home to be worth.
McConlogue: Is your position that the only thing we're determining now is that his
assessment and not someone else's what might have been a mistake on someone else's,
but that's not an issue, but it seems there is an inequity here and how do we resolve it?
4
Webster: Oh, you resolve it but what he's claiming his value is and then apply the state
issued RAR to that value. What somebody else is paying in other hamlets or another
property doesn't help in determining what Mr. McCall's house is worth. It can't - these
are facts. This gentlemen has the same assessment because people are higher, but 1 feel
we have to look at what his house is worth.
McConlogue: Are you aware of any way that someone address it other than the re-
evaluation? This problem?
Webster: No. There's no real way for Mr. McCall to address the fact that 4305
Soundview Avenue's assessment is the same as his in regards to this assessment.
McConlogue: And others that he claims - he alleges there's others too.
Webster: Well, yeah. The others - there's more than just those two. Because ofthe way
this system has worked. But, he does have two examples of assessments. They are
higher than his and they're not twice the house and lower. They are assessed higher than
he is, but there is a case the way the law determines this if you're looking at comparable
assessments, you have to look at comparable homes and look at what their assessments
are. But, you also have to determine what your property is worth and if you can
determine what your property is worth, and, then, find, for instance, three comparable
homes that have assessments that are less than what yours are and, at the same time, your
value is less than what the state interprets your value to be worth, then determine that's a
valid claim.
McConlogue: So, what your're saying is you would find a ratio that's different than the
general ratio for the whole assessment area.
Webster: But, you first have to determine what
McConlogue: 1 undestand that. But, what you just said the courts have found that we
could come up with a ratio than the RAR. Based on three..
Webster: At least three.
McConlogue: That is a way of addressing an inequity.
Webster: It is. It is a way of addressing it and 1 am in support of that. But, as an
example, Mr. Call-let's say someone had an assessment of $ 13,000. Right now would
be 1.3, right? And, we were determining that this house was worth lA, let's say, based
on appraisal. But the other comparable homes were assessed at $12,000 of these
comparable homes, it doesn't mean that you should go down to 12 because we've already
determined that his value is higher and there's a case down in the town ofIslip that has
ruled in favor ofthe town that you do not have to lower that person to 12 because it was
determined to be higher. So, you have to meet both criteria.
5
Atkinson: Did you reduce his assessment by $100.
Webster: I did. He was being assessed for a portion of the property having a basement,
the first section having a basement does not have a basement and so, we corrected that
rate of$3.75 to $3.50 which is a uniform rate for .$25 for basement.
Atkinson: And, the fact that the assessment for the land increased from 1800 to 2900 in
2006.
Webster: Yes, that was a review that was done based on again, the uniform rate the town,
the property assessed at 1600 for the first acre and 500 for the additional acreage that he
has there.
Atkinson: Well, he claims he's losing land from the storm. You don't take that into..
Petitioner McCall: I didn't say that. I meant to say that as far as the creek being
navigable so the mouth of the creek is full of sand which has come from other beaches
and this is across the road from me that is salt marsh and the creek on my property is on
is subject to backwater. The bay is on top of New Suffolk Avenue. You walk out to the
creek (inaudible).
Atkinson: Oh, oh okay.
Webster: We're not assessing him for water frontage. We are using a uniform rate for...
1600 an acre the land at 500. There is no charge for any front footage on the creek.
Normally, if you are sound front, bay front any kind of navigable creek which we
testified that it is not, there would be a charge on the front footage, but he is being treated
as what it says in the top right comer from the county for 3.5 acres and that's why the
assessment is at $2900.
Atkinson: It's misleading.
Schultheis: Were the comparable properties re-assessed in the area?
Webster: Well, in fact, we had a discussion about that at the property he's referring to
down the road. It had a recent building permit. Like his, was treated the exact same way,
at 1600 for the I st acre, 500 for the additional acreage, up to 5 acres, and then from 5 on,
it's at $300 per acre. This is a uniform rate that the town has used and I documented that
with Mr McCall that the other property was treated the same way. But, to answer your
question further, I did not re-assess everybody in that area because I had a building
permit from Mr. McCaII and for the gentlemen down the street - just east of him.
Schultheis: Which location was that?
6
Webster: East of him, but by about * mile to the east is a 9 acre parcel which had a
building permit on it for another building. That did get the same change of the land to
put it in line with everybody else in the town of 18,000 some odd parcels.
Petitioner McCall: Since he's kind of overbuilt on his square footage of his house, he's
got 9,000 square feet of house over 9,000 square feet of house. I have 2800 square feet
of house. His assessment on his house is $2.13 a square foot. Mine is $3.91, $3.81.
There's a big difference on the assessed value of the house.
Wiggins: Do you give a discount for building extra large houses?
Webster: Not a discount, but in that particular case is at 25,100. I determined that that
was a fair value for his house, but, again, we can only deal with this particular grievance
here of what this property is worth. That's what the courts tell us. And, he has supplied
two comparables of sales and I don't know ifhas 900 square foot cottages on it.
Petitioner McCall: Well, frankly, Kevin is probably right. Even though that property
down the street is three times the size of my house and three times the property, the lot
size - it's probably not worth three times..
Webster: We had a discussion about that.
Petitioner McCall: It's kind of, you know...
Atkinson: It's just like a one acre parcel worth $100,000 - is a two acre worth $200,000?
No.
Webster: It's a super inadequacy. And, again I don't want get focused on that particular
point.
Petitioner McCall: I mentioned it and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it.
Atkinson: The comparables you gave us are on navigable water with docks. Am I
correct?
Petitioner McCall: I don't know if they have docks.
Atkinson: Well, two of them I saw had docks.
Wiggins: On the sound there's another dock.
Atkinson: I meant the one on Orchard I think.
Three people talking at once - inaudible comments on all....
7
Wells: Docking rights..... For inclusion,... discussion (inaudible) of docks. Floating
dock, easy access to the bay.
Wiggins: That's very desirable water, deep water, Jockey Creek - you could put a
sailboat in there.
Wells: This was much older home without - nicely maintained but not updated at all.
Wiggins: We don't know what they have in there.
Wells: I know the house.
Wiggins: They could have private bathrooms for all we know.
Wells: I know the house.
Petitioner McCall: They have a porch, the upstairs, comfortable (inaudible).
Schultheis: One of the things, I thought the C ofE the property record cards and the two
comps and the blue house.
Atkinson: Some of the comps don't have the square footage for that. For the house on
the listing sheet.
Petitioner McCall: Em, you're right - it doesn't and you know I didn't have that and I
don't have that information. Looks to be about the same size. It's a one family, but it's
got 11 rooms, 5 bedrooms - I added 3 bedrooms, 3 full baths. I have 3 baths. But it has
2 more bedrooms than I have. Does the bathroom count as a room?
Atkinson: No.
Petitioner McCall: A dining room, a kitchen 6 rooms.
Schultheis: You added a porch?
Petitioner McCall: Yes.
Atkinson: Over on his side of the house.
Schultheis: What was the square footage of the porch?
Petitioner McCall: (Inaudible)
Atkinson: 443:
Petitioner McCall: Sounds nice.
8
3 members talking among themselves (inaudible)
Petitioner McCall: 443 square foot
Schultheis: Does that include the enclosed porch?
Petitioner McCall: No.
Webster: that's just an open - .50 cent rate
Schultheis: Okay, where is the enclosed porch?
Atkinson: That would be the sun room? What you're calling the sun room?
Petitioner McCall: Yeah. The sun room. If you look at a picture of the house to the right.
Basement under there which is unheated, crawl space.
Schultheis: That was existing and then it was a new roof and windows.
Atkinson: 14 x 25 - is that the sun room?
Petitioner McCall: Yeah, the roof was a flat roof and it just about....
Atkinson: Oh, I see.
Petitioner McCall: Part of the reason we put the porch on was so that the house that my
wife always complained (inaudible) looks like a trailer that was stuck at the end of, so
we had to put that porch to tie that space up. We didn't want to change any footprint as l'
close to the salt marsh. I didn't have a garage at all on the property until a 2-car garage
adjacent to the house on the west side.
Atkinson: They have you down on this card as having a kitchen, a living room, a dining
room, 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, a family room and a sun room.
Petitioner McCall: The sun room and the family room are one and the same.
Atkinson: Oh, they have it down as 2 separate rooms.
Petitioner McCall: Well...
Schultheis: 14 x 25 is the sun room and the family room is ...
Webster: That was in there previous to that 14 x 25 from the other owner.
Atkinson: And that was the sun room - I don't see family room.
9
Webster: We don't assess based on the number of rooms I can get the plans to see what
the family room is.
Petitioner McCall: Where is that number?
Webster: On the right side by your right thumb.
Petitioner McCall: Okay.
McConlogue: Kevin, I might have missed this. Did you re-assess the whole property
when you got the building permit?
Webster: Yes, I reviewed the land and the improvements at the time.
McConlogue: So you basically reviewed the whole property?
Webster: Well, I guess you can say that.
McConlogue: You took it all under consideration ~ the whole building even the old
building.
Webster: Yes, once there was a totaI transformation of what was there before.
McConlogue: Well, it was a large renovation.
Webster: We did not change the rate on the cottage. We did change the rate on the living
space section which was previously the one a half story section (inaudible) Cathedral
ceiling which was increased. There were a few changes made.
McConlogue: And the other comparables that he gave that were assessed more valuable
and assessed as the same as his did not have major renovations.
Webster: The closed sales that he has?
Wells: One is brand new. The one on Orchard is brand new.
Webster: Built in 2003. I'm not sure what the assessment is but the card will show us.
It's .67 of an acre so it probably doesn't have the land assessment rate. The cottage
before was assessed at the same rate. Assessed for 2240 for all these years so that's large
portion of the assessment is the cottage. And that's been there since 1974. It's not an
average square foot cottage at $2.50 a square foot so that is a sizeable component. The
garage is 908 square foot and that's a 2.5 a square foot and with the storage over it, it's
not being treated as living space but there is a component at the base level and then
storage for upstairs. So, those 2 items bigger than what the home on Orchard has.
