Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 GRIEVANCE DAY JULY 16, 1991 ,s The Morning Session of the Board of Assessment Review began at 9:06 A.M. ; present were: John Sullivan, Chairman Samuel Markel, Co-Chairman William Weinheimer Thomas J. Henry Thomas Burdy 1) 1000-87.1-7-8 Elizabeth R. Schloss P.O. Box 421 Southold, NY 11971 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Elizabeth Schloss: Yes, I do. Mr. Jonesby has printed out a list of the owners here and out of thirty-three people there are thirteen owners. Those are the list prices and the auction prices, and Mrs. Decker and I were the only ones who bought independently of the auction. Sam Markel: Do you submit this as evidence? You must fill in this box - what you want the assessment reduced to. • Schloss: Yes sir. And then there is a little notation as to why I feel the whole thing is off. The only reason I state at this point that i a fair assessment would probably be less than half; it is $100,000 off of what the assessment is on the town rolls, based on the fact that if I were under duress to sell the property at this point, based on the fact it would probably have to be a cash deal - I don't think any bank would do business with the mortgage under the current financial situation - Sam Markel: Yes, but by state law you must tell us what you want the assessment reduced to. Schloss: Don't I have it stated somewhere? Sam Markel: It might be stated, but you have to fill it in. Schloss: Here, it might be a little heavy, but on the other hand I feel that at this point under the conditions that we are surrounded with, that it is more realistic. Sam Markel: In another words, you want it reduced by $150,000. That's what this says here. Schloss: $250,000. Sam Markel: Okay. Scholss: So that is inaccurate. r Schloss: I do. I was the first one to get a C.O. , and I came down here in June of 1989 and requested a C.O. because I had sold my own property and was living in a winter rental that was about to be rented by summer tenants, and I had no place to go. I applied for my own C.0. based upon the fact that I have lived in Southold for many years. There are buildings around us that are about to fall down; they are abandoned structures; and this is what we face. Because the Cove was based upon thirty-three units participating, there were plans for building thirty-three units, the last twelve units were never finished because the sponsors just walked away and left them because they were denied a second loan they applied for. John Sullivan: And you are one of twenty-six? Schloss: I am one of thirteen owners that live there. John Sullivan: This is what you face? Schloss: Yes, it is awful. There is no picture there of your house. No, there is none of my place. Tom Henry: They are assessing your house, not what is around it. Schloss: Well, the surroundings are the effectiveness of the whole place. Tom Henry: I want her to explain what evidence she is submitting. Schloss: This is what I am submitting; these are facing the occupied units and the present owners. And according to the description we bought under, was that this place would be a finished unit of thirty-three owners. I am quite sure that this derelict building will have to be torn down. This building here in the picture is not my building, but is very similar to my building. This building here I feel if it is left in this condition in another years' time will be a derelict building which will be of danger to the occupants and will have to be taken down. Sam Markel: So the basis of your complaint is that because of this situation, the value of your property is reduced. Schloss: Yes. The underlying situation in addition to that the sponsors have neglected to pay everything but the real estate taxes, so therefore, there is close to $100,000 of delinquent bills to the management people and to the water company people that we, as a group of responsible owners will be sued for. That is not a pretty picture either. Sam Markel: Have you retained an attorney on that basis? Schloss: Yes, we have retained an attorney on that basis. He is waiting to see if the foreclosure procedure will be effective. There have been no sales since the auction in September of 1989. Tom Henry: How many were sold at the auction? 2 Schloss: There were eleven units sold. They discontinued the auction because they were not realizing the prices they wanted. It would be almost impossible to sell anything there because no bank would touch it. Sam Markel: Do you have a mortgage on your place? Schloss: Yes, I do. And I don't think anyone could even get a mortgage. 2) 1000-87.1-1-24 George and Norma Decker 81 Poplar Street Garden City, NY 11530 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Norma Decker: Yes. Sam Markel: You have evidently heard Mrs. Schloss' testimony here before us, and yours is basically the same. Do you have anything to add to that? Norma Decker: We worked on this together. Mrs. Schloss has a bad view, but mine is worse. I am always afraid if someone drops a match over there, forget it - and if the wind is blowing in right direction. Sam Markel: Were the Building Inspectors around? Decker: The Assessors were around and they gave the sponsors tax relief on the foundation that was incomplete. Sam Markel: The Assessors have no control over the Building Department. Decker: No, I think we should proceed to the Building Department; those structures are not safe. John Sullivan: Thank you, as you know we make no decision at this time; you will be notified later by mail. Decker: Thank you. 3) 1000-9-10-22.1 David & Anne Burnham P.O. Box 335 Fishers Island, NY 06390 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you 40 give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Anne Burnham: I do. 3 Sam Markel: The building has a common wall? • Anne Burnham: Well, if you look at the picture, it looks like one big house, but there is a common wall that splits it down the middle, and each side is exactly the same. It is technically a duplex, but that's the wording that came out of the. . . Same Markel: Is it one of the government buildings? Burnham: Yes, it was part of the whole fort strip. There was two of them that are exactly the same, so there is actually four dwellings similar to ours. It was built around 1905 and 1906, then they were occupied by the Army Corp. of Engineers, then they were abandoned, and came up for sale in 1977 for a very low price, as long as people would fix them up. A lot of the comparable sales on there are single family homes on Fishers Island. Ours is not considered a single family home by Real Estate agents or by anyone that looks at it, because it is attached to another side and is right next door to rental housing, which is school teacher housing, which is also not considered ideal compared to single family homes further down the street in the fort area. The house we live in, in particular, only has one bathroom. The bathroom on the first floor that was put in by the first owners was in inferior condition; it only had a half wall and all the plumbing was exposed, and it didn't work quite right. The third floor is unfinished; there is no plumbing or pipes, no heating. The walls themselves - all the plaster was taken off and was covered with particle board. • Sam Markel: What was you date of purchase? Burnham: January 26, 1990. Sam Markel: Do you in it all year round? Burnham: Yes, we live there all year round. I understand we bought for more than most people bought for in 1977, that the taxes should increase, but to increase by 300% was astronomical. It brings the value of the house in at about $269,000 based on this assessment. We could not sell it for $269,000. Sam Markel: The whole house? Burnham: Our portion. We bought it at $216,000, and we could not sell it because it is not considered a two family home, which is what some of the comparative studies are - $250,000 or $260,000 - and there is no way we could sell it for that. People look at it and look at it as a duplex home. There are a lot of other houses on Fishers Island that pay considerably less that what we pay, some which are on the water, some which are in much better shape than what we are. I realize after talking to the Assessors that the whole Island has not been reassessed - it is being done in portions. It just doesn't seem right. Sam Markel: The fact that the Assessor said he hasn't assessed the whole Island - that is his problem. Burnham: Right, and he made that perfectly clear. In doing some research of my own, it just seems unfair that we pay $500 - $1000 more 4 than a house that is on the water. We are not even a very attractive • house compared to all the other houses on Fishers Island. Tom Henry: Is there a specific house that you compared it to? Burnham: There are several houses in the assessment, and one house I know of, my father-in-law's that is on the water, and he pays less than we do. There are other houses - people I have asked when the taxes came out last year, I asked around because I was shocked that ours went from $1100 to $3200. I didn't have $3200; we had to borrow in order to pay for it. So I looked around. The people next to us, who also filed a complaint in here went up the same, and it just didn't seem right that we were paying much more than an attractive house down the street or two miles away, who are in a different situation than we are in. In a discussion with Bob Scott it came up about depreciation, and I must admit it was a little confusing, so did other people on Fishers Island, what he was trying to tell them. It didn't seem it was helping me very much. He felt the house had depreciated considerably since 1977, and I have a little bit of a difficult time supporting that. The original structure of the house has not changed at all. There are cracks in some of the walls. The windows are original - there are no broken windows. I know some houses were in very poor shape - the singled houses down on the end. There is no heating in our third floor - we use it as an office in the summer - but there is no adequate heating or plumbing. We cannot rent it without putting a considerable amount of money into it. The corner of the roof in one of the alleys comes in to the bathroom and leaked considerably before we bought it, and there is not plaster, just • the wire mess is showing through. It doesn't do much for us now, except for an occasional place for a guest to sleep or to use as an office. 4) 1001-4-7-11 Fred H. Lambrou 5440 N. Ocean Drive Apt. 1506 Singer Island, FL 33404 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Fred Lambrou: I do. I've got really three basis; I don't understand why my depreciation was reduced from 35% down to 15% in a historic district that is over 100 years old, and no work has been done to it on the inside or the outside to change the depreciation. None at all. Sam Markel: From 35 to 15%? Fred Lambrou: Yes, and I stated that the building to the North and the building to the South of me have 25% and 38% depreciations. The building to the North of me, the Mandell building had extensive renovations, but the depreciation was not reduced. Sam Markel: The age remains the same. 5 Lambrou: No, it gets, older. • Sam Markel: Well, yes, but everything gets older, right? And depreciation is based on age, on condition. Lambrou: Right, then why am I getting reduced? Sam Markel: This is what we find out. Lanbrou: Then I also compare what's around me in relation to comparable values, and I submitted the cards from the surrounding parcels. Mandell was assessed at $13,000 - but there is nine apartments and four stores. I am at $10,000 and I am two stores and offices that are non-rentals. What I added to the building is partitions, and if the building is to be changed, the partitions have to be ripped out because they are only good for a gallery. And I added a drop ceiling. Sam Markel: No effect whatsoever. Lambrou: Okay, then I don't understand why the taxes went up. Originally I had to get a building permit because I was told I was making structural changes; I had to explain I was not making structural changes, and had to go to the expense of getting an architect to draft a letter stating that it was just a six foot opening to join the two stores. By then they said if you don't get a building permit, we will stop the work, so the best thing for me to do is get the building permit, . so the workers could finish by the deadline. Sam Markel: How is it going? Lambrou: Fine, I guess, we are open, and people come in and we sell them art. The building is still a losing proposition, with taxes and insurance and mortgage. Sam Markel: Have you read your complaint book? Lambrou: Yes, I have. Sam Markel: You are operating it as a business. You know, if you are losing money, by law you have a right to claim tax exempt. Lambrou: There are three factors: the depreciation, the economic factor, and the surrounding areas - all three are inconsistent. John Sullivan: If you could get us an income statement. . . Lambrou: From when, last year? I could do that. Sam Markel: Yes, address it to the chairman. • 5) 1000-9-10-22.2 Edwin H. Horning & Wife Whistler Avenue Fishers Island, NY 06390 6 Note: Anne Burnham appeared for Mr. and Mrs. Horning. (She is • complaint number three.) Anne Burnham: This complaint is from the couple who live in the other side of the building that we live in. There were no forms available, so I signed for them and they can sign after the hearing and fax or mail it in. Sam Markel: Basically this is the same complaint as yours? Burnham: Right. I think their house would be valued at the same price as ours; it is the same house. They bought the house in 1977 when it first went up for sale. Apparently, they wrote for a veterans' exemption, but never go a reply on it. Sam Markel: They are entitled; they file for that in the Assessor's Office, and if they have any problems at all, send a letter to the Supervisor saying they have not received the proper forms. John Sullivan: Did they file for it? Burnham: They asked for the forms, but never received them. I am sure they would do it; they are on a fixed income. Sam Markel: Go to the Assessor's Office now and get a form for them so they can receive it next year. 6) 1000-128-4-4 Gail A. Kar P.O. Box 634 Laurel, NY 11948 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Gail Kar: Yes, I do. What I have done is taken all the houses in my community, and I have a tax map in there of the section. We live on the strip of property here; here is the Boulevard and here is the Bay, and normally the properties are all one; we are subdivided, so there are eleven homes. Our piece of property is about a sixth of an acre. What I've done is I've made comparisons of the assessed rates of all the other properties there. It is kind of like a beach community - we are year-round residents. Most of the homes are winterized, but they do not come out all year. What I have done is I have tried figure it per acre, I pulled the cards on all the properties. To make the comparison, I converted everything into an acre. Sam Markel: A ratio. Kar: Right. So that we can look at it properly. First I did the land, per acre and then I looked at the cards and noted whether it was a one or two story, and the rate per. If there was a basement or fireplace, I took it out, so nothing includes a basement or fireplace. 