10
Wiggins: I've been doing this for awhile and I've seen many assessments where people
have had their assessment changed because they put an extension on their building if they
did an improvement on their house. As a rule, I generally don't see the land being
affected by their getting a building permit. Is this a practice of yours or is this always
done?
Webster: I believe it's always done. I've seen reviews and a lot of these will review the
rates. This piece ofland has an assessment of $1800 since 1969 and for 3 Y2 acres it's
just not in line with the other homes in the town for this size piece of land so we did
review it at the time based on that. It's coming out well below. We do not re-assess on
sale price. We -did not spot assess.
Wiggins: So, every time somebody applies for a building permit, you will re-assess the
land value?
Webster: We review the land. And, in some cases there's been decreases in the land.
I've decreased the land if! feel it is high. There's been different methodologys in this
town for treating parcels. I'm trying to equalize everybody out at $1600. Looking at the
comparables of the new home on Orchard Lane, the assessment is 12,800. The large
house - you can see we reviewed the land - the land's at 48, we treated it the same way,
1600 per acre and the were at 500. But, like Mr. McCall was saying we made a
functional obsolescence adjustment in our opinion, my opinion, I felt that I had to review
it again. I felt that it was worth it at 2.5 million dollars. It's not on the water; however,
it' a large house gets to be a super adequacy and 2.5 million dollars is a lot of money for
that house not having any navigable water and it you look at the plans that were done for
that house, they gave him such a small little building envelope there, _ backing right
up on him. The private interior home at 2.5 million to justify all the square footage for
that house.
Petitioner McCall: You should have given him 20% of the dry land and not 20% ofthe
salt marsh
Webster: We treated him at 4800 for his land instead of 44 so that. .. We treated him
fairly like everyone else in the town.
Webster: He paid 640 for that land.
Atkinson: He originally had 9 acres.
Webster: 8.9 acres.
Atkinson: Yeah and didn't he give it to Peconic Land Trust or Suffolk County...
Wells: No, that's further down the street.
11
Petitioner McCall: 5 acres of salt marsh. He's the one directly across the street from me.
He's on the east side ofthe creek. I'm on the west of down creek.
Atkinson: Okay...Okay
Webster: Beginning (Inaudible) Members speaking among themselves..... New house
on Orchard at 3.50 a square foot for the one story plus the cathedral which is exactly
what Mr. McCall's space is assessed at without a basement. The exact same rate - 3.50,
his two-story rate is 5.25, on that Orchard.
Atkinson: What is the land on Orchard?
Webster: That's not my area, so I did not, that's - again, they use $16 a foot for the creek
frontage, 100 feet at $16 and that was looked at 2002 so you can see there was a review
done when the building permit came out. If you refer to 8927, you see that the assessor at
the time reviewed the land when there was building permit issued and again, I testified to
the fact before that this is a practice that I've seen and I don't have a problem with it and
I'm continuing that in reviews.
Petitioner McCall: I did a comparison in the land in talking about salt marsh area and the
area of my house. (Dunston house) Those 3 houses that we have been talking about
across from me is on the bay. They have all been assessed at various numbers and the
prices range, the assessments range from 5.25 an acre basically on my salt marsh to $246
an acre on another parcel of salt marsh. There's 5 of them - they're alL....
Schultheis: Do you have a copy of that information?
Petitioner McCall: It's not an exact.... I took the 3 - totally inaudible because of
members talking at once!!!
McConlogue: Kevin, when you revalue an extension or an improvement, do you also
revalue the old part of the house?
Webster: Well, we looked at it and determined if it's warranted ifit's needed, if it's
necessary if it' s been an improvement. . .
McConlogue: Based on market value of comparables or based on the building values?
Webster: Nothing to do with the building values, based on the uniform rate that the town
has used.
McConlogue: For building?
Webster: For square footage of space.
McConlogue: Uniform rate to build.
12
Webster: That the town has used. We also factor in market value.
McConlogue: Now, the uniform rate that the town uses is the rate that's back in
19. . . whatever
Webster: 1962, they used 3.50 per square foot.
McConlogue: And, that's what you use? To revaluate his number?
Webster: That's what I used for his space for the average rates. His cottage for instance,
that rate was not changed. That was put on in 1974 and that same rate been used since
1974 until this.. ..$2.50 per square foot.
McConlogue: I'm sorry, Kevin. Just so that I understand. The old part of the building
that hasn't been remodeled. You use a building value based on the '62 values and the
new..... based on the values...
Webster: The rate is same, right. It equalizes to a full value now because the RAR has
changed, but the rate has changed. Now there were changes to the entire property. You
could see from the pictures, the grievance picture. . .. The entire house was .... A new
second story dormer was put on. On the east side, on the left. There was a whole brand
new garage put on.
Inaudible ble of people talking at the same time.
McConlogue: The thing that goes thru my head is if you are using the old values, how
does it get of sync with the comparables that he was claiming. That I don't understand
how that happens.
Webster: The rates?
McConlogue: He's saying that the houses that are market value higher than his and yet
he's paying more of an assessment and yet when you revalue his house, you use the old
values.
Webster: The old rates per square foot. Yes, I did.
McConlogue: So, how does that get out of whack? It might not have anything to do with
his particular case, Ijust don't understand what happened.
Webster: Well, there have been different rates used in the past going back to pre-l 970 on
a lot of these homes. And, when you had 6 to 8 different assessors - ifI'm correct on
that -- they were using different rates for 2-story square footage in one area of our town
as opposed to .......... We're trying to get to a point of a uniform rate where everybody
in the town, when we can review the property, we're not allowed to go out and spot
13
assess somebody if they have 2-story space without any kind of discovery. Ifwe
discover something that's going on, we have the right to review what we feel. That is
the answer. There are different rates that apply in the past.
Wells: So, it's an attempt at equalization.
Wiggins: It seems like a spot attempt of equalization instead of a town attempt.
Webster: There's a building permit issued on this property and we reviewed - I reviewed
the land and assessment and brought him up to the rate that I felt were fair and as I
showed you, compared to ...
Wiggins: You showed us one on Orchard Land in Southold where the rate, right, and you
pointed out that the rate did go up $200 on the land.
Webster: On the creek frontage. It was reviewed. . ...
Wiggins: On the navigable creek frontage. And, you upped him $1100 on his land. And,
Webster: He also has 3 acres more than that gentlemen.
Wiggins: Well, 3 acres, but really...... saltmarsh, but it's still taxable.
Webster: Right, but, for the county he has 3.5 acres and as I said, I took the uniform rate
of 1600 per acre and the additional at 500.
Wiggins: Ifwe look at the property behind his property that rate would be the same for
land?
Webster: I do not know what that is assessment at, Mr. , is it? I don't know what's it
assessed at.
INAUDIBLE - everyone talking at once.
Wiggins: And you provided us with the tax map for the blue structure on Moore's Land.
Webster: That's being treated the same. That land assessment is being treated exactly
the same Mr. McCall. It's at 1600 for the first acre, additional 2-5 acres are at 500 each
which he is being assessed at and that one goes further past his acreage and additional
land acres - 6 thru 9 are assessed at $300 an acre which is the standard rate and has been
used in the town.
Schultheis: Do we have any idea for his particular plot. We were looking at that as a
brand new building plot right now and they excluded the wetlands area from the building
area - what would actually be considered buildable area now?
14
Webster: We have to have the DEC come out and determine ifit's wetlands.
Petitioner McCall: Oh, yeah, it was staked - about an acre and a half.
Webster: Ifwe're looking at an acre and half of usable land plus the additional land that
you have on New Suffolk Avenue with a view overlooking the creek. What that piece of
land would be worth as of July '06, is that what you are trying to determine what that
land would be worth or does how much usable land he has?
Schultheis: No, how much usable land he has.
Webster: an acre and a half - 2 acres usable, building lot on New Suffolk Avenue
overlooking the creek, we have at 2900 which is ........ more than fair.
Schultheis: Anybody else have any other questions? Okay, we'll evaluate the
information and let you know what we think.
Petitioner McCall: Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Schultheis: Okay, the petitioner is David Sciacchitano, And you have two grievances
here, you want to. ..
McConologue: Please stand I'll swear you in. Raise your hand. You do solemnly swear
that the testimony you are about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.
Petitioner David S. I do.
McConologue: Will you be seated and state your name and home address.
Petitioner: David Sciacchitano, 755 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue
Schultheis: Okay, which of these would you like to address first?
Petitioner David S: It doesn't matter. 805, first. 805 Donna Drive.
McConologue: Would you say that again, please.
Petitioner David S: 805 Donna Drive, Mattituck
Schultheis: So, presently that land is assessed at $5500? The land plus improvement?
Webster: That would be 5400. Decrease on the property card.
15
McConlogue: That's the total amount for land improvement?
Webster: 5400 - assessed value 5400. David came to me and said he removed the above
ground pool and the shed and I reviewed it and decreased it.
Petitioner David S.: That wasn't there - it wasn't there when I bought it.
Webster: There was a building permit in 1985 and has the same assessment since 1986.
He asked me to review and I went out there and decreased it at the time after inspection.
Schultheis: So, David, you feel the property is worth $400,000?
Petitioner David S: Yes. Some of these are in the same neighborhood as
Schultheis: And the proof you submitted is - these are the comps you have.
Petitioner David S: The one on Depot Drive is the same thing - same compo
Schultheis: Same square footage?
Petitioner David S: Yes.
Wiggins: And, what is his assessed value.
Petitioner David S: inaudible
Webster: We can get the property card for that.
Wells: And is it waterview or waterfront? On Depot?
Petitioner David S: No.