7 Sam Markel: You did a lot of work for us. We normally do that. • Kar: Well, I saved you some work. That's what I have done. I am the last one on the list there. And the second step is I have broken out the first block here, how it is currently assessed. The other two blocks what I have done is I reassessed it using two different methods. One is using an average of the assessed rates for everybody else, and I come up with 4302. The second method I used is taking it the way it was originally assessed - it was assessed in 1991, we purchased it and did some improvements - we put an addition on. That is why I am here, because after we put the addition on, it was reassessed and it was doubled for a 500 square foot addition. So the second method - I reassessed it after the 1990 assessment, I have taken those rates that were used then, and then I added the addition with the average rates. In other words, I have done it two ways and I have come up with around the same figure. Sam Markel: What was the original cost of the home? Kar: $120,000 for the property. Then we put in some improvements. That was the first building permit. And then we had the 500 square foot addition. 7) 1000-78-9-45 Edward W. & Laura L. Deptola 430 Highwood Road • Southold, NY 11971 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Edward and Laura Deptola: Yes. Edward Deptola: The Real Estate people say that the taxes have the house valued at $235,000 to $237,000. It should be taxed based upon the value of about $175,000. I tried to get the taxes lowered by the V.A. exemption, and they give me an $81.00 break. Sam Markel: $81.00 in actual taxes. Deptola: Yes, so I was a little upset with that. So I asked him why it was so low and the taxes were so high, and he said I was probably on the water. Sam Markel: Who said that, an Assessor? Deptola: Yes, I don't want to mention any names, I don't want to get anyone in trouble. Sam Markel: No, no. It is alright. • Deptola: They were very helpful. 8 Sam Markel: They are supposed to be, they are employees of the Town, and you are the Town. Deptola: I only want to pay my fair share. Sam Markel: Okay, well you have to fill out the form correctly so that we can act on it by State law. 8) 1001-4-8-15 Michael Ficurilli 215 6th Avenue Greenport, NY 11944 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Michael Ficurilli: Yes. Sam Markel: Is this a partial assessment? Michael Ficurilli: No, that is what I'm saying here. Actually, part of the house is torn down. It is smaller than what it was. Sam Markel: You took some off. . Ficurilli: Yes. Tom Henry: You were reassessed last year and again this year? Ficurilli: Yes, the dates are on there, 1990 and 1991. When we originally started to fix the place up, we tore off a piece because it was so termite infested. Sam Markel: Did you replace it. Ficurilli: No, not at all. Sam Markel: So the square footage is reduced? Ficurilli: Yes, the square footage on the house has been reduced. Sam Markel: You put a deck on? What was there before the deck? Ficurilli: It was a wading room. It was covered with a door, roof, everything. The deck is a little larger but with the same length. Sam Markel: Is there a roof over the deck? Ficurilli: No. The Assessor already seen it last year, now they are saying I improved something this year. • Sam Markel: We go by the dates. 1990 they raised it, and 1991 they raised it. 9 Ficurilli: Yes, that is what I am trying to figure out. Why in 1991? Sam Markel: Those cards a public information. You can question them at any time. They have to put a reason for the increase, which there is not here. We will find out why. 9) 1001-3-4-29 Alan Brodsky and Mary Foster 138 Sterling Avenue Greenport, NY 11944 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Alan Brodsky: Yes, I do. I just bought the house in March of this year. Sam Markel: You bought it in March of 1991, and when you bought it the assessed valuation is 5400, according to the card. You received no notice from the Town that it has been reassessed? Brodsky: No. Sam Markel: And you knew what the assessment was when you bought it? Brodsky: No, I did not know until the day we closed, actually. It was suggested to me that I use the R.A.R. against the price I purchased the house at in March to compute assessment. By looking at all my neighbors, I can see the taxes are much too high according to the price I paid for it. Sam Markel: Although the State has an equalization rate, Southold Town does not use the equalization rate for assessment. Not that you don't have perfect grounds to grieve on that. The basis they use for assessment is brick and mortar, so to speak. Whether it is two-story, basement, fireplace, size of lot, waterfront, etc. , etc. . We go by the law. If you use this book, you can read all the ways you can grieve. Brodsky: Yes, I don't have it. Sam Markel: They are supposed to give you one when you come in for an application to grieve. Brodsky: I did not get one. 10) 1000-40-3-10.3 Judy & Charles Kozora 64290 North Road Greenport, NY 11944 10 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Charles Kozora: Yes. I have tried to sell the house for two years for $225,000, and :nobody bought it. The current assessment is for $365,000. Sam Markel: That is according to the Assessors, not your assumption. Kozora: No, no. It is worth what we paid for it. All the improvements that have been done is we have added some trees and some shrubs. Sam Markel: No bearing. Are you using the State Equalization Rate? Are you claiming it was excessive? Kozora: That is why I didn't check the excessive; I am using this as unequal. Sam Markel: Unequal to other pieces of properties in the area? Kozora: Right. Based on the equalization rate. 11) 1000-135-2-21 Stanley K. & Ann T. Kempner P.O. Box 1718 • Southold, NY 11971 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of you ability? Stanley Kempner: I do. Sam Markel: How old is the construction? Kempner: The foundation, if anything, they assigned that to 300. Sam Markel: Anything sold in your neighborhood recently? Kempner: In the last year, three years. Both of those that I am referring to. Sam Markel: Both of them have been sold. Purchased in the past few years? Kempner: I don't know the exact dates; one was 1986, one was in 1987 or 1988. Sam Markel: That was a high market area? Kempner: At that time? No, well initially. The one to the south was of high market. Sam Markel: You are basing this on 2.9% on full value? 11 Kempner: I think the assessment should be brought down to $5200. I really don't understand this. Sam Markel: Your basis is you want it reduced to $5200 from the present $6700. So you are asking for $1400. Kempner: Reduction of assessment. Sam Markel: Of assessment, yes. 12) 1000-104-4-32 John P.A. Marcin and Christine D. Marcin 34 Harvard Street Garden City, NY 11530 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Christine Marcin: I do. Sam Markel: Without me going through the records, what were your results last year? Didn't you come before us last year? Christine Marcin: Yes, I did. And then I go another notice. • Sam Markel: They raised you back again. Marcin: Right, so I came back because the same situation exists because our situation has not changed. We are still in litigation, and the other side is dragging. We want to finish it and get out of this mess. I am not even talking about the assessment - just to finish it. The legal system has put stoppers all along the way, and that is what we are encountering right now. Sam Markel: Right. 13) 1000-35-2-11 King Floyd F. Jr. c/o Island's End Golf & Country Club Inc. P.O. Box 2066 Greenport, NY 11944 Complainants not present. Would like assessment reduced to $14,000 from due to unequal assessment; the assessed value is at a higher percentage of value than the assessed value of other real property on the assessment roll. 14) 1000-21-3-5 Maria Bulis Box 301 East Marion, NY 11939 12 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you • give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Maria Bulis: I do. I feel the assessment is excessive and is more that the value of my property. Sam Markel: On 3/19/91 they have you down for a deck addition at $3,000. I think we should judge your present application as it exists, and not worry about the technicalities. Bulis: Yes, yes. Sam Markel: If we knocked it down, they can come back and knock it up. 15) 1000-25-1-11 John and Clifford A. Dorman Village Lane, Box 165 Orient, NY 11957 William Weinheiimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? John Dorman: Yes. The deck on the card is a transformation from a • porch with the exactly same dimensions. In short, what we did is have the deck put in instead of a porch. In so doing, we requested a permit to do so. And this permit resulted in a sudden increase. Sam Markel: Did you have a roof over the previous deck? Dorman: No. Sam Markel: So there was no real change except that you made a new one from an old one. Dorman: That is correct. Exactly the same size. We even used the same fips, the same rail. I feel this is unequal assessment. We are the highest one by a considerable amount with one exception. Sam Markel: John, no matter what we decide on this today, do you have a depreciation exemption? Dorman: No. Sam Markel: The house is quite old. Dorman: Yes. Probably 125 years old. Sam Markel: I would suggest to you prior to next year, aside from • what we decide, you apply for a depreciation exemption because of age. Condition of the house should have no bearing. 13 Dorman: I asked the Assessor how you get an assessment of a house. The Assessors had been in the house, they said, updated it. Sam Markel: Did they go into every house on the street? No. Dorman: That is what bothers me. Not that I want them to go in every house. Next time I'll feel I have to advise my neighbors to not go in for a permit. 16) 1000-81-1-15.7 John W. and Patricia Burke 135 Split Rock Road Syosset, NY 11791 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Colin Burke: I do. My father suffered a heart attack last night, he is in Syosset hospital, and asked me to attend today. Sam Markel: Did you people receive a notice, sir? Colin Burke: Yes, here it is. We are scheduled to have the inspector come tomorrow to issue a C.O. . Sam Markel: So this is not really a final assessment, this is a partial. Burke: This application is in respect to the land value. Sam Markel: Oh, the land value. You have checked that you believe the assessed value is at at higher value than the other property assessments. We will check that. I just want to point out to you the Assessors have developed a schedule of charges. For instance, if you have an acre on the road it is $1600, farm $300, they have a schedule. Did you investigate to see if anyone else is lower - I guess you did you have Hallenback's card here. That's the basis you are grieving on. 17) 1000-54-6-5 Leslie Weisman Box 1280 Southold, NY 11971 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Leslie Weisman: Yes, I do. I bought the house in 1985, and it was built in 1950, about. It was a tiny little house. Last fall, I completed construction on a substantial addition. I am an architect - I don't practice much, I am teaching. Let me explain what I am requesting and why. The proposed assessment based on this new construction increases the assessment from 4200 to 7400. That is about a 44% 14 increase. To be exact it is a $1,437.00 increase. What I have done, I am requesting a reduction in the proposed assessment of $700, which would bring it down to $6,700. The reason I am requesting that amount is because at the end of the construction process last fall, I obviously financed my mortgage to pay the construction loan back, and had a very meticulous bank appraisal done at the time. Because of experience with defaulting loans, the appraisers are very, very careful. We applied actually for mortgage that allowed, but based on their careful appraisal, which you have a copy of, they gave us the bottom line, $230,000. Eighty percent was not enough for us, but we took the eighty percent of that amount. I have documents that we applied for a larger amount, and wound up with a $184,000 mortgage. This reflects their appraisal. Now at that appraised value, of $230,000, if you use the State's formula based on the ,Assessor's $7400 assessment, the market value of that house should be $255,000. The bank's appraisal is $230,000. That is a $25,000 discrepancy, which is the $700 difference I am requesting. There are a few other considerations, too. Really, that $700 reduction is going to yield about $825.00 per year in tax decreases, which a very modest amount, I realize. Based on current economy, even a modest amount buys the groceries. The numbers just don't seem to