Wiggins: do you have the tax map numbers on the comparable properties?
Webster: They're on the listing, yes.
Wiggins: They are?
Webster: On the bottom right comer, we have the section, block and lot of all the
comparables he presented.
Schultheis: Okay.
Webster: Would you like the see the property card?
Schultheis: Do you know how much the taxes are on the comparables?
16
Webster: I see the list of taxes - I do not know off hand what his comparables are
assessed at. We could get the cards if you would like. Would you like me to get the
cards?
Atkinson: Yeah.
Webster: Okay, I'll be right back. You want a copy of the cards?
Atkinson: You might as well because this will give us the assessed value, then we'll ask
for something else and then you will have to go back and forth.
Webster: I'll get back and get all the cards.
Webster: These are the comparables here.
McConlogue: Did your _ have a copy?
Webster: I have 3 sets, is that what you have there?
Atkinson: No, we've got 5.
Webster: You have 5, okay.
Schultheis: What are the addresses?
Webster: 345 Matthews Lane, 6200 New Suffolk Avenue, 3495 Depot Drive.
Schultheis: We also have 470 Moose Trail and 975 Little Neck Road.
Petitioner David S: Inaudible
Webster: So, the 470 Moose Trail - that one is not in this pack.
Webster: So, those are the 4 comparables.
Wiggins: So, I see here we're talking about the house on Donna Drive and you have an
assessed value of 5500. Correct"
Petitioner David S.: 54
Wiggins: 54 - so we go to a market value of $540,000 and you feel that the comparables
that you've given us show that the market value is closer to $400,000 and you're seeking
a reduction to an assessed value of $4,000 to reflect the market value of $400,000.
Schultheis: Does that describe it?
17
Petitioner David S: Yeah.
Schultheis: The first chaUenge we have is that he's grieving based on excessive
assessment. And that's only available if you're at fuU value.
McConlogue; I think Kevin would consent to amend that.
Webster: Yes. Yes, it should be unequal
McConlogue: A technicality and he consented to amend it.
Petitioner David S: Okay. Thank you.
McConlogue: Should be unequal.
Webster: Right, I apologize I was not at the counter when he was filling out his
grievance - I was back in the office. But, right the RAR.. .. would not unequal I b, but
the RAR at I % under number 2b and then the value on number 3 comes across from the
$400,000 and apply the RAR you would ask for a new assessment of 4,000. So, we can
submit an amended assessment or it can be amended at grievance or you could just. . .
McConlogue: Consent on the records...
Wiggins: You're agreeing with this?
Webster: I am, yes.
Wiggins: Okay, that makes it easy. Okay, what's the next one?
Webster: WeU, I asked for a chance to respond. The comparables he's presenting are in
the area and I don't know if aU the comparables are in the area. Depot Drive is one of the
comps that he is presenting with his sale price.
Atkinson: Do you have something?
Webster: No, I don't have anything prepared.
Wiggins: He's conceded, so we're done.
Atkinson: Oh, I thought you were just saying. . .
Webster: I can present something to you if you would like unless you are going to make
a decision right now.
Wiggins: Oh, I thought you were just agreeing with his argument.
18
Atkinson: No, he was agreeing that it should be unequal rather than excessive. Not
agreeing to his reduction.
Webster: I'm agreeing that part 3 should be moved to the a column, not the b column.
Atkinson: Yeah, right. Right I didn't think...
McConlogue: So, if you were to submit your comparables - is that where we're at?
Webster: Well, I thought that was what you were asking my opinion of his grievance. I
would like to look at it a little further and give you something.
McConlogue: If you want to submit further documents, would it be alright, Gerry, that
he serves you with the copy and serves us?
Atkinson: Well, how soon are you going....?
Webster: If you're going to grant a decision right now.
Schultheis: No. No decision is going to be granted right now.
Wiggins: We would just like all the evidence on the table today if we could get it if it's
not too much trouble.
Atkinson: But, the petitioner has to be here.
McConIogue: Of you submit your comparables to him and ..... But we would give you
an opportunity to submit.
Schultheis: Well, David can you at least state what your feeling is on the basis of your
grievance?
Petitioner David S.: TOTALLY INAUDIBLE
Webster: I can look at it fairly quickly and give you something
Petitioner David S: TOTALLY INAUDIBLE
Webster: If you like, I can do it fairly quickly. I have a pretty good system where I could
at the sales and I'm aware of a lot of these sales as well. The way we value his house as
of July '06, that's what we have to value not as to today, tomorrow oflast week. It's
2006. My opinion is that there is room for adjustment here. But, if you'd like I could
give you something or you could just act on what is presented here.
Atkinson: I think it's only fair that both sides present their positions. What do you think,
Mr. Chairman
19
Schultheis: Definitely.
Webster: Okay. In the meantime what I'll do is I'll have them copy, the Harvest Lane,
I'll get the property card for Harvest Lane and I'll come right back. The two
comparables for Elijah's Land and Azalea Road. I'll be right back. You want to still
discuss the Donna Drive property.
Atkinson: No, no. We're just familiarizing ourselves with the other one while you gone,
but we still have to discuss that.
Webster: Okay. Sure. This is a grid that I came up with just in the last couple of
minutes based on sales that are also in the area. Now, it's range of adjusted values. I feel
that there is room here. There was a sale over on Depot Drive - a ranch which sold for
$540,000 in February of '06. It is 380 feet bigger. The piece ofland is very similar. It
does have a larger garage, has central air conditioning, but no fireplace. Same number of
baths and adjusted, in my opinion for $500,000 without any kind of time adjustment as
well from February '06 to July '06.
Atkinson: I wouldn't do a time adjustment for that anyway.
Webster: The thing is that the state is telling us based on the RAR that the average in the
town has gone up 12% a year, yearly for the last 5 years so we use this lower ratio which
we have to apply in certain cases. 25 Azalea which is in a development on the north of
New Suffolk Avenue,... ..., maybe not, but that's right across the street. That's over
$475,000 with 1500 square feet and that adjusted down based on a few differences, not
such major differences, but that adjustment was $8,000 to $466,000. And, the third one
is also in the development on Theresa Drive and that sold for $463,000. I have the card
right here in August of '06. It was 1350 square feet, so it was less than 150 square foot.
It sold right on the valuation date for $463,000. It did have a pool, an inground pool that
was built in 1986, it's a 20-year old inground pool but the lot size is the same. It had a
deck for 492, but no fireplace, no central air, full basement, 2 bathrooms we had it
assessed for so. . .
McConlogue: Did you say that was across the street?
Webster: No, no in the same development. It..
Wells: They're one street over.
Webster: Right, one street over and it sold for $463,000 right on the valuation date. So,
there are sales right there within a short walk - two, in fact, one for $540,000 and one for
$463,000 and it is a cookie-cutter area as far the lots go
Petitioner David S: INAUDIBLE AGAIN.... The Depot one.....
20
Webster: It's not - I've been there - it's not. It's actually -- off Depot.. ... It's on the left
side of Depot, north of Theresa.
Atkinson: Kevin, on these comps that you put on the grid, could you read off the
assessed value on each of these.
Webster: The first one, first comparable assessment is 6,000.
Atkinson: This is total assessment:
Webster: Yes, total A V. Number 3
McConlogue: Which is that - Azalea?
Atkinson: Number 1.
Webster: Number 1 is 6,000, Number 3 is 6,100 and I don't know Number 2. But I do
not have the card. I can get the card.
Atkinson: So, based on the 1 % RAR, these are substantially below...
Webster: That is correct, that is correct. They did - what they sold for.
Atkinson: You know the RAR is history really by the time we get it.
Webster: It's based on average of sales that are.... They come up with this RAR, this
year was 1.2, now it's 1 %. They gave us the new ratio which of course increases
equalized value, but then so we have to say well, the market value - we have to use that
for market value too. But, then the people say well the market value did not increase.
But, they're telling us on the tax bill when they apply the new ratio, everybody's
equalized value has gone up. They're using that. For instance, the Theresa Drive for
$463,000 last year the state was saying that it was taxed as if it was worth $544,000.
Okay, as of July of'05. Now, they're telling us as of July '06, it's worth $610,000.
Okay, so that's what we have to deal with. So, they're giving us a ratio hasn't changed
the assessment, the tax rates stay the same out of the guy's pocket wouldn't change a bit.
But, what they're interpreting his home to be worth has gone up. Now, some people
would say was has he felt that kind of appreciation from July of '05 to July of '06. The
answer is probably yes. But, that's what we have to deal with. We have to look and say
well, they're telling us that and we have to apply this to some of these sales that are in '05
because...... It's not an exact science, of course, the value and this whole system that
the state comes up with is antiquated; but, that's another discussion.
Atkinson: But, I mean, technically, what we've seen here today is that everybody in
Southold town should be..... (inaudible)
Webster: Well, that's another whole thing.
21
Webster: Well, for right now, for Dave's house, we have him at 540,000.
Atkinson: Yeah... yeah
Webster: And, I cannot show. I think there is room for an adjustment here before I left
to come back. And, based on what I think, there's a range there. I've been to all of these
homes. I've walk this neighborhood up and down. None of these homes have water
view. Neither does Dave's house.
Wells: And, they don't have great water access either.
Webster: No, in fact only the ones on south side of Depot at the bottom of the horseshoe
do. But all of these are above Theresa and Azalea is, of course, on the other side.
Schultheis: Have you and Dave sat down?
Webster: We haven't really discussed this one in particular as far as the value goes. He
came in January. I made a correction and then this is the first time I have seen him. We
have not really sat down and gone over with what would be a fair number just to agree to.
Schultheis: You think it's in order for the two of you to sit down on these?
Webster: I think that is something we can do.
Atkinson: We can do a STIP to it?
Webster: I think we probably could. If there is something, but looking at what he's
requesting, I don't think I can go to that number.
Schultheis: David, are you willing to have a discussion with him now to see between the
two of you if you can agree?
Webster: We could step outside for a minute to discuss it and see based on this.
Webster and Petitioner David S.leave mtg. to discuss.
Atkinson: You realize if you're not happy with this, you can still come before us.
Petitioner David S.: No, I think that's....
Atkinson: Okay.
Webster: Once we sign this.
22
Atkinson: Then it's a done deal.
Webster: You want all this information back or just the grievance?
Schultheis: You hold on to all of it.
Webster: Okay. The next one has an assessment of 6350. Or, 6300.
Atkinson: This is wrong on the...
Petitioner David S: INAUDIBLE
Webster: But the ratio was different when the house was valued. This is the property
card for Elijah's Lane sale and the Azalea Lane sale.
Schultheis: Is Elijah the one that's one street over?
Webster: It's when you come into the development off of Elijah's Lane. That's how you
get there.
Wells: No no no. To Farmveu. You come off of Laurel.
Webster: Right, we're talking about... Elijah's is further. We're talking about a couple
of miles back east.
McConlogue: What is the market value of Elijah?
Atkinson: It sold for $535,000.
Webster: I was given a new deed. That property on March 30, 2007 which was the date
that the MLS shows, but the deed, the recorded deed was for $551,000 as of recorded
April 9, 2007 so it's on the MLS listing is not correct. It's not was recorded. The record
price for Elijah's Lane - I've made copy of the deed to look at. The recorded price is
$551,000. This is the actual deed for that sale on Elijah's Lane.
Wiggins: The square footage is comparable?
Atkinson: 1600 for Elijah's and the subject's is 1735.
Webster: This is the ranch on Elijah's for 551,000 - it's 1368 square feet ofliving space.
And, Dave's house is 1735. So, there's a difference of367 square feet ofliving space.
Wiggins: And the Gabriella Court property, how big is that?
Wells: We don't have anything on Gabriella.
23
Webster: We have a Azalea Road ranch.
Wells: But, that was for the other one.
Webster: No, he presented that for this case.
Wells: Oh, alright.
Webster: I have it for the other one because it was very close to Depot Creek estates.
The Azalea Road we're presenting is 1503 square feet with a bath and a half, a two-car
garage, fireplace.
Atkinson: So, David tell us a little bit about your house then. It's 1745 square feet.
PetitionerDavidS.: It's a ranch. Built....... (Inaudible)
Atkinson: So, it was built in 1998?
Petitioner David S.: Two bedrooms, two full baths. It's a nice house, but I paid 465,000
and now they have it valued it at 630,000...... unintelligible
Atkinson: Is that 2 story a modular?
Petitioner David S: No, they're all
Atkinson: They're all stick built in there?
Petitioner David S: The same builder
Wiggins: What is the price you paid for the house, sir?
Petitioner David S: 465,000. It was on the market for a long time.
Atkinson: Do you have central air?
Petitioner David S: No. No patio, no deck.
Atkinson: Okay. Alright. You don't have a finished basement.
Petitioner David Sj Inaudible
Webster: The previous assessor in 1998 took off a substantial amount on that house
because he felt that it was not going to come in at a fair value with the ratio so that's why
it is assessed for 6300 already for this.
Atkinson: What does this say?
24
Webster: Minus small claims market variables.
Atkinson: Oh, that's very innovative.
Webster: The full assessment on this house would have been using these rates would be
7950 and instead he sent it out at 6350; 3.50 a square foot for the bottom level; again,
everybody has a ranch is assessed at that same level. Full basement and a fireplace, fifty
cents for the porch and $1.25 for the garage. Again, normal rates, but when you add that
back to the land of 1250, you are getting 7950 and he realized that was...
Atkinson: Was that Scott:
Webster: Right, it was Scott. When you look at that and you say, it just doesn't work
with the market value. He took that off which it what we do a lot of cases. We review
this and say is this going out too high to begin with. And, in some cases you are. You
are trying to keep everyone equalized out so that the $400,000 should pay $4,000 and the
$800,000 house should pay $8,000. that's the way that works.
Atkinson: So, sometimes you can be actually be very innovative and a petitioner doesn't
have to appear.
Webster: That's what we're trying to do here.
Wells: So, what was the year of that correction:
Webster: In '98. When the house was built, the assessment was never sent out at that
higher amount, it was sent out at 6350 in 1998. So, there was already $1,656 correction
made on this property.
Wiggins: Mr. Webster, the assessed value is based on the market value of the house.
Now, if he had paid $465,000 for this August of '05, how much do you think the market
has increased from that date?
Webster: From that date from July '06, the state is telling us it's, the RAR has gone
down 12%.
Wiggins: So, you feel the value ofthe house. Have prices gone up since 8/05?
Webster: In Aug. 061'm using a 1% a month factor.
Wiggins: I % a month increase.
Atkinson: The state is saying a 12% increase.
25
Webster: That's what they determine the average is in the town of South old. That's
what they have given us from Albany.
Wiggins: So, you say that the property at $465,000 would be at least worth 12% more?
Webster: At least that portion of it, right? But, there's also this sale on Elijah's Lane that
sold for 551,000 that is 378 square feet smaller.
Atkinson: Oh, it also has central air and it has a deck and it has a 2-car attached garage.
Webster: Right. And, the house in question has 462 square foot garage.
Atkinson: And a partially finished basement.
Wells: It was recently updated.
Webster: That says part cathedral there.
Atkinson: I'm looking at the stratus and where it says basement full, a- finished, partially
finished.
Webster: Oh, I see on .... We are not aware of that.
Atkinson: Hardwood floors, heated garage which..
Wiggins: Is this the subject property you're talking about?
Atkinson: No, no nO..one of the comps. The basement is partially finished with an
office.
Petitioner David S. TOT ALLY INAUDIBLE
Webster: Not for us. There's a fireplace.
McConlogue: So, your Elijah is at 551 and you have him at 630?
Webster: Right.
McConlogue: So, maybe you want to talk about this and maybe we can take the other
guy while you're talking.
Webster: Sure we can talk outside about this.
Schultheis: Unfortunately that other guy is Kevin's as well.
Atkinson: Oh, boy Kevin, you're really...
26
Petitioner David S: Thank you very much.
McConlogue: Would you raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the
testimony you are about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth.
Petitioner Philip K: Yes.
McConlogue: Be seated, please and state your name and home address.
Petitioner Philip K: My name is Phillip K . I live at 1296 6th Avenue, NYC 11 013.
McConlogue: And the subject is?
Petitioner Philip K:7213 Peconic Bay Blvd.
Webster: You have a copy of the grievance?
Schultheis: Yes, we do.
Wiggins: Tax map #?
Schultheis: 126-10-1.2
Schultheis: 1.2 acres?
Webster: No, it's 3 acres.
Atkinson: Do you have a right of way to the beach? Across the street?
Petitioner Phillip K: No.
Atkinson: Okay.
Petitioner Phillip K.: The building in particular was the women's showers and it's a
single story off the ground about 3 feet.
Atkinson: On cement blocks?
Petitioner Phillip K: On cement blocks.
Wiggins: You have a building on the property which you said was a women's shower?
Petitioner Phillip K: No, the house that I live in. Was the women's shower.
27
Wiggins: And you converted it into a residence?
Petitioner Phillip K: I actually purchased the property on Christmas of 2004 for
$500,000. And, the house was existing on it. The Perrinis lived there and what I did
afterward, there was some question with the electrical and insulation so I re-insulated, did
the electrical. Everything on the inside. The footprint would never change or anything.
At this time I have asked for a permit to enclose the car port section of the house which is
the most southern structure that is detached from the house. And, I re-financed and you
have a copy of the bank appraisal.
Wiggins: When was that?
Petitioner Phillip K: In August of2005. They valued the property at that time to be
$605,000. - property and house. So, I basically got a 30-year mortgage based on that.
Wiggins: What is your assessed value now? 10, I 00
Petitioner Phillip K: I'm actually here to sell you my property for that assessed value.
Schultheis: You want $10,100 for it?
Petitioner Phillip K: No no no
Schultheis: You want a million one?
Petitioner Phillip K: A million, 10 thousand, is the value that Mr. Webster thinks it is
worth.
Wiggins: And, you have no basement.
Petitioner Philip K: I have no basement. It's partially sand and parts of it are concrete
that we poured just to keep some moisture from coming up.
Wiggins: Do you have heat in the house?
Petitioner Phillip K: Yes, I have forced hot air that I added and also I have air-
conditioning.
Atkinson: Central?
Petitioner Phillip K: Yes.
Wiggins: Do you know how many square feet this property is?
Petitioner Phillip K: The house itself is about 2200, would you say?
28
Webster: We have 2375, the appraiser said 2200; there's a difference ofa foot here, there
with some of these lengths. Myself and Mr. Scott had a tapemeasure on some of these
lengths. We had a couple of I foot differences on the back end ofthe house where they
said it was 33, they said it was 32, we said coming down the side, we said it was 30 feet,
he said it was 29. We said it was 39 feet going up, the appraiser said it was 40 so it's
just a few - that's why there's a difference there.
Schultheis: How do the dimensions compare to the survey?
Webster: The set-up is exactly, it's just a little bit a foot off in a couple of places.
Schultheis: From the surveyor what the appraiser said?
Webster: From the survey.
Atkinson: The survey don't round things out.
Webster: Right. This IS three-year old survey, but the survey says ~ I have a recent
one...
Atkinson: But the footprint has not been changed.
Webster: The survey is 40 feet going up, we said it was 39, 12 feet going out, we have
that - they have 28.6 going down, we said 30, 12 feet, we have at 12, 32.3, we said 33, 29
- we have 30, 6.4, we have 7. 11.6 - we have II. I'm not sure.. ...if the foundation - it
juts out..... 6 inches off the ground (inaudible)
Atkinson: The survey must be guaranteed by the bank?
Petitioner Phillip K: The title company and the bank.