be adding up. I realize there is a formula the Assessors have to follow. I've followed those for footages. They are accurate. We differ somewhat according to building plans, but not enough to quibble over. The land value is also slightly more, but I am not going to bother with that. I found out by pulling a bunch of my neighbors cards here, there is someone on Soundview of my neighbors that is on a one acre lot who is paying $1400. Sam Markel: Well, don't you know that that is a very valid reason to grieve? Weisman: I'll tell you why - I would like your advice on this - I didn't feel quite as secure with these cards, because quite frankly, there are many ways to compute square footage. What I was looking for was comparably sized houses. Sam Markel: We are talking about land. How much land do you have? Weisman: Okay, I have less that a half acre. I have one neighbor who is paying $800 for the same size lot, but my neighbor on the opposite corner, who has the same size is paying the same as me, $1200. When I saw that I said I'm not sure on what basis - I can pass this along to you if you think this is further reason to inquire. Sam Markel: I am only mentioning that you should take advantage of any grievance that you have. Weisman: Well, I wasn't sure, honestly. Here there is a great discrepancy, but yet one of my neighbors is pay precisely what I am paying. Bill Weinheimer: And the same size. Weisman: The same size. I had Victorian Realty do a Market Analysis for me before the construction, because I wanted to figure out if they ended the whole process if I could finance it. I have that with me as 15 well. They gave me, based on comparable sales, a appraised value at the • time of about $175,000, and I should list it at $185,000. So if you took the $185,000, the high figure, added 44% increase, which is what this assessed value will do, that would give me a market value of $266,000. Which is even Higher than the State's value of 2.55, so these numbers are just not adding up. 18) 1000-14-2-3.26 Adele Dusenbury Box 863 Greenport, NY 11944 William Weinheirner: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Adele Dusenbury: Yes. I can only build on about half of my property, and since then. . . John Sullivan: Where is this property located? Adele Dusenbury: Grandview Estates, in Orient. The Suffolk County Department of Health would not give me a building permit until I went to the D.E.C. . I have had tremendous expenses; surveys and test wells. Anyway, I have been trying to sell it and cannot sell it. There are wetlands and I cannot disturb it. Since then, the taxes went up about 40%, and I can use about 40% less of the land, so I was just hoping that the taxes wouldn't go up. Sam Markel: There are no buildings on it whatsoever now? Dusenbury: No, all I've had is expenses. I am giving up building on it. It is worth. a whole lot less than what I paid for it. The assessment went up to $1400, and some of the other lots also had, but there is nothing wrong with them. Sam Markel: What do you mean there is nothing wrong with them; have they built on the others? Dusenbury: Some they have, the one right next to me they have, but it turned out that there was water on mine, which prevented me from building. Sam Markel: You mean wetlands? Dusenbury: Yes. I am right next door to a nature preserve. Sam Markel: I see that. So you claim that because of the wetlands, the land is not worth what it was assessed at. Dusenbury: Yes. 19) 1000-114-12-14.1 through 1000-114-12-14.7 Henry E. Appel, William Kluender, Francis Van Manen 16 Represented by Peter S. Danowski, Jr. , Esq. 616 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 William Weinhei.mer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Peter Danowski: I do. I think the paperwork spells it out; we have the approval of the Southold Town Planning Board, but a subdivision map has not been filed with the County Clerk. My understanding, from speaking to almost every other Town, is that Assessors will wait for the filed map to be recorded and notice of that given to the Assessors before you will treat the assessment as segregated lots. The problem with doing what apparently Southold does, in owners such as Henry Appel and his partners, may choose not to file the map. If they don't file the map, they do not have a filed subdivision map, there are no lot lines, and only one parcel of property. So, last year the Assessors correctly assessed it as one parcel; the map has not been filed on taxable status date, and therefore is still only one parcel taxed as one entity. We've got notices that are attached to my documents submitted here indicating that the Assessor has indicated a change of assessment from zero to $1600 per lot - and that's my argument - there is no lot. He has listed seven lots - there are seven potential lots, there are seven lots as approved by the planning board, but there is no filed subdivision. Next year at this time, there may be a filed subdivision map, and then this argument may be no good, and you may treat it this way. Tom Henry: You're asking why there was a change in policy in addition to the change in assessment? Danowski: I don't know there was a change in policy; I understand the policy in Southold to be that the lot lines will be considered drawn at the time of the Planning Board final resolution. That's my argument here; that should not be done. In fact, what should have been done is when the filed subdivision map recorded at the County Clerk is produced, than you should draw the lot lines. I mean, if we didn't have to go to the County Clerk, to satisfy their requirements to file the map, there would be a lot of developers who would be very happy. It is not the easiest thing to do. So, there are not yet lots there recognized by the County Clerk, certainly if I went to sell one of these lots, you wouldn't issue a building permit in the Town of Southold on the lot until I proved to you it was filed over at the County Clerk. I am aware that administratively, it may cause some difficulty to undo the so-called drawing of the lines, and I'm not really looking at this point to re-draw the lines. Just give me last years' assessment and one large parcel. By the time we may get through filing the map, and as long as the taxes are the same, I don't have to erase lot lines that are done through the Assessor's office. I am not looking a burden or an extra pain in the neck in the Assessor's office, I'm only looking to say right now it is only one parcel of property. • (Assessor Robert Scott is called into the meeting.) John Sullivan: This is Assessor Robert Scott, Bob, do you know Peter? 17 Bob Scott: Yes I do. iJohn Sullivan: Do you agree with this assessment? Bob Scott: It is the practice of the Assessor's office as soon as we see an approved subdivision from the Planning Board to make an apportionment and a review at that particular time. That is the common practice. Sam Markel: Common practice? Is it State Law? Bob Scott: Uniform application of assessment procedures by the office has to be uniform. If it is uniform for us to do it for one, then we have to do it for everyone. And that's what is uniform by State Law. Sam Markel: When was the last one you did? Bob Scott: The one previous to him, whoever that was. Sam Markel: Was it filed with the County when you did it? Bob Scott: When it is brought to us by the Planning Board approved, that's when it is changed. Sam Markel: But is that the legal procedure? Bob Scott: That is our legal procedure. . Sam Markel: (:an you establish a legal procedure? Bob Scott: We have established a legal procedure. . . Sam Markel: But can you establish a legal procedure? Are you in a position to establish a legal procedure? Bob Scott: Right now? Sam Markel: I mean, I become an Assessor, and a case comes before me, and I establish a procedure from there on in. The next guy that comes along I'm going to do the same thing. Is that a legal procedure? Bob Scott: It is a legal procedure as far as we're concerned at this particular point because we have done it for every other person in the past, and have done it for every approved subdivision from the Planning Board. That's the legal precedent. What you're asking us to do is change the legal precedent of the Town. Sam Markel: I am not asking you to change - I'm trying to ascertain if you have the right to enact a procedure that is almost a law. I would like to get our Town Attorney's opinion on this. Bob Scott: I would have liked to ask Jack, but he had to leave now - he • is our map man. Sam Markel: I am not interested in Jack. I would like the Town Attorney to give me an answer on this legal question. 18 Bob Scott: When we get the approved subdivision from the Planning Board, we number them and send them to the County and they come back is to us numbered at that point. Sam Markel: :But it has to be submitted to the County. How can it come back to you if it hasn't been submitted? John Sullivan: You submitted it? Bob Scott: We submitted it to the County, the change. There is an added value at that point because there is an approved subdivision by the Planning Board. Sam Markel: The County hasn't approved it. John Sullivan: And they may not. What he is saying is that they come back with a number. Peter Danowski: What Bob is saying is that Real Property Tax Department in the County will assign the tax map numbers if the Town of Southold writes to them and says give us the tax numbers for this proposed subdivision. But that doesn't create separate lots. It has to be recorded, stamped by the Health Department, submitted to the County Clerk. That is a separate issue from the idea that if a Southold Assessor said here's a Planning Board Resolution, would you identify the Tax Map Parcels for us. And the Tax Map itself is not evidence that in fact there is a filed subdivision map. I am not quarreling with the • honesty and integrity of the Assessor's office, I am only saying it is wrong to raise the taxes because you say there are separate lots - because they are not separate lots. And I don't want to create problems for every other subdivision of the Town either, I am just saying that this one isolated client - next year there might not be a problem, the map might be filed and then they may be taxed as separate lots. John Sullivan: Thank you very much Peter. You will be hearing from us at a later date. 20) 1000-99-5-10 Gladys M. Mills & Peter W. Sheehan 46-21 156th Street Flushing, NY 11355 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Peter Sheehan: I do. William Weinheimer: Did you expand the house? Peter Sheehan: We put on a new roof, fixed the deck and put on some siding. It was built in 1950 by my father who passed away, and my children wanted to fix it up back to what it looked like in pictures. It is basically used for storage. We used to live in it when we bought it in 1950. I realize the assessed valuation comparatively is low, but my 19 contention is that based on the location of the property, the tanks lower the value of the house, that the 40% increase in the assessed value was a lot to absorb at one time. I came to inquire as to why this particular property increased this much. I was more or less told that since the property overlooks the Long Island Sound, which it is near the Long Island Sound, but in front of me is actually asphalt tanks. Approximately five years ago, my mother tried to sell the property at that time for around $115,000. People actually came to her and told her that they were interested, but that the fact that the tanks were there, they rejected. And that is when I took over and took care of all the bills for my mother. She has since moved to Virginia, and I maintain the property as it is now. Sam Markel: Are the tanks still in existence? Sheehan: Yes„ The tanks were put up in 1957, we bought the property in 1950. In fact when they initially put up the tanks, Hurricane Carol came and knocked the tanks down. We got kind of excited - I was, a boy at the time. Sam Markel: Is that the house with the shutters? Sheehan: Yes„ They rebuilt the tanks, they are still there. They have been dormant for approximately 10 years. The gas tanks, last fall they finally got rid of. I told the Assessor, if they took the asphalt tanks down, my property would go up at least 25%, without a question. I just thought a 40% increase at one time is a lot to deal with. • 22) 1000-117-10-20.002 Thomas M. Martin & Wife P.O. Box 637 Jackson Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Thomas Martin: Yes I do. My name is Tom Martin, I am from Jackson Street, New Suffolk, I received a notice of change of assessment. It is stamped partial.. My wife and I have done a little bit of research. Please bear with me, I have never done this before. We went to the tax maps, our piece of property, we tried to compare it with four other similar pieces of property in New Suffolk. I have the tax maps, and I can give you them in addition to that. We pulled out four pieces of property, looked at their assessed valuation, tried to pick something with similar size. Our house is extremely old and extremely large, we are trying to preserve it. I wrote a little statement: The only change in this premises which has triggered this assessment, from $6400 up $2200 to $8600 with the construction of a deck. The approximate cost of the construction of the deck to date is $2500. The deck is not done. I • haven't had the money to put the railings up, and my building permit does run out in about another thirty days. The reassessment raises the assessed value of the property approximately 30% of the total value of the property, giving a full value to the deck of approximately $86,000. 