Webster: I don't really have a problem because I know how they do that they- we could
adjust that, make a correction down based on that because they are measuring from the
bottom foundation and we're measuring from the top which is looking at a 30-foot
stretch. We round to the nearest foot, so we might be at 29.7 based on the ..... 5 foot
measurement and 29.7 gets rounded to 30. I think that I could most likely change that
which would be 175 x 3 which be a $500 drop on the rate. We are assessing him for a
basement or for a fireplace. That's why the rate is at $3.00 normally it would be $3.50
but we have it at $3.00 because we dropped it a quarter for each of those items. We are
assessing him for central air and then the patio space is the assessable item. We did not
change his land in this case because he was being assessed at the uniform rate of 1400
because it's not right on the road and it was the rate they use... his additional land is
assessed at $500 per acre, standard in the town. You can see on the front of the card so
the first acre is 1400, the other two are 500. That's been on there since 1977 so I felt that
that was fair with the other properties that were like this. If I may just continue, more
29
information. The house was originally assessed since 1977 for 1428 square feet at $1.50
a square foot which is below the rate that is used for even an enclosed porch. It's used
for something like a little more than a screened porch. Just a little bit more than a
screened porch. And, that's what this was assessed at before Mr. K. purchased and we
had a sit-down on this and we established the fact that he purchased it in this state. Thee
has never been a building permit taken out on this property so when we visited, you can
imagine that there was a major difference here in the square footage and since it is heated
space, but no basement and no fireplace we could not keep it at $1.50 a square foot which
would be considered a screened porch. This is an established residence and that's why
the rate of $3.00 is on there. You can see clearly on the back that it was 1428 square foot
house at $1.50 a square foot and that was just not a correct -- not correct at all.
Wells: That was the old use.
Wiggins: How did it jump from 14 to 22 and 2375.
Webster: Obviously there was work done...
Atkinson: Prior to your purchasing it, the work was done.
Petitioner Phillip K: A lot of the things that he is telling you - I was surprised. I knew
the house did not have a CO when I purchased it so the one reason I was doing the
electric and cleaning it up, I've since gone and tried to apply for a CO-we're trying to
bring it up.
Atkinson: I'm surprised - this appraisal was done for mortgage purposes?
Petitioner Phillip K: This is when I re- financed it. I originally purchased it in Christmas
of2004 and in August of2005 I re-financed for a 30-yr.
Wells: After you had heat and...
Petitioner Phillp K: Yes. After I had
Wells: You still didn't have your CO?
Petitioner Phillip K: I did not have a CO.
Atkinson: And the bank financed it?
Petitioner Phillip K: Y es. Yeah.
McConlogue: Do you have a CO now?
Petitioner Phillip K: I think I will be getting it once the garage attachment - the
construction is finished. (inaudible)
30
Webster: So, the answer will be no.
McConlogue: So you're buying a house without a CO in July '06.
Webster: July '06 valuation does not have a CO, but it's an existing structure.
Schultheis: How do you do that? Do you have any market values, any comparables.
McConlogue: I don't think we're going to get them.
Wiggins: Do you have any other properties than you can compare your property to so we
can determine if your taxes are too high.
Petitioner Phillip K: I have a Y, acre, .5 acre lot that is ..... (inaudible) offPeconic Bay
Blvd. I originally bought that property to build my house before I found this and I bought
it at $267,000. This was 2 yrs prior - it was 2003 that I bought it. I am now going in
contract for $220,000 just to unload it.
McConlogue: It's vacant land.
Atkinson: So, you're going to take a $40,000 loss.
Petitioner Phillip K: It's been on the market since I purchased this property; so 2004 and
it's going down and down. The 220 contract's house is not yet signed yet and come
back. So, I'm hoping - I am hoping. This is the third and fourth time. We have had an
arrangement a few months ago for $200,000 ....... When the contract came back, they
said they would give $150,000 for it. So. You hear all these wonderful things that
everybody's values have gone up and I don't see it. I think the market has changed.
Atkinson: Is it a buildable parcel:
Petitioner Phillip K: Yes, it is. I went ahead and got that - the whole survey. It is
Carl_ She's even tried to sell the property for awhile.
Webster: I'm going to make a correction of error on this from 10,100 to 9,500 because of
the square footage issue for the tentative rolls. I will correct that to 95. Just to get this
parcel.. ..
Petitioner Phillip K: Can I just also. The property just behind me which is Dunston's
property is also ----- They have a house that is twice the square footage of mine. They
are assessed - at least Mr. Webster is saying that. . ..
Wiggins: So, you're saying that the house next to you in the same sub-division -- a
larger house has got the same assessment as you?
31
Petitioner Phillip K: Yes and it's two-year old.
Wiggins: We would like to see a property data card on that property.
Webster: We could get the card on that.
Wiggins: Well, that would certainly be a good compo
Petitioner Phillip K: I think it's about a 4600 square foot house.
Wiggins: We'll find out, but that's what we want to see. We want to see other comps.
What about 1.6 - another parcel there which abuts your property? The first one as you
come in on the right - the big one?
Petitioner Phillip K: That's Crabe! residence. I'm actually not sure what the taxes are on
that. That house was built in the early 90's.
Wiggins: So she bought vacant land?
Petitioner Phillip K: That was vacant. Out of the other three properties down the road,
two of them are owned by the same people. The 3 acre which is the big house which they
live in and I think they are giving the other property which is about 2 Y, acre to their
grandson and he will be living there. That only has the remnants of the old _ on it.
Wiggins: Anything can be fixed up.
Petitioner Phillip K: Anything.
Wiggins: You took the girls' shower, right?
Petitioner Phillip K: Yes. There was a lot of cast iron plumbing that we had to pull out
of there. There was at least 7 or 8 showers not to mention .......
Wiggins: Yeah, you would have to remove a lot of the plumbing- no doubt. Did you
have to put in a new cesspool?
Petitioner Phillip K: The cesspool we put in a run-off.
Wells: Drywells?
Petitioner Phillip K: New dry well. But, the actual cesspool..
Wiggins: Must be pretty big to have all those girls in there.
Petitioner Phillip K: Yes, exactly. It was - when the guy looked into it, he said this was
huge for what this house is. Because of all the showers there.
32
McConlogue: Did you say you re-financed without the CO?
Petitioner Phillip K: $605,000 was the re-valuation. I re-financed it for $357,000.
McConlogue: The appraisal from the bank says 605?
Atkinson: This one I'm looking at says 590.
Petitioner Phillip K: Yes, but on the second page I think what they did was the in the top
right.
Atkinson: Oh, you're talking the cost approach. They used the cost approach rather than
the market analysis?
Petitioner Phillip K: Well, I'm actually using this, I don't know which direction they
went.
Atkinson: They use the market value based on comparable sales and the grid and the cost
approach is usually supported.
McConlogue: You say that the bank appraisal was 605 but you are only financing for
only 200 or...
Petitioner Phillip K: For 300 and about 50 some odd dollars.
McConlogue: Could you have gotten more?
Petitioner Phillip K: I'm not very fond of debt so the least I could do ....
Webster: This is the card for that house.
Atkinson: Behind him?
Webster: Yes.
McConlogue: Kevin, when someone and they're Yz finished, you assess partial
completion without a CO, right?
W ebster: Yes.
McConlogue: How do you determine...
Webster: We determine on what our opinion is of what the value is - what's there. A
lot of people obviously finish the work, have it done and use the equity in the house and
don't go for a CO because the building permit replaces the old one. There have been
33
many cases where people put a pool in and go for the CO later and they have the pool in
in May and use the pool for the whole season and they finally get the CO in October or
November. That happens a lot. In this town and I'm sure in other towns as well. We
have to assess for what's there regardless whether they get a CO or not. For instance,
this house here, Mr. K's house was always assessed - it never had a CO, but it always
had an assessment.
Atkinson: Without a CO normally your value diminishes unless you say okay, I'll take
such and such a price and I'll go for the cost and I'll get the CO. But if you sell it as is
without a CO you get less money.
Webster: Definitely.
Wiggins: We have here 45 less square foot house, porch... taxes are about the same as
his.
Atkinson: Certficate of compliance...... or, at this point, a regular CO. He would get
either a certificate of compliance at this point or a regular CO.
Webster: From the Building Department?
Atkinson: Yeah.
Webster: I'm not exactly sure how that works. I don't know the workings of that office.
McConlogue: I think the probability of the Building Department issuing a compliance of
the CO would have something to do with the value too, wouldn't it?
Webster: I don't see how that would do with the market value of the house. They..
McConlogue: What's my probabilities?
Wiggins: Mr. Webster, I'm curious on how you get such a close figure between these
two properties - the one at 10, 200 and the other at 10,400 yet one property seems to be
about twice the size.
Webster: Well, there is a different rate being used on this structure here and probably the
best thing to do is to ask the assessor to speak to this who did this at the time for this
other property. There is no recent sale on this house on the Dunston house behind him,
but if you'd like I'll call Mr. Scott and have him address this.
Schultheis: Well, it's the assessment of record right now though.
Webster: Of this house, right - that's right. Again, we're grieving the other one with the
value ofMr. K's. I will bring him in and try to answer that question. What he did to
produce this assessment for this parcel. If you'd like, I'll call him in have him speak to
34
us. I really don't want to speak for him of how he came up with this overall assessment.
I'll be right back.
Atkinson: Okay.
OFF THE RECORD EXCHANGE AMONG MEMBERS...
Wiggins: Mr. Scott, you want to address this.
Robert Scott: When I was doing this house in the past, this house was built on piers,
doesn't have a full basement - it's a very minimal house - it's huge house, it's 4490
square feet - it's like a cabin that's been minimally been done over again and I took into
consideration the 4490 square feet and _ obsolescence is basically what you're
talking about. After a certain point, it doesn't have a value. So, I reduced the rate... .And
there was fire damage, there are charred embers on the inside. There was a major fire
there and they worked around it. If you had and taken an actual visit to this parcel which
is the Denston's and this gentleman's, I think you'll find the quality is quite different.
You're doing a great job - I'm not trying to blow smoke or anything else, it's a great job
what he is doing with the house. .
Petitioner Phillip K: Ikea goes a long way - an Ikea kitchen.
Robert Scott: Well, you're doing a very very nice job. You're doing a lot of your own
labor. The rate on this one is - there is no basement, there is no fireplace so we reduced
the rate from 3.50 to 3.00 based on a standard house that this goes a little bit further.
There is no foundation of any sort - it's built on piers - the old cedar posts. It's a
summer house that they're using on a year-end basis. It's a cottage is what it is - it's a
summer camp that's been converted. (Inaudible)
Wiggins: His house has not basement, correct?
Webster: No basement.
Robert Scott: But, it's a foundation - it's no on piers - it's a different story. It's not on
posts.
Webster: It's concrete foundation.
Robert Scott: That's what I'm saying. They're on cedar posts.
Petitioner Phillip K: We have the concrete (inaudible) We took some cinder block just
to keep the animals out and we just put cinder block in - put concrete (inaudible)
Atkinson: It says piers on the data card.
Webster: The appraisal says concrete foundation. We're not assessing for a basement.
35
Atkinson: This Denston house. In January of' 04, there was fire repair and the
reconstruction at the dwelling. Okay and the assessed value jumped from 5500 to
12,400. But there's no notation here on what they did for the reconstruction to warrant
the assessment increase.
Robert Scott: It's on the back of the card.
Atkinson: It doesn't say. What did they do? Umm, rebuilt the whole inside?
Robert Scott: The did the whole outside and inside. We don't put that on any other card.
Atkinson: No, I'm asking you, what did they do to warrant the increase in the
assessment. They have had to do some restructureafter the fire. The increase in the
assessment.. .
Robert Scott: They have 75% and 40% decrease..... they have 75and 40% depreciation
before the rate was in place, before they had the fire. When they replaced it. When they
finished everything back up - put it back to shape, what we did we put it at $2.00 rate and
we did it times the number of square feet and we took away the depreciation... . .. and that
caused an increase in the assessment. If you're also taking a look at it at that particular
point with the fire damage that was still left in there, we took into consideration because
the market value with charred embers inside. We put it at 10,400 which shows today
about a million, forty thousand dollars for something that was very minimally structured
and it wasn't done very well- the reconstruction, but it was done better than what it was
and it didn't deserve any additional depreciation at this point. At one point before they
started anything, they had 75% depreciation on the whole thing. If you notice before that,
it was down to 4200 at one point. 4200 to 8600 in 1990. In '81 it was 4200 that's why I
had 75% depreciation. Then they changed it to 40% depreciation in 1990. Then they did
some additional things in '92 after fire, in 2004 we reduced it to 5500 and then after the
fire damage was replaced, we went back to take a look at it. They were living in mobile
homes at the time I think and we went back 2 years later, we raised it to the 12,400 and
we explained to the Dunston's why the reason for the increase and take off the
depreciation. And, they agreed with that.
Atkinson: And, there was a correction of errors in...
Robert Scott: In 2005 because they asked me to come and take a look at it. And, at about
this period of time, it was during the grievance period and I went down and showed them
the blackened embers and the sistering of the joyce and joints and everything else what
were in there and that doesn't have the effect on the valuation, so we took some of it off
because of that. You're talking about... when you went to camp when you were a kid,
you know you just had a square box - and a roof that goes up to the ceiling. Has sheet
rock, that's it - not very pretty - not very fancy, just plain and neat - that's what they've
done here.
Petitioner Phillip K: (inaudible)
36
Robert Scott: Oh, no, your house is better than that. You've done a nice job, you've
done a much better job.
Petitioner Phillip K: Well, I believe in sustainable buildings. I have bamboo floors
which look better and doesn't...
Atkinson: That's become very common.
Petitioner Phillip K: You pour water on it, it doesn't expand, it doesn't stain. Grows 2
feet a day in the rainforest.
McConlogue: Do you have any comparable sales, or did I miss them?
Petitioner Phillip K: Really, it's just my own property which I am trying to sell
(inaudible) living that nighmare and it's on the boulevard while this property is not even
on the boulevard, it's a dirt road to get to.
McConlogue: The problem with listings is that they're not too probative. Kevin, do you
have comparables?
Webster: I can - I can put something together again. I don't have it right here with me,
but, I can. I will make this correction to 95 because of the difference on the square
footage - so that's the basis we're talking about is 95.
Schultheis: On the basis for discussion?
Webster: Well, right now, I would say that that's all I could do as far as a correction of
errors goes. I can look at this. I know a lot of them. We can pull those out and look at
them.
McConlogue: Are we going to break at I? Do you have the next one?
Webster: Yes, I do.
Atkinson: I don't know ifMr. K ..... if we don't get to ask you everything we need to
or Kevin cannot rebut before 1 o'clock, are you available to come back tonite between 7
and 9?
Petitioner Phillip K: I can.
Robert Scott: Can I make a suggestion? If Kevin goes over the form - the appraisal form
itself and if there is something that can be done as far as correction of errors or if there is
an agreement as far as what they have here, (inaudible)....
Atkinson: Is 95 your bottom line?
37
Webster: I wouldn't say that - I haven't made that judgment. That's an issue of
uniformity of square footage with the rate that's on there. Also, the fact that there is
someone here to talk to you as well. However, I could back there with Bob and I will
come back in a few minutes.
Robert Scott: Actually, he....
Webster: I'll be right back. We'll handle this one and come right back. I have prepared
a grid - I could make extra copies if you would like.
Petitioner Phillip K: I have a very good deal on my property - there is no doubt. A
house which is somewhat smaller than mine (inaudible) Somebody paid % million
dollars for that house. I understand that and I was telling Mr. Webster that it's not that
I'm disagreeing with tax increases, I believe that tax increases are good for the
community, but for him to take it up with no CO and I have been working very hard to
get it to the standards for the house. The amount of basically my mortgage payment on a
monthly basis is going to jump so high. About 4600 to 10,000 or 9,000.
Members Talking Among Themselves
Wiggins: One more question while we still have him. The Denston building next to him,
does that have a CO on it?
Webster: I do not know. I can find out.
Petitioner Phillip K: (Inaudible)
Robert Scott: We assesss - if we waited for CO's, 40% of the town would be without
assessments.
Atkinson: All you need is a tax map number and you get assessed.
Petitioner Phillip K: Thank you.
Atkinson: So, we will not need you this evening.
Petitioner Phillip K: Thank you, thank you for your time.
McConlogue: Would you stand up please. Raise your right hand. You do solemnly
swear that the testimony you are about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the
whole trust and nothing but the truth.
Petitioner Diane Lessard: I do.
McConlogue: Be seated please. State your name and home address.
38
Petitioner Diane Lessard: My name is Diane Lessard. My residence address is 405
Mayflower Road in Mattituck. Tax map number is 125-1-11.
Atkinson: But that's not the Mayflower Road though.
Petitioner Diane Lessard: I'm still in the other house. I had renovated the house on the
Main Road.
Atkinson: And it's the Main Road house that you're grieving?
Petitioner Diane L: Yes.
Wells: What was the lot number again?
Petitioner Diane L: 125-1-11.
Wiggins: Do you feel the value of the property is $775,000?
Petitioner Diane L: Well, as an owner, of course, I would hope that it would be less than
that, but I wanted to put a reasonable amount on there. I definitely it is not $960,000 that
the town is assessing me at.
Wiggins: And, you've given us comparable properties?
Petitioner Diane L: What's very difficult is to find comparable properties on Route 25. I
mean there are in that timeframe that you have given me from like July 2006, there
weren't any sales on 25 directly. I did find some comparables which I felt were not
exactly close, but, you know, there's one on Maiden Lane which was directly on the
water which is on the creek which sold for $750,000. I mean property size was smaller,
yes and the house is a little smaller, but it was directly on the creek, had a pool, public
water, many amenities that I do not have.
Wells: Overlooking a boat yard?
Petitioner Diane L: Overlook a boat yard, yeah. I didn't even think about that. There's a
property on Aldrich Lane which was $1.89 that sold for $740,000. Because there were
not a lot of comparables.
Atkinson: It's also on a busy road.
Petitioner Diane L: That's the thing- this isn't. There's one which the house itself is
smaller which sold for $500,000 on New Suffolk - that was about the busiest road that I
could find. There is no question - 25 is unbelievable - I mean it's a huge detriment if!
attempted to see it for the sales price. 25 is not what it used to be and I lived there 26
years ago. I grew up in that house and I wanted to bring my children back to, you know,
to the house and grow up there. You know the selling point is 2 acres, okay. My other
39
house is less than a Y, an acre, so we decided to renovate. This was a renovation. It
wasn't a total, you know, I renovated, added a second story onto the house.
Atkinson: I know the house, you're right on the comer, there?
Petitioner Diane L: Yes.
Atkinson: The road that goes down to the back side of the lake.
Petitioner Diane L: Yes. Right next to the baseball field.
Schultheis: If remember correct, was it just the front section out in front that was
completely rebuilt?
Petitioner Diane L: We were initially - the plans were that we were keeping the front
wall. The rest of the house was being renovated and we were adding on the second story.
The people that were building initially when they got to that front wall and they took
everything else down, the termite damage was so bad. I mean so bad that there was
nothing but saw dust where the 2x4's were. They called the termite guys to come down
and he said he's never seen anything so bad. I gather that he said that the initial house
had the bow window in the front with the brick work in the front and my father had
scrubs which, of course, had gotten larger and the sun never really shined. There was the
dampness, the termites got in there and no one ever knew. There was no visible
evidence. So, they went and they took it off, left it there because I mean I can't put a
second story on this way. So, it ended up that it was kept there because of the damage
and if there were any questions, the engineer that we had and we were using said there's
no possible way you can build a second story on this.