20 Furthermore, this assessment has been stamped partial. There has been • no indication of what the full assessment of the construction of the deck is going to be. It is respectfully submitted that even this partial reassessment for the construction of the deck is inequitable because the change in assessment bears no relation to the cost of the construction of the deck or the addition of said deck to the market value of the house. I believe that a fair and equitable assessment would be $7,000 or an increase of $600. We have compare it, as I said before, to other houses, one of which recently had a deck placed on. It is my understanding that their assessed valuation was raised $100 with the addition of this deck. I picked out three other pieces of property similar to mine, with land and buildings and so on, and their assessed valuation is $5000, one that has no waterfront. A similar property, non-waterfront, three family residence has an assessment of $7400. And a similar building, my neighbor, in fact, waterfront property, land and buildings, and he has an assessed valuation of $6500. It just seems if the deck is. . .I think if I had of known that it was going to come to this, we never would of put a deck on. Sam Markel: Did you have a deck before this? Martin: No sir. Sam Markel: This is not a replacement, just an addition. Martin: That is correct. Sam Markel: What size? Martin: Twenty by sixteen. 23) 1000-14-2-3.29 Salvatore & Domenica Chiarelli 13 Plumtree Lane Huntington Station, NY 11746 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Salvatore Chiarelli: I do. I was $1000 assessment, now it is $1500. I don't know how they come up with value of the house. Another words, what I pay for the house, how much should the assessment be? Sam Markel: The value of the house went down, but the assessment went up. Salvatore Chiarelli: Yes. How can they raise the assessment when the value of property go down? They raise the assessment $400 every year. If I stay here another ten years, what will I be paying in taxes? You know what I mean? 24) 1001-3-4-32 John L. & Rita L. Mancini 21 103 Sterling Street Greenport, NY 11944 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of you ability? John Mancini: I do. I am a little unfamiliar with the procedure, we just bought the home here last May. Speaking to the Assessor, I understand there is a discount, a depreciation, because it was in disrepair. I don't know how that relates to the general assessment, or reassessment. The original assessment is $5600, and although I am opting for beneath the appraised value, it was just recently appraised, I don't know how the discount applies. I still have a number of problems in the neighborhood, in general, that caused the marketability or value of the property to be a little bit lower than I would like. There is a fishery next door, a vacant lot, there is a zoning dispute going on - commercial versus residential - that is up for grabs. I have an acre next door with a very run down house with a junkyard in the back, which I believe has an effect on the marketability. All that plus the appraisal that was done. I think I should go into the lower assessment. Sam Markel: Is that fishery operating now? Mancini: Yes, the fishery is operating. The vacant lot had a two year variance for not conforming. It expired in April, but the Village might renew it. A number of people in the neighborhood, including myself, would like to see it convert to residential. As far as marketability and • value of the property, it is very much effected by that. Sam Markel: Was any of that reassessed recently? Mancini: That is what I was told. Someone on the block just put an addition on the house, and claimed it was unequal assessment, which prompted them to reassess 41 houses. John Sullivan: It says here converted four family house to three family house. Mancini: Well., it was a five family house, it was a four family and a cottage. We down-graded the house and made it three family and a cottage. We got the assessment because I did some fixing up. I have the survey here, and garage went from border to border. The extensions of the garage, I had them knocked out. So I have a very small footprint now, and have restored the garage. By restored I mean I just had some! rotten wood replaced and some aluminum siding put on. As I said, I don't think I'm doing anything extensive, in fact I shrunk the house a bit. They said they were going to reassess the 41 houses, I don't know if they went up or down or what. Bill Weinheimer: Did you get a chance to check them, pull the property cards? Mancini: No Bill Weinheimer: That is your prerogative, to look at those cards. 22 Mancini: Right. • Sam Markel: Was yours done because of improvements? Mancini: Well, I asked that question, the answer was that that was what prompted. it. I bought the house last May, a year ago. That did not prompt it last year. 25) 1000-111-12-1 John Flynn & Wife 2250 Little Peconic Bay Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Applicant not present for hearing. They are claiming that the assessed value exceeds the full value of the property. The assessed value is $8900. They would like a reduction to $8585. 26) 1000-106-7-29 Peter & Helen Demetriou 500 Stanley Road Mattituck, NY 11952 Applicant not present for hearing. They are claiming the assessed value is at a higher percentage of value than the assessed value of other real property on the assessment roll. They say the value of the property is • $50,000, and the assessment should be reduced from 10,000 to 3,300. 27) 1000-40-5-•1.13 Terrance R. & Rhonda E. Nitsch 1375 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11944 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of you ability? Rhonda Nitsch: Yes. Sam Markel: You are claiming that the assessed value exceeds the full value of the property, and your assessed value of property is $165,000, and you think it should be reduced to $110,000. Is that correct? Nitsch: Right. Sam Markel: Did you arrive at this figure by a ratio of value, by sales in the area? Nitsch: A ratio of value on the house, by what I was assessed. • Sam Markel: The 2.55 equalization rate? Nitsch: I'm talking about the $110,000, the assessment was $3200, divided by 2.91i, all that. 23 Sam Markel: You mean 2.55? That is the method you used? Nitsch: Right:. If I understand what I was told, this is how you get to what the Town assessment is. I came by my figure by what I paid for the house. We paid $109,578. Sam Markel: If I recall correctly, wasn't there some discussion with the builder at the time that you were guaranteed a rate. . .? Nitsch: We were told we were guaranteed at rate; when I spoke to Don Grattan, we asked what were the taxes going to be before we bought the house. We didn't want to seem stupid before moving in there. He said he had spoken with Scott Harris, and at the time they hadn't built anything, it was a couple of years ago. . . Sam Markel: Scott Harris at the time was an Assessor. Nitsch: Right. And he was told by him that it would be $2160 for the base house. 'We had the farmhouse cape, a two-story. He said ours would be a little higher, we understood that. The only thing was to finish the upstairs, that would mean more. When we got it, it came in at about over $2600 per last year. We are paying $166 a month in taxes, which now we will be getting a bill saying we need five or six hundred dollars more to pay for your taxes. Where we are is the affordable housing project. I love my house,. and am very glad to get into it at the price that we did, but we also have a lot of restrictions on our house. For the next seven years, we cannot make a profit on our house other . than cost of living increase, we have scenic buffers where we cannot do anything with that part of the land. We have a covenance with all these restrictions for buying the house. We said we would abide by the restrictions, what we have, we put everything we have into the house, things are very tight. We expect that. Now we are told that our taxes will be about $2800, that is a big increase for us. The day session of the July 16, 1991 Board of Assessment Review was recessed for break at 4:25 P.M. The evening session of the July 16, 1991 Board of Assessment Review was called to order at 7:08 P.M. 28) 1000-40-5-1.31 MaryAnne and Ned W. Harroun 1090 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11941 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? MaryAnne and Ned Harroun: I do. 24 MaryAnne Harroun: We would like to contest a high assessment; it is coming in at much higher than what we had anticipated. We had just bought an affordable housing project in Cedarfields, and we were led to believe, and I know led to believe doesn't mean much, but we were led to believe that our taxes were to be much lower than they are being presented to us now. We have a few reasons as a result of just sitting and thinking it through some of the things that have been told to us and some that have been put down on the paper as to why we feel it is inequitable. According to the Town of Southold, when you buy into an affordable housing project, we have a margin of salary that you can make even to qualify - and that was $46,762 - so even to qualify to get into Cedarfields project, you have to be within a limitation on your salary. We did qualify for that. We were very fortunate that we had a price on the house that was probably lower than the normal standard for a new house being set up. We were fortunate in a sense that we could buy property that wasn't two acre zoned, but that was something that was worked out in terms of the affordable project. We know we bought with restrictions, we bought with the restriction that we could not sell our property for seven years, or we would loose all profit. We knew that we were buying in a sense that we would have a less valuable house because the density of the houses around us would be greater, that our projects all looked similar, and we have an affordable stigma, so to speak. We have a scenic buffer attached so that we cannot develop some of our land. We were more that willing to go into this young neighborhood with the idea that we would be able to afford something new, and we would be able to keep it. At this point, with the tax as it is being stated now, the assessed value has been based on an evaluation • that our house is worth $149,000. We purchased our house for $106,000. We are being taxed on $149,000. We cannot realize that for seven years, and yet we are being taxed on that. If you look at the RAR, it does come out that that is the amount we are being taxed on. Ned Harroun: What we are saying is if someone said Ned, I'll give you $149,000 for your house, I could not sell it. Bill Weinheimer: For seven years. Ned Harroun: That is correct. So, the way I am being taxed is totally unfair. If I am assessed at that, then I should damn well be able to sell it for that amount. I cannot for seven years. I just wish someone would have sat us down when we were going over paperwork and said this would be the taxes. . . Jim McMahon could have mentioned to us there was some fine print. No one said Ned, this is what the tax situation will be. The following complainants came before the Board as a group, living in the affordable homes in Cedarfields. They all agreed that their situations in relation to assessment were identical to that of Maryanne and Ned Harroun, above complainants #28: 26A) 1000-40-5-1.16 • John & Diane Hess 1155 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11944 25 Complainants want assessment reduced from $4630 to $2800. • 29) 1000-40-5-1.20 Brian P. and Bonnie E. Bracken 530 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11944 Complainants want assessment reduced from $5330 to $2600. 30) 1000-40-5-1.12 John D. Grilli and Jennifer A. Grilli 1455 Cedarfield Drive Greenport, NY 11944 Complainants want assessment reduced from $4230 to $3000. 33) 1000-40-5-1.6 Karen A. & Warren C. Bondarchuk 1815 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11944 Complainants want assessment reduced to full value of property, $95,100. 35) 1000-40-5-1.7 Gregory and Colleen Vankesteren 1785 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11944 Complainant states the purchase price of property to be $94,000. 38) 1000-40-5-1.029 Donna Marie Rini 1455 Washington Avenue Greenport, NY 11944 Complainant has enclosed a letter requesting a reduction. 39) 1000-40-5--1.026 Patrick and Robin Walden 980 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11944 Complainant believes the assessed value is at a higher percentage of value than the assessed value of other property on the assessment roll. They state that the value of the property is $95,500. 31) 1000-115-15-20 John Jerome and Janet Jerome 680 Donna Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? 26 John and Janet Jerome: Yes. Representative for the Jeromes: Yes. The property that we grieving, new house on Donna Drive in Mattituck. It is approximately 1,400 square feet, has an attached two car garage. I contacted the Assessor's office, and was informed that the way they calculate assessments is based on living area. On a one story ranch, which is what we have here, it would be a total of 1.400 times $3.00. With my calculations, I come up with an assessment of $4230. According to the Assessors, garages are assessed separately, at $1.25 per square foot, giving me a grand total assessment of $5,125. The Jeromes have received notice from the Town that their assessment is going to be $8500. It was stamped partial. They just received a C.0. for the property, so I am sure when the Town went there it was probably in the middle of construction. We checked also, assessments, :similar assessments of homes in the vicinity. I attached maps, descriptions of houses that we used as comparables. A lot of the housed that we used are larger homes, some two story, some with pools, decks, some waterfront, waterview, they are coming in at $5600 average. Like I said, their partial assessment was $8500. The only thing that I can find that comes anywhere near to that is a gigantic huge old mansion, right on Main Road. This is only a one story ranch, 1400 square feet in size. They just got a C.0. It is now completed. I don't know when the Town inspected the property to tell you at what stage it was under construction. Sam Markel: Well, if they got their C.O. , they will go out and make a final inspection for the final assessment. You will not get that until next year. Representative: Right, but the partial now is at $8500. Sam Markel: I am with you. I am just telling you what is going to happen. It is unequal as far as anything else, is that what you're saying? Representative: Correct. Like I said, some of these homes we used as comparables are even larger. Sam Markel: Right, but that's the basis you are going for. Representative: Yes. 32) 1000-145-4-14.1 Bertram W. & Margery M. Walker P.O. Box 1169 Mattituck, NY 11952 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Bertram & Margery Walker: Yes. Our whole community was reassessed this year, and we have come before you to say that we feel it has been done inequitably. Our assessment was increased by $2900, some 27 neighbors were decreased, two were given lower depreciations. We just felt we would like you to go over it with us. Sam Markel: :Did you request the reassessment of the area? Walker: No, we did not. A neighbor requested to have us be done. We found out about it quite by accident. We came down to inquire about last year's taxes, and they said to us that there was a notation that we had been requested by a neighbor. That did not really bother us, because we had be reassessed four times, as we renovated the house. In all fairness, we requested that they should do all ten houses in the community. Here is our notice. I went over the assessment sheets the best I could and made comparisons working with the numbers on all of the sheets. That is what I tried to portray to you here. I hope understandably. This is a picture taken in the early seventies. This house now looks likes this. When the assessors came, every house looks like this except this one. Sam Markel: ])o you want to keep the pictures? Can you leave them? Walker: No, I took them to show you how inconsistent. I didn't intend on leaving them; I thought we would discuss this. This was such a shock to us, that I said to Mr. Scott, I think you just put the for sale sign on the house. John Sullivan: As you know we do not make any decisions today, we will contact you by mail. Thank you. 36) 1000-109-3-2.4 John A. & Barbara Prestia P.O. Box 66 Cutchogue, NY 11935 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Barabara Prestia: Yes, I do. I feel that they assessed us at $400,000, and I feel if I sold the house today I probably would get $210,000. From what I see from sales today. My closest neighbor just sold almost double the house I have for $255,000, it just closed this month. It is on Country Club Estates. There is a buffer between Country Club Estates, and there is two houses, mine, and my neighbors. Even though the survey says Country Club Estates, we are not a part of it. What I bought was a nursery and the house next door was the landscaper. We are not really a part of it. But something that sold on the Country Club Estates, which I think is worth more than my house, just sold for $255,000. I am being assessed for $400,000, and my house is much smaller. Sam Markel: You are grieving on the grounds of unequal assessment. Prestia: Right. Sam Markel: And the R.A.R. , have you examined it? 28 Prestia: I work in a Real Estate office, and the girl did the • assessment and looked into it for me, and felt I really should come here tonight. Sam Markel: I agree. Do you think you should grieve on the R.A.R. as well as the unequal assessment? Prestia: Yes, I do. 37) 1000-22-3--8.2 Stephanie V. Seremetis and Martha Ann Campbell P.O. Box 641 East Marion, NY 11939 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Stephanie V. Seremetis: I do. I was kind of surprised that I got the assessment raised again this year. They show an increase in value of the land, which has decreased in value. Sam Markel: How much do you think you could sell your house for today? Seremetis: $250,000 maximum. Sam Markel: .And according to the taxes you pay? Seremetis: Well, if you use the 2.9, it calculates to $331,000. Which is totally off the wall. I went back over the materials from last year, and basically it is a very hard house to have comparables on. It is the old East Marion schoolhouse. I can't find another old schoolhouse. It is three big, rooms, and that is it. What happened last year, the purchase value in 1989 was $205,000, and that translated close to the assessment; about $210,000. At the time, the depreciation was set to be 50%, which means the house is about to fall down. I brought in my engineers report, saying it was in good shape. Sam Markel: You have done nothing as far as improvements? Seremetis: Right, I have done nothing to the footprint of the house. Sam Markel: For the rest of the Board's�:Xerification, we granted this lady a reduction last year, not only did they increase it, but above the amount we gave her last year. Seremetis: Yes, and again, no obvious comparisons, but if we take the purchase price, I certainly could not get that back without improvements in this market. I am 60% over the purchase price. • 40) 1000-109-3-2.32 John Kourosh Javaheri 43 Windsor Road 29 Greatneck, NY 11021 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Javaheri: I do. This is a house under construction. The prior assessment was $6,800. I got a partial increase. I have not make any additions, constructions, or add anything to the house what so ever. Sam Markel: You started building the house, got to a certain point and stopped? Javaheri: Yes. Sam Markel: And you got a partial assessment. Javaheri: I got an original partial assessment of $6,800. I have done no more work there. Sam Markel: Now you got another partial assessment. Javaheri: Right. The assumption is that it is more liveable now. Though I did not go an further the construction. Sam Markel: Do you have a C.0.? Javaheri: No. When I asked them how come, one of the Assessors agreed with me, but discussed it with the other two and said it is more liveable now. What I did only is to paint it on the outside so the cedar siding wouldn't rot away - I stained it. Also, there was a huge pile of topsoil in the front, which I spread around. I spackled and dry walled. That hardly makes it more liveable. Sam Markel: How long have you been in construction? Javaheri: As I stated the application, I started in August of 1988, and after a year, I ran into financial problems. Very slowly until the permit was expired. Then I had some complaints from the neighbors that they wanted me to spread around the topsoil in front of the house, and paint the house. So I renewed the permit and did those two things, and that was it. Sam Markel: At this stage of the game, what do you think your house is worth? Javaheri: $180,000. As I mentioned in the letter, there is no water in the house, there is no electricity in the house. No flooring or fixtures in the bathroom. There is no lighting or heat in the house. It is actually like a shell at this time. Sam Markel: Do you think you should be still at $6800 assessed valuation? Javaheri: Yes. 30 Sam Markel: You originally, to date have spent how much money on • the house? Javaheri: I paid $125,000 for the land and approximately $60,000 in construction to date. Sam Markel: A total of $185,000. What do you think you have to spend for completion? Javaheri: The estimated another $80,000 to $90,000. Just the heating system will be approximately $18,000. Sam Markel: So you say you are less that 50% completed at this stage of the game. Javaheri: Absolutely. The way it was calculated originally, at $6800, is at 40% completion. Sam Markel: I have a little note here that 8/91, you are completed 70% and are 30% away from completion. Javaheri: That is the addition. That extra thirty percent, where it came from I don't know. Sam Markel: You still have a permit in force. Javaheri: Yes, I have another year and one half to go on it. My main building is at $5.50 per square foot. My neighbor is at $5.50 and is a two story. I have another one here that is one and three quarter, and is at $5.00. I am a little confused at how it should be. I have two stories high, but one room, a cathedral ceiling. JULY 24, 1991 GRIEVANCE DAY CONTINUANCE The continuance of the Board of Assessment review began session at 9:15 A.M. ; present were: John Sullivan, Chairman Sam Markel, Co-Chairman William Weinheimer Thomas Henry Thomas Burdy 41) 1001-3-4-36.5 Paul J. Budline 165 Sterling Street Greenport, NY 11944 Complainant not present. Requests reduction in assessment from 5,900 to 4,500, based on current market value of his property. • 42) 1000-141-2-21.2 Northeastern Bible College 12 Oak Lane Essex Fells, NJ 07021 31 Complainant not present. Requests reduction from h18,100 to 0, based • on they are a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. They are currently not using the property. Representing Northeastern Bible College: Teschon and Kooreman, 327 Goodwin Avenue, Midland Park, N.J. 07432. 43) 1000-33-5-13.1 Paul Henry 236 North Road Box 2111 Greenport, NY 11944 William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Paul Henry: Yes, thank you. I wanted to thank you for this opportunity, and basically wanted to review my assessment in respect to the ratios I feed should be applied to it. I bought the house in 1985 for $325,000 which was the full market value of the home at the time. I believe in my application, I had a worksheet that expresses my position on what I feel the assessment should be based on the sales price and based on the R.A.R. ratio at the time. In addition, I believe if you apply the current R.A.R. ratio, which is 2.90, then you would equalize the value of my home to be well above its real value if you based it on the assessment that you have on my home today. It is true that my home is a very big home as far as square footage goes, but I believe it is an exception to the rule of thumb that you use to try to estimate value with your brick and mortar square footage formula. That is really all I have to say, it is kind of redundant from last year. I appreciate this opportunity today to present this to you. Sam Markel: Paul, you did go to small Claims? Paul Henry: Correct. Sam Markel: And you won the case in small claims? Paul Henry: I reduced my assessment 25%. It is my contention that the day I bought my house, the property was assessed 72% above what it should have been according to the ratios. Sam Markel: When you presented your case in small claims, were the same facts as you present today in force? Paul Henry: Yes sir, nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed, interestingly enough, is that today I come before you with a new assessment that is 25% lower than it originally was, and in my opinion, everything else stays the same in terms of the criterion for being overassessed, and the justification for reducing it at least 25%. Sam Markel: You were granted the 25% less assessment in small claims? Paul Henry: Correct. And today I come before you with the new assessment, which by every measurement that I can conceive of, is still 32 more than 25% higher than it should be. I'd like to also emphasize the • fact that I understand why my assessment is what it is because of the square footage formula you use to estimate values, which I assume is your intention, because that is what the law says you should do. Do to the fact that my home might be called a white elephant, where there is probably a very, very minimal correlation if none between the square footage of my home and its value. Of course, today's market values are down, but so are the ratios reflectively. So I think that I would urge this Board to consider the ratios much more in their decisions in these hearings. Interestingly enough, if you look at the ratios in the Town of Southold over the last five years, you will see a very good measurement of the appreciation or depreciation in the Real Estate market. I think this is evidence to show you today that the ratios are actually thoroughly accurate and valuable in determining what the percentage of value that is assessed in the Town of Southold. I am sure I am not telling you anything you don't know. I did present to you last year, and I will leave with you this year, a graph of assessment vs. values in the Town of Southold. As you can see, the points are scattered entirely over the graph, and indicates a lack of correlation between assessments and values. Which is why the Bureau of Equalization and Assessment has put such a high coefficient of dispersion on this Town. It is a serious problem that I truly needs to be addressed in the interest of the residents of the Town. Sam Markel: Would you like to submit that as evidence? Paul Henry: I would be happy to. • Sam Markel: You have not received a notice of increase on assessment, it is the same as after you went to small claims court, is that correct? Paul Henry: My current assessment reflects the 25% reduction that I received in small claims court, that is correct. I believe by every application of the law that I am still at least 25% higher than I should be, given its market value. In closing, on the graph I have submitted, there is a straight line which is indicative of the R.A.R. of 3.1 when I bought the home. There is a data point on top of the graph that reflects where my home sat compared to the rest of the Town of Southold for those years' sales. What I have done is underneath the data point, drawn a line where the 25% brought me. As you can see, clearly indicated in the graph, it is not even half way to the line where, according to the law, the assessment belongs. Basically, as far as I'm concerned, there is really two issues in deciding these kinds of situations. One is ratio, and the other is value. I think that the Board should be asking if I paid fair market value for the home at the time, and what the ratio was. Or they can be asking what is the value of my home on the market today, or what the ratio is today. But I will ask that the square footage of my home, especially in my case, totally be disallowed in any decision made here today. Sam Markel: State Law does not tell the Assessor what method he has to use. Henry: Correct. 