Schultheis: So, basically the whole house is built new?
Petitioner Diane L: It ended up being that the outside construction is all the same
foundation - nothing was changed there. It ended up being that way only because, you
know, I couldn't a second story on.
Atkinson: So, this is the same footprint as the original house?
Petitioner Diane L: Yes, the only thing we added was a laundry room off the back and a
screened-in, a sun porch off the back.
Atkinson: It looks like it was much bigger.
Petitioner Diane L: You would think and you know what - looks are deceiving. Only
reason because when you're in the house I don't know where that 3,000 square feet. I
really don't. I mean I have gone in houses when you say: wow, you feel that you are in a
huge house. But I think because ofthe footprint Ijust have that feeling that you know, it
was a long ranch, you know..
40
Atkinson: I remember, it was great.
Petitioner Diane L: Yeah. Everyone knew the house because we had the sleigh in front.
Atkinson: Do you have comps?
Webster: 1 do not right now. 1 just want to go over the card. We had a conversation
about this. The rate that we used is 1550 square feet on the base level and we used a
$5.50 rate which is the standard rate that is used for a two-story in the town and there
porch that is 360 square that is put on at $2.00 a square foot. And, she has some open
porch. The garage is not assessed, is only assessed for storage over and then when 1
came up with that original number 1 realized that that was going to be excessive. It was
going to come with a new assessment of$13,OOO which it was going to come to using
these rates.
Atkinson: Oh God.
Webster: So, 1 made an adjustment of25% off of the improvement portion. 1 dropped it
$2,600, to 7800 on the improvement, adding back the land of 1800 which is 1400 for the
first acre and the additional acre is at $500. That's way the land is at 1800. That is again
the uniform rate that's used. 1400 as opposed to 1600 - This goes back 20 or 30 years.
That's how 1 came up with this assessment. Originally when 10,000 when we originally
discussed it - that fact that the enclosed porch does not have heat, so 1 changed that to
$3.25 to $3.00 but 1 still kept it at 25%. It does come now with the new ratio that came
out to _ but that's with the $2600 taken off. It's not a consolation to Diane, but 1
just wanted to let you know what 1 did. I'm not sure if you want to break. If you give me
a minute or two. I'll be right back. We have a picture of the original house. The original
house was 1438 square feet and the garage was extended of being 24 up, it's 31 going up.
It's 31 feet now. So, effectively now, the house is 1550 with 3100 square feet, so that the
square footage more than doubled. The assessment was 6,000, not it's 96 so just to give
you an idea of what happened here with the assessment. Potentially, it could have gone
to more than doubled. 1 knew it did not deserve that and 1 did not take it from 6 to
12,000. It went from 6 to 96 but the square foot went up to more than doubled and the
the garage space increased, porch went up... (inaudible)
Wiggins: Mr. Webster, do you think this house would sell for $960,000?
Webster: Well, if you just give me a minute I'll be right back.
McConlogue: Do we have everything we need?
Webster: In all fairness, 1 could tell you what 1 offered her? Or you should want to make
a decision. . .
Wiggins: We're okay.
41
Webster: I have the grid here with comparables in there.
Schultheis: Well, thank you for your time and we'll let you know.
Petitioner Diane L: Thank you very much.
McConlogue: Will you raise your right hand. You do solemly swear that the testimony
you are about to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth. Be seated please. State your name and your address and the location of the
property.
Petitioner Renee Lisowy: My name is Renee Lisowy, 1020 Breakwater Road in
Mattituck. The location of the property - what does that mean?
McConlogue: The subject property - that's where you live.
Schultheis: So you have a copy of the appraisal done on the house. May 9,2007. A
current appraisal.
Wiggins: What is the amount? 640,000?
Schultheis: Okay, you want to tell us about your place.
Petitioner Renee L: (Inaudible) He said that my property is valued at 767,000 and that
sounded high to me. The reason I had the appraisal because I re-financed and that came
out at 625,000 so (inaudible) It came in at 640 (inaudible.
Schultheis: So, you have the appraisal? Comparables, okay.
Webster: I do not have a copy of the property. So, I would like to go back and get it.
But, I did remember it had the same assessment for a couple of years and of course with
the ratio adjusting, the assessment hasn't changed. The state issued RAR has adjusted
down.. .. (inaudible)
Petitioner Renee L: The value would be 860,000.... (inaudible)
Webster:That's what they're interpreting. It doesn't mean that your assessment has
increased for taxation purposes it just means that how the state is interpreting your house
to be worth. That has increased. They're saying that your value has gone up over the last
_ years.
Atkinson: 10% a year. That's what you said.
42
Webster: That's what the state is saying. So, they're using last yr it was 1.2, the year
before was 1.26 on it and then it was 1.47, so it has steadily gone down all these years. If
you like I'll go back and get the property card.
Wiggins: 1 have 3 comps here. You might want to get the property cards on them.
Webster: This is the subject property card. Can I say something to the petitioner?
Looking at your card maybe we can make a correction on this. There is no living space
above your garage?
Petitioner Renee Lisowy: No, no floor. A couple of pieces of plywood - one piece of
4x8.
Webster: Okay. There was a correction done on this of $1800 in March of '05. It was
originally planned to be 93, it was brought down to 79 and then at that time 2 yrs, the
upstairs was deemed to be usable space. You're saying it's just storage?
Petitioner R. Lisowy: Yeah.
Webster: I feel more comfortable.
Petitioner Lisowy: (inaudible comments)
Atkinson: When you originally brought the house, was the upstairs unfinished?
Petitioner Lisowy: The upstairs was finished, that's where all the bedrooms are, the
space above the garage was unfinished and remains unfinished.
Atkinson: So, when you bought the house, the second floor living area was already there.
Petitioner Lisowy: Yes.
Atkinson: Okay. I thought.. .
Webster: Because taking off 1800 basically eliminates that. It's really being assessed for
that. There was an increase in the rate saying that it was finished but increased the
amount of deduction taking off on the bottom right corner - taking off 1400 small claims
market value variable that Phyllis was asking about. We increased that to $1800 so we
took that into consideration that it was too high and we dropped that. It's a 1 % story
house at $5.00 a square foot for the full basement and fireplace - it's not a 2-story house
- the way you're being assessed for the 3 front dormers - Do you have a rear dormer on
the house?
Petitioner Lisowy: No.
Webster: Comes straight out - a 90 degree angle?
43
Petitioner Lisowy: (Inaudible)
Webster: We used a reduced rate of$5.00 saying it's not a full second story. The plan
shows 1250 on the first floor and 930 on the second.
Petitioner Lisowy: (inaudible)
Webster: You're actually 2145.
Petitioner Lisowy: reviewing documents - (inaudible comments)
Webster: Connection is now enclosed in our sketch. We're saying that you have a 8 foot
section which connects your garage to the main house.
Petitioner Lisowy: I don't know. It hasn't changed.
Atkinson: Kevin, look at the appraisal sketch.
Webster: That's what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the first appraisal. Between the
garage and the living space is 14 Yz section that connects the house to garage where on
the sketch we have it as only 8 x 15, there was a porch there. I have to go out and look at
it.
Atkinson: Well, what are we talking about, a closet? How many square feet?
Webster: Difference of 198 square feet.
Petitioner Lisowy - totally inaudible - discussing dimensions.
Webster: Going across horizontally - 8 xIS - there's a little section there that's 8 x 3 -
3x8 which is accounted on the card - on the property card.
Petitioner Lisowy: (inaudible) looking at card.
Webster: Looking at dimensions. That is right. We' just not accounting for.... That
little section that goes north/south with 8 feet there. - that is unaccounted for on the
property - that 4 x 8 section. An alcove.
Petitioner Lisowy: There's a little back porch that - (inaudible. But, it doesn't come
flush with the house. Discussion of the porch w/Webster. So whether it's 3 feet or 4
feet, I don't really know, but it hasn't changed.
Webster: Okay.
Schultheis: Anybody else have any comments?
44
McConlogue: Do have anything to say about her comparables?
Webster: The first one is just up instead of going up Breakwater, you go up Mill so, that's
1600 square feet, it has some porch space, it has a garage, unfinished basement.
Everything on there matches up. I don't have a major problem with any of these
adjustments on that.
Atkinson: Wouldn't you say that location is superior to Breakwater Road?
Webster: It would be.
McConlogue: By how much?
Webster: Yeah. I would probably say - I would make a 5% adjustment on that. I would
say that on the court - of 6 homes - is better than being on Breakwater.
Petitioner Lisowy: Inaudible
Webster: I would say that - and it sold right on the valuation date. It's sale that I have
been using - it is 800 feet smaller. Pretty big difference. It matches up - built around the
same time. That is close - that is a close sale in the area. Definitely. Number 2 I think -
I know that area on Maple very well and it's on Long Creek - I think they got a great deal
on that house - beautiful setting. It's not 1,000 square feet. Most recent price sale price
of 644. And, I visited that house and it's a beautiful contemporary. I took recent photo
here - it's sits up high, looks over the creek, great spot. I'll tell you exactly how much
square feet it is. We're assessing..
Atkinson: There's no adjustment for water view.
McConlogue: does that have a water view?
Webster: It devalues her house, but because. . ..
Atkinson: Why wouldn't they mention it that it's on the creek?
Webster: It's on Long Creek. Under the bridge. Actually some people are having a hard
time going down there. I don't believe they have a dock. That house is actually 2500
square feet. It brings the value up, but it's not accurate.
Atkinson: If it' s 2500 square feet.. ..
Webster: It helps you for this purpose -it doesn't help you......
Petitioner Lisowy: (inaudible)
45
Atkinson: The one on Maple Avenue - if that' s 2500 square feet, then there would be no
living area adjustment, so it would come in at 600,000.