33 Sam Markel: You as a griever have the right to apply any part of the State Law to your assessment. Henry: I would also like to add to that that the Assessor's office in the Town of Southold, I would venture to say, are trying to estimate value when they measure square footage. Sometimes it works better than others. I could show you graphs of every town in Suffolk County showing you some towns that have almost perfect assessments in terms of correlations between assessments and sales. Some towns have almost random numbers that you couldn't even find a statistical correlation between sales and assessments. I truly believe it is in everones interest that these assessment rolls to be cleaned up and equalized, not only for fairness of assessment practices, but also it applies to one of the big problems out here, two thirds of our tax bills goes to the school systems. One of the big shortfalls is the lack of state aid. One of the areas I am particularly interested in is the equalization ratio as it applies to state aid for our school systems. It is my belief, and I could easily demonstrate it, that one of the reasons we have such a low school aid from Albany and such a high equalization ratio, is because the lack of uniform assessing in this Town. We have some 30% of vacant farmlands that are very blatantly underassessed compared to the values of residential property. But we have the residential property applied to the school aid in terms of the ratios. This is a very big problem, and something I don't know if it is this Board's domain, to address, but it is certainly something this Board can effect by cleaning up these assessments in terms of uniformly proportional to value. • 44) 1000-139-3-7 David Reiter 2650 Wickham Avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 Represented by: Fred N. Perry, Esquire 4250 Veterans Highway Holbrook, NY 11741 Complainant requests reduction from 5,900 to 4,000, based on the R.A.R. ratio of 2.9%. 45) 1000-106-9-13 Stuart D. Wechsler 555 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Complainant requests reduction from 14,400 to 7,650, based on the assessed value is at a higher percentage of value than the assessed value of other real property on the assessment roll. 46) 1001-4-8-32 320 Front Street Realty Corp. c/o Tom Srdanovic P.P. Box 403 Whitestone, NY 11357 34 Complainant requests reduction from 6,200 to 4,600, based on the current • market value of the property. 47) 1001-4-3-19 Patricia M. Orfanos 529 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 Complainant requests reduction from 6,100 to 4,840, based on the assessment is a a high rate of 3.05%. 48) 1000-8-1-6.5 Peter Brinkerhoff Box 18 Fishers Island, NY 06390 Complainant requests a reduction from 30,400 to 26,200, based on the R.A.R. of 2.9%, and the State Equalization rate at 2.55%. 49) 1000-145-2-10 Alerio A. Cardinale, Sr. P.O. Box 627 Jamesport, NY 11947 • Complainant requests a reduction from 23,200 to 17,400, based on the current market value of the property. 50) 1000-107-8-2 Daniel C. Ross and Karen Ross 1450 Woodcliff Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 The complainant requests a reduction from 6,000 to 4,080, based on the assessed value is at a higher percent of value than the assessed value of other real property on the assessment roll. 51) 1000-51-3-11 Telesphore and Helen Wolanski 50575 North Road Southold, NY 11971 The complainant requests a reduction from 5,500 to-900,' based on the addition of a room has caused their taxes to increase by almost double. 52) 1000-74-1-40.1 Mary and Michael Adamowicz 275 Adams Blvd. Farmingdale, NY 11735 35 The complainant requests a reduction from 24,900 to 15,300, based on the State equalization rate of 2.55, and comparisons to other similar properties on the assessment roll. 53) 1001-3-5-7 Elaine C. Kelfer, Margaretha W. Kloos 155 Sterling Avenue Greenport, NY 11944 The complainants request a reduction from 5,300 to 3,825, based on the current market value of the property. 54) 1000-104-1-29 George T. Schneider P.O. Box 1185 Cutchogue, NY 11935 The complainants request a reduction from the full property value of $285,000 to the current full value of $195,000. 55) 1000-117-5-34 Annetta G. Nordlinger 570 Orchard Street New Suffolk, NY 11956 The complainants request a reduction from 6,000 to 4,500, based on comparisons with similar properties in the area on the assessment roll. 56) 1000-43-4-37 Mr. & Mrs.Dominick Sblendido Angela Auricchio 6 Clark Street Huntington, NY 11743 The complainants request a reduction from 5,600 to 4,100, based on the State equalization rate of 2.55%. 57) 1000-104-4-14 Elizabeth Schmackpeper 1360 Sterling Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 The complainant requests a reduction from 10,300 to 6,000, based on the State equalization rate of 2.55%. 58) 1000-13503-51 • Theodore & Judy Dumas 1100 Mill Creek Drive Southold, NY 11971 36 The complainants request a reduction from the full assessed value of • property at $227,451 to the current full value of $174,510. 59) 1000-4-4-5 Fred Pollard Fishers Island, NY 06390 The complainant requests a reduction; however, the complaint is incomplete. 60) 1000-69-5-5 Clifford Cornell & Ruth Cornell 325 Willow Point Road Southold, NY 11971 The complainants request a reduction from 9,500 to 3,570, based on the R.A.R. and 2.9% and the State equalization rate at 2.55%. 61) 1000-110-8-14 Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. Recovery Operations P.O. Box 790015 St. Louis, MI 63179-0015 • The complainants request a postponement of taxes. 62) 1000-18-6-20 Stella Sledjeski Main Road Orient, NY 11957 Represented by: John P. Charles, Esq. 131 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 The complainant requests a reduction from 8,200 to 5,355, based on the R.A.R. of 2.9% and the State equalization rate of 2.55%. 63) 1000-115-16-21 Ann G. Charles 3835 Deephole Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 Represented by: John P. Charles, Esq. 131 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 • The complainant requests a reduction from 5,400 to 3,310, based on the R.A.R. of 2.9% and the State equalization rate of 2.55%. 37 64) 1000-109-5-14.24 James and Brook Dubovick P.O. Box 916 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Represented by: John P. Charles, Esq. 131 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 The complainants request a reduction from 10,600 to 7,650, based on the R.A.R. of 2.9% and the State equalization rate of 2.55%. 65) 1000-40-5-1.11 Patrick & Elizabeth Hanly RR1, 1525 Cedarfields Drive Greenport, NY 11944 The complainants request a reduction from 4,530 to 2,422, based on the R.A.R. at 2.9% and the State equalization rate of 2.55%. 66) 1000-87-1-23.7 Charles W. Blake 395 Old Wood Path Southold, NY 11971 Represented by: John P. Charles, Esq. 131 West Main Street Riverhead, NY 11901 The complainant requests a reduction from 12,000 to 6,885, based on the R.A.R. at 2.9% and the State equalization rate of 2.55%. 67) 1000-110-1-12 Cutchogue Harbor Marina, Inc. Represented by: Forman, Arweiler & Schaefer, Esqs. 290 Old Country Road Mineola, NY 11501 The complainants request a reduction from 31,100 to 17,850, based on unequal assessment and the State equalization rate of 2.55%. The Board of Assessment Review meeting was adjourned at 1:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, aa J 38 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW • 1990-1991 TAX WARRANT CERTIORARI COMPLAINTS 1) 1000-31-1-5.004 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 2) 1000-31-1-5.005 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associtates CERTIORARI 3) 1000-31-1-5.006 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 4) 1000-31-1-5.007 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 5) 1000-31-1-5.008 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 6) 1000-49-1-25.6 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERTIORARI 7) 1000-084-2-4.001 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Marlake Associates CERTIORARI 8) 1000-073-3-1.001 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Marlake Associates CERTIORARI 9) 1001-3-5-16.002 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Tidal Properties, Inc. CERTIORARI 10) 1000-97-5-12 • Arthur J. Kremer, Esq. Complaint on Real Assessment for King Kullen Grocery, Inc. CERTIORARI 11) 1000-21-6-4 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 12) 1000-21-6-5 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 13) 1000-21-6-6 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 14) 1000-21-6-7 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 15) 1000-141-3-30 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 16) 1000-21-6-8 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 17) 1000-30-3-1 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 18) 1000-30-3-2 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 19) 1000-30-3-4 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 20) 1000-30-3-6 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 21) 1000-30-3-7 • Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 40 • 22) 1000-30-3-8 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 23) 1000-30-3-9 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 24) 1000-30-3-10 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 25) 1000-30-3-11 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 26) 1000-30-3-12 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 27) 1000-141-4-2 • Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 28) 1000-60-2-10.4 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Southold Savings Bank CERTIORARI 29) 1000-141-4-6.1 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 30) 1000-141-4-3 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 31) 1001-4-10-10.001 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 32) 1000-64-1-17 • Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 41 • 33) 1000-61-2-12.2 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Southold Savings Bank CERTIORARI 34) 1000-40-1-20.001 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Anthony Pirrera CERTIORARI 35) 1000-40-1-20.002 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Anthony Pirrera CERTIORARI 36) 1000-49-1-25.005 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERTIORARI 37) 1000-49-1-25.004 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERTIORARI • 38) 1000-49-1-25.003 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERITORARI 39) 1000-49-1-25.002 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERITORARI 40) 1000-44-3-4.003 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Southold Ventures, Inc. CERTIORARI 41) 1000-44-3-4.002 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Dorothy Snyder CERTIORARI 42) 1000-141-4-24 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman • Complaint on Real Assessment for Norhfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 42 • 43) 1000-102-6-13.1 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank & Trust Co. CERTIORARI 44) 1000-60-2-3.1 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Cutcher Corp. CERTIORARI 45) 1000-122-6-22 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank Co. CERTIORARI 46) 1000-122-6-20 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Northfork Bank Co. CERTIORARI 47) 1001-4-9-23.4 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Snargate Development Co. of Greenport, Ltd. CERTIORARI . 48) 1001-3-4-47 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Tidal Properties, Inc. CERTIORARI 49) 1001-3-4-31 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Tidal Properties, Inc. CERTIORARI 50) 1000-34-2-1 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Jordon's Partners & Ano. CERTIORARI 51) 1000-21-6-1 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 52) 1000-15-3-17 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Anthony Pirrera CERTIORARI • 54) 1000-21-6-2 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 43 • 55) 1000-21-6-3 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 56) 1000-30-3-5 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 57) 1000-49-1-25.006 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERTIORARI 58) 1000-83-2-1 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A The Beachcomber Motel CERTIORARI 59) 1000-51-3-3.011 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Tamrah Management CERTIORARI 60) 1000-59-9-30.005 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Nicholas Aliano CERTIORARI 61) 1000-83-1-13 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises, Inc. The Beachcomber Motel CERTIORARI 62) 1000-83-1-14 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A The Beachcomber Motel CERTIORARI 63) 1000-83-1-15 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A The Beachcomber Motel CERTIORARI 64) 1000-83-2-2 • Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A The Beachcomber Motel CERTIORARI 44 • 65) 1000-87-6-12.001 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Airam Enterprises CERTIORARI 66) 1000-102-5-26 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 808 Realty Corp. CERTIORARI 67) 1000-115-6-3 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Frederick & Dolores Boeje CERTIORARI 68) 1000-122-3-10 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Hodor-Staller & Kasper Bldg. #170 CERTIORARI 69) 1000-46-1-2.001 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Nicholas Aliano CERTIORARI 70) 1000-102-3-1 • Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Nicholas Aliano CERTIORARI 71) 1000-74-4-4 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Nicholas Aliano CERTIORARI 72) 1000-38-1-12 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A/ The Beachcomber Motel CERTIORARI 73) 1001-7-1-16.002 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERTIORARI 74) 1001-7-1-16.003 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers • CERTIORARI 45 • 75) 1001-7-1-16.005 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERTIORARI 76) 1000-142-01-26 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Alan A. Cardinale CERTIORARI 77) 1000-142-1-26 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. CERTIORARI 78) 1000-31-18-10 Meyer , Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Daniel Mooney and Maureen Mooney CERTIORARI 79) 1000-99-4-1 Margiotta & Ricigliano Complaint on Real Assessment for Vantage Petroleum Corp. CERTIORARI • 80) 1001-5-4-31.1 Podell, Rothman, Schechter & Banfield Complaint on Real Assessment for Emanuel Kontakosta CERTIORARI 81) 1001-5-4-7.2 Podell, Rothman, Schechter & Banfield Complaint on Real Assessment for Emanuel Kontakosta CERTIORARI 82) 1001-5-4-7.3 Podell, Rothman, Schechter & Banfield Complaint on Real Assessment for ARC Enterprises CERTIORARI 83) 1001-5-4-7.4 Podell, Rothman, Schechter, & Banfield Complaint on Real Assessment for Emanuel Kontakosta CERTIORARI 84) 1000-122-2-4 Besunder & Burner, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for Eugene K. Jordan CERTIORARI • 85) 1001-4-10-5 Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentan, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for The Bank of New York CERTIORARI 46 • 86) 1001-7.1-1-15 through 1001-7.1-1-34 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Board of Managers of Oyster Point Condominium CERTIORARI 87) 1000-102-5-24 Wimpfheimer & Sherman, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for The Southland Corp. 16440 Colgate Design Corp. CERTIORARI 88) 1001-5-1-17.1 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Tullio Bertoli & Anthony Demasco D/B/A Landworks CERTIORARI 89) 1001-3-5-28.1 Meyer, Suozzi, English, & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Tullio Bertoli & Anthony Demasco D/B/A/ Landworks CERTIORARI 90) 1000-55-5-2.4 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp. CERTIORARI 91) 1000-61-1-13.1 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp. CERTIORARI 92) 1000-61-4-22 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp. CERTIORARI 93) 1000-63-1-10 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp. CERTIORARI 94) 1000-84-1-26.3 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp. CERTIORARI 95) 1000-122-3-4 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. • Complaint on Real Assessment for Maureen M. Mooney CERTIORARI 47 • 96) 1000-10606-13.3 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Mattituck Holding Company CERTIORARI 97) 1000-122-3-5 Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Maureen M. Mooney CERTIORARI 98) 1000-4-9-28.2 Podell, Rothman, Schechter & Banfield Complaint on Real Assessment for Gusmar Realty Corp. CERTIORARI 99) 1000-100-3-2.2 D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Carlino, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for Crysellen Bouziotis CERTIORARI 100) 1000-100-3-2.3 D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo, & Carlino, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for Crysellen Bouziotis CERTIORARI 101) 1000-122-6-31 Murphy and Bartol, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for Parviz Farahzad CERTIORARI 103) 1000-22-5-7 J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for George Kougentakis CERTIORARI 104) 1000-100-1-22 Wickham, Wickham, & Bressler, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Charles & Regina Mazzarese CERTIORARI 105) 1000-110-7-18.002 Wickham, Wickham, & Bressler, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Nicholas Neubauer CERTIORARI 106) 1000-30-3-13 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates CERTIORARI 107) 1000-87.1-1-2A • Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnoski & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 48 • 108) 1000-87.1-1-9A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for European American Bank CERTIORARI 109) 1000-87.1-1-10A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 110) 1000-87.1-1-11a Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 111) 1000-87.1-1-12A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 112) 1000-87.1-1-13A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 113) 1000-87.1-1-14A • Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 114) 1000-87.1-1-15A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 115) 1000-87.1-1-16A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 116) 1000-87.1-1-17A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 117) 1000-87.1-1-18A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 118) 1000-87.1-1-19A • Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 49 119) 1000-87.1-1-20A Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 120) 1000-87.1-1-25B Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 121) 1000-87.1-1-27B Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 122) 1000-87.1-1-28B Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 123) 1000-87.1-1-29B Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 124) 1000-87.1-1-30B • Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 125) 1000-87.1-1-31B Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 126) 1000-87.1-1-32B Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Euopean American Bank CERTIORARI 127) 1001-7-1-16.004 Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Pipes Cove Condominium Board of Managers CERTIORARI 128) 1000-87.01-1-1 through 1000-87.01-1-33 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Board of Managers of The Cove at Southold CERTIORARI • 50 • 129) 1001-4-7-16 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Paul & Patricia Kulsziski CERTIORARI 130) 1000-73-2-3.006 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for R.L.M. Realty of New York, Inc. CERTIORARI 131) 1000-97-5-12 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for NLS Company CERTIORARI 132) 1000-105-2-1 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Thomas T. Shannon CERTIORARI 133) 1000-97-5-4.7 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for WMS Realty, Inc. CERTIORARI 134) 1000-61-3-7 David G. Koch, Esq. Complaint on Real Assessment for Norstar Bank CERTIORARI 135) 1000-40-3-10.3 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Nicholas Petikas CERTIORARI 136) 1001-4-7-12 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Mandel Family Corp. CERTIORARI 137) 1000-127-9-2 Mars, Sloane & Conlon, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for Golden View Estates Inc. CERTIORARI 138) 1000-127-9-1 Mars, Sloane & Conlon, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for Golden View Estates Inc. CERTIORARI 139) 1000-127-9-30 • Mars, Sloane & Conlon, Esqs. Complaint on Real Assessment for Francis L. Bosco CERTIORARI 51 • 140) 1001-4-9-28.2 Koeppel Martone & Leistman Complaint on Real Assessment for Gusmar Realty Corp. CERTIORARI 141) 1001-4-9-7 Koeppel Martone & Leistman Complaint on Real Assessment for 235 Mill Street, Inc. CERTIORARI 142) 1000-101-1-4.1 Koeppel Martone & Leistman Complaint on Real Assessment for L & R Vineyards Associates CERTIORARI 143) 1000-101-1-5.2 Koeppel Martone & Leistman Complaint on Real Assessment for L & R Vineyards Associates CERTIORARI 144) 1000-51-3-3.1 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Elizabeth & Mary Georges CERTIORARI 145) 1000-97-5-11 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for New York Telephone CERTIORARI 146) 1000-45-4-8.1 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for New York Telephone CERTIORARI 147) 1000-51-3-3.2 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Loius S. Janet M. Milo CERTIORARI 148) 1000-51-3-3.3 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 149) 1000-51-3-3.4 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 150) 1000-51-3-3.5 • Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for James J. Read, Jr. CERTIORARI 52 • 151) 1000-51-3-3.6 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Scott Augustine CERTIORARI 152) 1000-51-3-3.7 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 153) 1000-51-3-3.8 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 154) 1000-51-3-3.9 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 155) 1000-51-3-3.1 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Louise Friscia CERTIORARI 156) 1000-51-3-3.11 • Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Matt Schilowitz CERTIORARI 157) 1000-51-3-3.12 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 158) 1000-51-3-3.13 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 159) 1000-51-3-3.14 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 160) 1000-51-3-3.15 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 161) 1000-51-3-3.16 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 53 162) 1000-51-3-3.17 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 163) 1000-51-3-3.18 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Peter & Linda VanNater CERTIORARI 164) 1000-51-3-3.19 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Chardonnay Woods Homeowners Association Inc. CERTIORARI 165) 1000-51-3-3.2 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Chardonnay Woods Homeowners Assocaition Inc. CERTIORARI 166) 1000-51-3-3.21 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Neil Rego CERTIORARI 167) 1000-666-2-4, 1000-666-2-6, 1000-666-5-9, 1000-666-5-7, 1000-666-5-11, 1000-666-9-16, 1000-666-9-17, 1000-666-9-11, 1000-666-9-12, 1000-666-9-9, 1000-666-10-4, 1000-666-11-4, 1000-666-11-2, 1000-666-15-3 Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for New York Telephone Outside Plant Equipment CERTIORARI 168) 1001-5-4-25 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for William F. Claudio, Inc. CERTIORARI 169) 1000-122-3-1.004 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for Alan A. Cardinale CERTIORARI 170) 1001-5-4-38.001 Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman Complaint on Real Assessment for William F. Claudio, Inc. CERTIORARI 171) 1000-142-1-26 Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. Complaint on Real Assessment for Suffolk Theatres Circuit Associates CERTIORARI 54 x 55 DECISION DAY July 31, 1991 • The Board of Assessment Review Decision Meeting was called to order 9:10 a.m. , present were: John Sullivan, Chairman Sam Markel, Co-Chairman William Weinheimer Thomas Henry Thomas Burdy 1) Elizabeth R. Schloss 1000-87.1-1-8 Wants Assessment reduced from $7400 to full value of $150,000, based on 2.9% R.A.R. and comparable (Becker) . GRANTED to $4400, Unanimous 2) George and Norma Decker 1000-87.1-1-24 Wants Assessment reduced from $7900 to market value of $150,000, based on 2.9% R.A.R and comparable. GRANTED to $4400, Unanimous 3) David & Anne Burnham 1000-9-10-22.1 Wants Assessment reduced from $7400 to $6200, based on 2.9% R.A.R. , and full market value of $216,000. • GRANTED to $6200, Unanimous 4) Fred & Georgia Lambrou 1001-4-7-11 Wants Assessment reduced from $10,000 to $8,100 based on comparables and profit and loss statement submitted. GRANTED to $8100, Unanimous 5) Edwin H. Horning & Wife 1000-9-10-22.2 Wants Assessment reduced from $7400 to $6,200, based on full market value and R.A.R. at 2.9% GRANTED to $6200, Unanimous 6) Gail A. Kar 1000-128-4-4 Wants Assessment reduced from $5,700 to $4,300 based on comparable properties. GRANT to $5,000, Unanimous 7) Edward and Laura Deptola 1000-78-9-45 • Wants Assessment reduced from $6,900 to $5,500, based on full market value of $175,000. GRANT to $5,500, Burdy: $5500, Henry: $6200, Weinheimer: $5500, Markel: $5500. 8) Michael Ficurilli 1001-4-8-15 Wants Assessment reduced from $3,200 to $2,400 based on unequal assessment, and he claimed the house is smaller than Assessors determined it was. An issue about the deck and its cover was resolved by further inspection. The Assessor's Office reviewed the property, and described the two level decks to the Board. In summary, it appears the lower deck is covered and the upper deck is larger than the previous landing that was there. GRANTED to $3,100, Unanimous 8) Alan Brodsky and Mary Foster 1001-3-4-29 Wants Assessment reduced from $5,400 to $3,800, based on R.A.R. of 2.9%. GRANTED to $3800, Unanimous 10) Judy & Charles Kozora 1000-40-3-10.3 Wants Assessment reduced from $9,200 to $4,900, based on R.A.R. of 2.9%. GRANTED to $7,200, Unanimous 11) Stanley & Ann Kempner • 1000-135-2-21 Wants Assessment reduced from $6,700 to $5,200, based on R.A.R of 2.9%. GRANT to $6,200, Henry: $5,200, Rest of Board: $6,200 12) John and Christine Marcin 1000-104-4-32 Wants Assessment reduced from $6,200 to $1,900, based on litigation and no C.O. on property; reduced last year to $3,000. GRANTED to $3,000, Unanimous 13) Islands End Golf & Country Club Inc. 1000-35-2-11 Wants Assessment reduced from $23,500 to $14,000, based on comparable (North Fork County Club) . Sam Markel made a disclosure statement that he is on the Board of Directors for the Islands End Golf & Country Club. John Sullivan made a disclosure statement that he is a Stock Holder of the Islands End Golf & Country Club. GRANTED to $15,100, Henry and Weinheimer: $15,100, Burdy: $14,000, Markel: witheld vote. 14) Maria Bulis 1000-21-3-5 • Wants Assessment reduced from $6,300 to $5,600, based on prior assessment and full value of the property. Bob Scott was called in to explain air 57 conditioning charge of $200. He explained it is a fairly new policy (last 7 years), and everyone that has been discovered has been assessed for it. • GRANT to $5,600, Unanimous 15) John and Clifford A. Dorman 1000-25-1-11 Wants Assessment reduced from $5600 to $4200, based on the deck is 100% replacement of a prior deck. Bob Scott explained he is replacing the deck, however, the previous assessment did not reflect the true market value. Complainant states the $4200 reduction would reflect the true market value. GRANT to $4,200, Unanimous 16) John W. and Patricia Burke 1000-81-1-15.7 Wants land assessment reduced from $3300 to $1600, based on a submitted comparable property. The comparable is at $2100. GRANT to $2,100 on Land, Unanimous 17) Leslie Weisman & Ors. 1000-54-6-5 Wants assessment reduced from $7400 to $6500, based on comparables. (Land reduced by $200, House reduced by $700) GRANT to $6500, Unanimous 18) Adele Dusenbury • 1000-14-2-3.26 Wants assessment reduced from $1400 to $1000, based on claim that she has restrictions from building on the property due to wetlands. The Building Department was contacted, and Victor Lessard stated that she has the property permission to build. DENIED, Unanimous 19) Henry E. Appel, William Kluender, Francis VanManen 1000-114-12-14 Wants assessment reduced to $4800 based on the incompletion of a subdivision. Bob Scott stated the subdivision has been filed with the County. DENIED, Unanimous 20) Gladys Mills, Peter Sheehan 1000-99-5-10 Wants assessment reduced to $2040 from $2800, based on he repaired the building and was raised 40% as if he added or improved the market value. GRANTED to $2,040, Unanimous 22) Thomas W. Martin & Wife 1000-117-10-20.002 • Wants assessment reduced to $7,012 from $8,600, based on Equalization rate of 2.55%, and comparables. 