Webster: But, then again, it has....
Atkinson: Would that be a wash with the location adjustment on the creek for 60,000 and
the 60,000.
Webster: But you take off because the location of the subject is inferior. We take off - if
that sold for 640,000, you would take off another 5%.
Atkinson: Well, I do it just the opposite. The comp is superior to the subject so I'd
mmus.
Webster: You would take off? Moore's Lane is very nice up there. It's better so I
would take off for the location. It's better than where she is. I don't believe that that
house is that small. I could tell you what we have it at. I was up there recently.
Wells: The back side of the cul-de-sac.
Webster: Right. It's actually 2125 square footage. It has some kind ofa deck with a
solar room.
Atkinson: How could they be so off with the square footage of these comps.
Webster: The first one is correct because we it... The second one is just an estimate..
Atkinson: A thousand and it's 2500.
Webster: I can probably tell you what...
Atkinson: That's a big difference.
Webster: If you looked at this card of Moore's Lane, they took the 540 plus 450 plus the
370, they disregarded the fact that the first section is a two-story section and the fact that
the 200 square feet is actually living space. Whoever came and did this appraisal is either
rushing to get back to where they were going. . .
Wells: Or asleep at the wheel.
Webster: The 540 plus 466 plus 370 gives you 1376. So, they disregarded the 200, they
disregarded the additional 540 square feet.
Atkinson: So, what should it be then?
Webster: Oh, what did I say before. My memory is shot. 2125.
46
Atkinson: Oh, wow. So that it would bring it down another 44,000.
Webster: That's correct. They say it has a view of the sound as well. They took off
$50,000. From the second story comparable homes on that side although trees have
grown up - they built homes on that side that sold for 3.1 million about a year ago. So,
that the north side of Lloyd's is - beautiful. If you go on the south side, they have views,
Discussion of comp property.... Discussion of Maple, the second and third compo
McConlogue: Are you going to submit any comparables?
Webster: I think the comparables that are used - I and 3 are good. We did discuss the
adjustments on that so I am not going to....... In the area as well.
Atkinson: Tax map number?
Webster: 107-3-5 is the tax map nUmber.
Atkinson: If the appraisal was done, it would be substantially less?
Webster: That's accurate.
Schultheis: We have everything we need.
Webster: I don't think there is anything else to add. Oh, she said that if the appraisal was
going to be redone with more accurate figures, that it would come in substantially less.
Petitioner L: Substantially less?
Webster: Based on these comparables that were presented.
Petitioner L: Okay.
Webster: Using these comparables and the methodology that this appraiser used and I
say that would be accurate.
Petitioner L: Thank you.
Schultheis: We'll discuss this in executive session and make a decision and let you
know.
Petitioner L: Okay. Great. Thank you for your time.
47
Schultheis: Okay, it's 2 o'clock in the afternoon and we're adjoining for the morning
sessIOn.
Schultheis: It's 7:05 and we'll call the meeting to order.
Wells is abstaining from this decision.
McConlogue: I'll swear you in before you testify. Stand and raise your right hand. Do
you solemnly swear that the testimony you about to give in this proceeding is the truth,
the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Petitioner Scalia: I do.
McConlogue: Please be stated and state your name and the address or your property.
Petitioner Scalia: My name is Thomas Scalia. The address is 875 Grown Land Lane in
Cutchogue. What I've just handed to Mr. Wiggins is what is called the CMA in the real
estate business - comparative market analysis.
Atkinson: Is this your primary residence?
Petitioner Scalia: It is. I've been sitting with Kevin for an hour or so over the last couple
of days educating me on the process of assessing the property and the multipler at 1%,
I'm assessed at 9200 a year after a correction on his part since the square footage was
incorrect which would mean that my house would sell for $920,000. What I did was
priced it as if! was putting it on the market today and I came out with $775,000.
Schultheis: Do you have some comparable sales here?
Wiggins: Is this one just on the market on it didn't sell yet?
Petitioner Scalia: It's in contract.
Wiggins: In contract.
Petitioner Scalia: For $525,000.
Wiggins: Are these in contract?
Petitioner Scalia: The rest of them have sold.
Wiggins: These are the sales price up here?
Petitioner Scalia: That's the sale price and these are the adjustments.. '"
48
McConlogue: Does Kevin know that you are here?
Petitioner Scalia: Yes, he said he was on his way.
Discussion among members while waiting for Webster
McConlogue: Having previously been sworned, you're still testifying under oath.
Webster: Thank you.
Webster: Do you want me to get a copy of the property.
Wiggins: We would like to see a copy - he showed us comps also which I believe you
have.
Webster: I have the listings, yes.
Wiggins: You might want to get the comp cards on the other two that are sold.
Webster: Okay.
Webster: Okay, these are two sets of copies of the first one being the comps. The 1940
Crown Land, the 1545 Bridle, 775 Crown Land, 875 Crown Land, 4525, Crown Land,
840 Bridle.
Wiggins: The one on Fairway is in your arguments to justifY your appraisal or is that one
of his cards.
Webster: They're in the presentation. This one here that you have, there's no address on
this. (inaudible) That's 840 Bridle Lane, there's no address on it. This is a copy ofthe
property cards you presented including yours.
Members reviewing material.
Wiggins: The one on Fairway Drive the one that took a long time to sell.
Atkinson: Yeah.
Wiggins: It looks like a decent house.
Atkinson: It was very beautiful, but it was very dated. Everything was dark, dark
paneling, dark cabinets...
Wiggins: I guess it was from the '70's.
49
Atkinson: But, it was in immaculate condition.
Wiggins: Kevin, do you have any other comparable sales in that area?
Webster: I'll go make another copy. Here are the property cards for 3 of the sales, the
other one is the other sale. I'll be right back. I'll make a couple of copies.
Member discussion of materials.
Webster: Now, Mr. Chairman, can I talk about this house. Mr. Scalia's assessment is
9200. That's the present assessment which equates to a taxable value using the state
issued RAR at 920,000 as of July I of2006. We have here 4 sales of properties
bracketing the valuation date of July I of 2006. They're not on the water and they do not
have water view. Their acreages range from slightly smaller to 1.85 acres - that's the
subdivision on Depot Lane, so that's not a sub-divideable lot. But we did make an
adjustment for that - it's on a much busier lane than Depot Lane. The conditions of all of
these homes, in our opinion, are good to average, most of them being good. The 4th one
we have is average. The inspection on that when it's sold and the adjustments were made
at $50 a square foot which, in my opinion, is modest for this type of property. Both of
these properties should be adjusted to $75 a square foot if not even higher. But, we
adjusted it at $50 a square foot and you can see what pluses and minuses..... amount to
the square foot you can going to use. Adjustments were made for bathrooms, basements,
central air, two-car garage, things like that. You can see the net adjustments on these
comparables are below 5% on the first one, the second one's net adjustment is about
2 Y2%. The third one again is about -less than 2% and the fourth one is our largest and
that's about 5%, well within reason of acceptable assessable practice. And, I feel that the
9200 that this house is assessed is well within reason for our valuation date and I will
present that to you as well as the property cards.
Wiggins: Did you give that information to Mr. Scalia?
Webster: Yes, he has that information and the property cards too.
Webster: When myself and Tom reviewed the card, he pointed out that the number I
gave him sounded a bit high. So, I pulled up the plans on the Laser Fiche. We
discovered that there was an error in the square footage on the measurements. So, I went
back and redid the numbers and redid the sketch and that's why it was dropped $500
down from the original 9700, it was on the tentative rolls at 9200 so we made a $500
change because the square footage was incorrect on the measurements.
Atkinson: Then, how come on March I the improvements were assessed at 10,400 and
additionally on March I the improvements were assessed at 8200.
Webster: Yes, because the 10,400 would be what this house would be assessed at
without any kind of small claims market variable as is here on the property.
50
Atkinson: Oh, it's one of those.
Webster: Right. The number would be haven 11,900. I realized then that was going to
be above what this house would be worth so I made a 2200 reduction.
Atkinson: A small claims. .. what is that?
Webster: We're kind of piggybacking on the terminology from 1999. A small claims
market value variable is how it was previously... it basically means looking at what
reductions had occurred in the past and also looking at what the market value is for this
homes. It was determined that it deserved a drop. I determined it deserved more of a
drop at the time it was originally reduced $1,000. I could not send this out at 11,900
because I knew the value of $1.19 million and my feeling is that my first job is to value
this house. I feel this house is not worth $1.9 million so I made a drop. I did not want to
send it out of $1.19 million. After we have reviewed it together, I ran the numbers again.
The number would be 10,700, but I corrected it down to 9200 which basically shows a
$500 drop from the original number because an error because of the square footage.
Schultheis: How dicit go from 9200 to 7700 on the improvement?
Webster: Well, the 1500 is what 1 felt that it deserved to be taken off. I took that off on
market value adjustments. Because I felt that 10,700 was not - that would have been a
million 70 thousand. I felt that the house was not worth. There was a range of sales here
to feel that 9200 and that factors in again, that's keeping in mind that there was an error
on the square footage which 1 addressed. There was a problem with the measurements.
Schultheis: Okay. Does anyone have any further questions?
Atkinson: No. I don't.
Petitioner Scalia: (inaudible) Discussion of comparable properties. Unintelligible...
Atkinson: Can we have copies of those?
McConlogue: Which comparables of yours are in section 109? All I have is addresses.
Webster: 2520 Fairway is in section 109. 109-5-14.14 and the others are in 102. The
other four are in 102.
Schultheis: Okay - we'll evaluate everything in our executive session.
Petitioner Scalia: Thank you for your time.
Wiggins: Thank you for coming in.
51
Schultheis: We'll call this meeting closed. The Board will meet in an executive session
tomorrow morning at 9 am.
Schultheis: The meeting was adjourned at 9 pm.
CarolS tares
~OO7
52