58 GRANTED to $7500, Unanimous • 23) Salvatore & Domenica Chiarelli 1000-14-2-3.29 Wants assessment reduced to $1,000 from $1,500, based on unequal assessment. DENIED, Unanimous 24) John & Rita Mancini 1001-3-3-32 Wants assessment reduced from $8900 to $7267, based on 2.55% Equalization rate and full market value. DENIED, Unanimous 25) John Flynn & Wife 1000-111-12-1 Wants assessment reduced from $8900 to $8585, based on 2.9% R.A.R. GRANTED to $8600, Unanimous 26) Pete & Helen Demetriou 1000-106-7-29 Wants assessment reduced from $10,000 to $3,300, based on he claims the property is worth $50,000. DENIED, Unanimous • The following complaints are all occupants of Cedarfields Affordable Housing, and complaints are based on full market value, the actual purchase price of the property. Owners cannot sell for profit for seven years. Town Attorney Matt Kiernan was called for an opinion, and Bob Scott stated that the properties were assessed at current market value, not the purchase price. GRANTED to a reduction of 20%, Unanimous 26A) John & Diana Hess 1000-40-5-1.16 Grant from $4630 to $3700 27) Terrence and Rhonda Nitsch 1000-40-5-1.13 Grant from $4830 to $3900 28) MaryAnne and Ned Harroun 1000-40-5-1.31 Grant from $4330 to $3500 29) Brian & Bonnie Bracken 1000-40-5-1.20 Grant from $5330 to $4300 • 30) John & Jennifer Grilli 1000-40-5-1.12 Grant from $4230 to $3400 59 33) Karen and Warren B ondarchuk 1000-40-5-1.16 • Grant from $4730 to $3800 35) Gregory Colleen VanKesteren 1000-40-5-1.7 Grant from $4730 to $3800 38) Donna Marie Rini 1000-40-5-1.029 Grant from $4330 to $3500 39) Patrick & Robin Walden 1000-40-5-1.026 Grant from $4830 to $3900 31) John Jerome and Janet M. Jerome 1000-115-15-20 Wants assessment reduced from $8500 to $5600, based on submitted comparables. Square footage was compared with two comparables with property cards, only garage was found to be over assessed. GRANT to $8300, Henry: $5600, Markel: $8300, Weinheimer: $8300, Burdy: $8300 32) Bertram and Margery Walker 1000-145-4-14.1 • Wants assessment reduced from $10,600 to $7800, based on comparable property and unequal assessment. GRANT to $96001 Henry: $9600, Markel: $9600, Weinheimer: $9600, Burdy: Deny 36) John & Barbara Prestia 1000-109-3-2.4 Wants assessment reduced from $10,300 to $5150, based on unequal assessment and 2.9% R.A.R. . GRANT to $7600, Unanimous 37) Stepanie Seremetis and Martha Ann Campbell 1000-22-3-8.2 Wants assessment reduced from $9600 to $6120, based on R.A.R of 2.9%. GRANT to $8,800, Unanimous 40) Kourosh Javaheri 1000-109-3-2.32 Wants assessment reduced from $10,400 to $6,800 based on current market value, an and uncompletion of construction. GRANT to $8,000, Unanimous • 41) Paul Budline 1001-3-4-36.5 60 Wants reduction from $5900 to $4500, based on current market value of the property. • GRANT to $5600, Unanimous 42) Northeastern Bible College Application returned to Assessor's Office, they do not have an assessment complaint, they request to be tax exempt. 43) Paul Henry 1000-33-5-13.1 Wants assessment reduced from $13,200 to $9,900, based on R.A.R. of 2.90. DENIED, Unanimous 44) Daniel Reiter 1000-139-3-7 Wants assessment reduced from $5900 to $4000, based on R.A.R of 2.9%. GRANT to $5600, Unanimous 45) Stuart Wechsler 1000-106-9-13 Wants assessment reduced from $14,400 to $7650, based on unequal assessment. GRANT to $10,350, Unanimous 46) 320 Front Street Realty Corp. 1001-4-8-32 Wants assessment reduced from $6200 to $4600, based on submitted financial material and unequal assessment. DENIED, Unanimous 47) Patricia Orfanos 1001-4-3-19 Wants assessment reduced from $6,100 to $4,840 based on R.A.R of 2.9%. GRANTED to $4840, Unanimous 48) Peter Brinkerhoff 1000-8-1-6.5 Wants assessment reduced from $30,400 to $26,200, based on R.A.R. of 2.9%. DENIED, Unanimous 49) Alerio A. Cardinale, Sr. 1000-145-2-10 Wants assessment reduced from $23,200 to $17,400, based on R.A.R. of 2.9%. DENIED, Unanimous 50) Daniel and Karen Ross • 1000-107-8-2 61 Wants assessment reduced from $6,000 to $4,080, based on 2.55% equalization rate. • DENIED, Unanimous 51) Thelesphore & Helen Wolanski 1000-51-3-11 Wants assessment reduced from $5500 to $4600, based on unequal assessment. GRANTED to $4600, Unanimous 52) Mary and Michael Adamowicz 1000-74-1-40.1 Wants assessment reduced from $24,900 to $15,300, based on 2.55% equalization rate. DENIED, Unanimous 53) Elaine Kelfer and Margaretha Kloos 10001-3-5-7 Wants assessment reduced from $5300 to $3825, based on unequal assessment. GRANTED to $4850, Unanimous 54) George T. Schneider 1000-104-1-29 Wants assessment reduced from $8200 to full market value of $195,000. DENIED, Unanimous • 55) Annetta Nordlinger 1000-117-5-34 Wants assessment reduced from $6000 to $4500, based upon the $3900 prior and the improvements to the property since prior assessment. GRANT to $4500, Unanimous 56) Mr. & Mrs. Dominick Sblendido 1000-43-4-37 Wants assessment reduced from $5600 to $4100, based on evidence showing the building is still incomplete. GRANT to $4100, Unanimous 57) Elizabeth Schmackpeper 1000-104-4-14 Wants assessment reduced from $10,300 to $6000, based on equalization rate of 2.55%. DENIED, Unanimous 58) Theodore and Judy Dumas 1000-135-3-51 Wants assessment reduced from $5800 to full value of $174,510, no basis of complaint. DENIED, Unanimous 62 59) Fred Pollard 1000-4-4-5 Complainant did not state what relief he wanted. DENIED, Unanimous 60) Clifford & Ruth Cornell 1000-69-5-5 Wants assessment reduced from $9500 to $3570, based on R.A.R. of 2.9%. DENIED, Unanamous 61) Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. 1000-110-8-14 Complainant did not state what relief they wanted. DENIED, Unanimous 62) Stella Sledjeski 1000-18-6-20 Wants assessment reduced from $8200 to $5355, based on 2.55% equalization rate. DENIED, Unanimous 63) Ann G. Charles 1000-115-16-21 • Wants assessment reduced from $5400 to $3310, based on 2.55 equalization rate. DENIED, Unanimous 64) James and Brook Dubovick 1000-109-5-14.24 Wants assessment reduced from $10,600 to $7650, based on 2.55% equalization rate. DENIED, Unanimous 65) Patrick & Elizabeth Hanly 1000-40-5-1.11 Wants assessment reduced from $4530 to $2422, based on original purchase value. This is a Cedarfields Affordable home. GRANT to $3630, Unanimous 66) Charles Blake 1000-87-1-23.7 Wants assessment reduced from $12,100 to $6865, based on 2.55% equalization rate. DENIED, Unanimous 67) Cutchogue Harbor Marina 1000-110=1-12 63 Wants assessment reduced from $31,100 to $17,850, based on financial documents submitted. • GRANT to $25,500, Unanimous 68) Joseph and Joan Basile 1000-33-2-8 Wants assessment reduced from $9700 to full value of $280,000, based on market value. GRANT to $8100 Decision Day adjourned on August 13, 1991 at 12:10 p.m. • • 64 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW • CORRECTION OF ERRORS 1990-91 TAX WARRANT NAME FROM TO 1. Diane Carroll & Donald Bracken 4,730 4530 2. Bryan Van Huele & Yola Szkodzindki 11,100 11,000 3. Joseph J. Onufrak 7,400 7,000 4. Katherine Bitses 3,600 3,000 5. Orlando & Jeanne Scaramucci 11,600 10,700 6. George & Edith Kendall 5,300 5,000 7. Florian Furmankiewicz & Wf 4,600 4,500 8. Kourosh Javaheri 9,900 9,000 9. J. Walter Hanff & Ano 13,100 10,200 10. Ken J. Lockhart & Judith M. Mcloughlin 6,200 5,900 11. GJC Leasing Corp. 8,800 8,300 12. Frank T. & Cynthia S. Gillan 2,000 7,700 13. Walsh Park Benevolent Corp. 7,700 2,000 14. Alice Polk Rutherfurd 19,300 17,100 15. Peter Brinckerhoff 30,900 30,400 16. Thomas Russell Jr. 9,300 7,100 (Assessment appears wrong on tax roll) 17. George R. Latham 9,200 9,000 18. JCM Sales & Leasing Inc. 12,800 12,700 19. Robert G. Staples 3,300 2,100 20. Frederick J. Preston & Wf 5,500 5,300 • 21. Joseph F. Citardi & Wf 7,100 4,000 22. Dean M. Russell & Wf 8,800 7,300 23. Dorothy A. Cardinal 3,300 3,100 24. John J. & Katherine M. Buckley 30% 25% (Percentage for School Deduction) 25. James Anderson & Ors 3,900 4,200 26. Joanne Perez 5,000 4,800 27. Louise O. Day 6,900 12,000 28. Winds Way Building Corp. 12,000 5,800 29. Robert G. Kassner & Wf 8,100 8,000 30. Anthony N. Palmieri 1,400 1,500 31. Charles A. Carol Burst 5,400 5,200 32. Watts Harold & Ano 3,500 0 33. Edward C. Lipnicki 4,600 3,800 34. George T. Schneider 8,700 8,200 35. William Molchan & Wf 15,500 15,100 36. Katherine Stavridis 4,000 4,600 37. Mildred S. Bennett 18,900 18,300 38. Charlotte B. Wheeler 16,100 15,000 39. Rush M. & Elizabeth Forquer 9,300 9,000 40. John & Lillian S. Schiller Jr. 0% 20% (Age exemption) 41. Lawrence J. Cervon as trustee 13,200 11,100 42. Robert H. Gamman & Wf 11,000 10,000 43. John C. Harrison 4,000 3,500 • 44. M. Victoria Mc Dowell 20,900 20,600 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW CORRECTION OF ERRORS 1990-1991 TAX WARRANT NAME FROM TO 45. t Sara Trefman 3,300 3,100 46. - Northeastern Bible College 19,200 18,100 47. ° Bertram W. Walker & Wf 10,800 10,600 48. - Anthony Mercorella 8,200 7,800 49. • Robert A. Potdevin & Wife 9,200 9,100 50. • Georg F. & Ann Nelson 5,100 4,600 CERTIFICATION OF CORRECTIONS: BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW CHAIRMAN / John Sullivan, Chairman i COMPLAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR 1991 TOTAL COMPLAINTS RECEIVED COMPLAINTS 67 CERTIORARIES 169 CORRECTION OF ERRORS 50 TOTAL 286 • • TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL - YEAR 195-0/q TOWN OF ;Ovr t-D Complaint Last Name or Of Owner Property Assessment Assessment Grievance No. On Roll Desc. From To L 655 10 ob--7.I- 1-8 -7Ll o0 g400 U DU-14F-P, 1000- y-7. 1-I-Zy - 00 4 4 od D. 13UoCtiJAAM I0o0-I-to-2Z.1 -7 0-0 (d�Gp y LAM8400 1a01 - y -�-II I'D 0c0 goo O �. j}0/2NjM jDOU •7 100 ioz0e) �J JeOo- t2�e�- L{-- 5-7oD ,500, 0 7 E QE PToLA 10 00 -7y-9-YS 000 SSo t) M , F lCU21Lu 1 66)-4 3 zoo C) O� A 6200SK5/ (o.pi-3 J !ti . FOS 1200 �z � v 1 ! S . 0,0 -13S-L-Z! 40700 IZ j- 13 D Jr. i0oa 35-Z- )1 2.3 1 5c 0 jyAA jBUi-IS 1DCO-21-3 S &3 Si,6 6 00--25- 1-11 ..S6-00 z c c" .J (3 v/2 KE /oo0-k1-f -1S.-7 330-0 -2100 (1 L . 0c- 151-4AN 1000 -5y f A .bo _ K 10o0 -i4 2-3 �icb AQPCL, iQ.ukn1 10L)V-1)14-12-14 f--)E(,JiE Q MILLS 2Z T, N 1)000 -I I-1-10-zo.c., 0 750 C? R.F.T.S.A. - 500 - 4/7 BAR-2 - Part II - • TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL - YEAR 19 TOWN OF S 0 Uri"I+0 i-0 Complaint Last Name or Of Owner Property Assessment Assessment Grievance No. On Roll Desc. From To 23 S . CHI/}�E�I io0o-i4-Z-3.z OENIED 2 J . MAW& t Idol -3- - Z5 1`Lyo 1000 III-� 2- g`1C)(D �b00 P. 004Q-19100 i0ov -icL-'-`7 ".9 DENJeO ZbA J. Hcf s:s of ,30 3-�0 o Z^7 -1" ►7$C'H la0v•-LI0 131 370o Zgl+Aego N Doo- o - = ..31 30 :3Sz? C� 1600-V 0-s 1.2v 533a V306 J. /aao.you 'S'-). )-Z- q Z3 d 3160 - f J. S-2D Sod <Z,360 • 3Z Y3. �c.K � Ivo-ty - - y- id foo q goo 33 kj . tW /000-yo-S -1. L x-13C 3�0(D 35 �.VS4 5 .krm i 000-y0 5A.- -73G li C 3 �o J . P4ES-t--j A /000 10'7-3-2.qD /D 300 '79 0 d iciza cT1 1000-Lz+ ,9. Z y G.00 3 S O I N i 1000-y0-S'-I.D i 1433 o �35c) Q 3 c�IA�DEn/ io0o-Yo 5-i.oz ` 93(% -?,71)p SIO J . loon-101 -3-2-.3 16vo0 X00 0 t P 13vn 100 -3 - - -706 5r�o 6 I8Lc Co X6-6 Zot-T kf,3 .Oc iv i C n ` 3 P, EN33-S--13. OEN I&0 R.P.T.S.A. - 500 - 4/7 BAR-2 - Part II - TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL - YEAR 1910/q/ TOWN OF _S&vT" Complaint Last Name or Of Owner Property Assessment Assessment Grievance No. On Roll Desc. From To -- E oco -l3 -,3-7 S-700 S6 o O 45 S. - 1� o -`�-►3 I`f,Ll 101 3 Sc� i( / 320 FONT ST. 'TSOvo*vrV Ookp, tool - -,3'2— 19F6110 O2FJAN 0,S 1001 -4-3- I� C)c) SSD 000-1 q5-Z -)a DEN ►E 0 0, AOSS /000-1 n"1-F-2 ENic: 1� s vv0L.AtqSj1, 1 1000-S-) -,3- It 5So'D (160t) SZ M. Mow+C a -7 -i -y0-1 Eb E-, Ic ELFE2 _ 3 UCS 53 M. kL0o /001 -5 -� S #150 Sq &-Sc- - Cr)o - c9bL-LN foDojr)-5- �ooa /Spv S�o i--e-(v0100 10,90-4337 �j(o o O Lit 0 C• ItMAC 1f P o ')-ro - —1 .0c Ai i 0 Q -5 1 ©uMAS 1006-135-3-51 OetiiEb 51 r. 106CLAW 1600--Y-q-5 ociu Go C- C172-NCLL I (,ol -5J _OE-Ajft= dot 4iT1CDRp Iaoo 110-8-1q oe-/v SL-E E5P 100078 1EYJ �3 A. 0-k A f-(.E coo- I 1.f- -21 D e N 1 E 0 (o J 13 v6ckl i r^K- 1000-,01 V,2-'f p EN i 00 R.P.T.S.A. - 500 417 BAR-2 - Part II - • TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT ROLL - YEAR 19 16191 TOWN OF '<o u-7r'I+Q L-10 Complaint Last Name or Of Owner Property Assessment Assessment Grievance No. On Roll Desc. From To S P• N 000-y0 ,�_,.i 453 c G (p to, C • OrrvlE(J CV-rCHDb;QE31 ) ot, ;?S,S00 M l OCOI- (�� J. 6ASiLC Iwo-33 -�2 --y T'roc R.P.T.S.A. — 500 — 4/7 BAR-2 - Part II - _ FROM: Board of Assessment Review TO: 1 Town Clerk RE: GRT - BOARD OF AqSESSMENT REVIEW - TAX YEAR DATE: ( q Attached herewith please find for public filing in your' office, the complete file covering the public hearing (s) of the Board of Assessment Review, together with changes ordered by this Board to - the assessment roll , Assessors ' acknowledgment, etc. The duties of the Board of Assessment Review for the grievance period covering the 19q( /,jV assessment roll are completed. Ch r gar. mbe r member Member Recom iem er AUG 2 7 1991 ftm CIMS 1 Form BAR-4