HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 REMIND
411" FROM: Boar of Assessment Review OCT 19 so
TO: Town Clerk Town Oat *INNIS
RE: REPORT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW - TAX YEAR 192g/ii
DATE: `' c)7 /�S / / 9 9 "
Attached herewith please find for public filing in youf 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 19 ,o/ l/ assessment roll are completed.
_e4/t1,4' S ?'/e:"; I
t.
Chairman Membi7",
4r. i
Mer .er. O' '
,weal -.�--
Me .er /
jr
Form BAR-4
GRIEVANCE DAY
JULY 17, 1990
• The Morning Session of the Board of Assessment Review began at
9:14 A.M. ; present were:
Samuel S. Markel, Co-Chairman John Sullivan, Co-Chairman
William Weinheimer Thomas J. Henry
1) 1000-36-2-24
Raymond E. Clempner
P.O. Box 671
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Raymond Clempner: I do. I have two applications for adjacent
pieces of property. I received a tax increase, 78 percent on
the land, basically based on the wrong numbers to begin with. I
had a survey brought up to date last week of the property to
show my position on this because it is a very unusual piece of
property. It is the smallest piece of usable land on Gull Pond
and I was told that this was changed because of a complaint made
by somebody. Consequently, they went around the pond and
assessed. They brought this up from thirteen to twenty. I went
• down and got the property cards. The actual usable land here is
90 by 90. They give me a total of 261 frontage on the water;
but what they are taking it from is not the property but from an
old survey, and that starts out 200 feet into the water - that
is a property line of water, that was here before the pond was
dredged - what was left was all wetlands and marsh. My property
as it is surveyed now runs 90 feet on the road right down
towards 201 feet on the road, which goes back into the water. I
have every property card from pieces of property on the pond;
they run in prices from thirteen to twenty six. I happened to
have had a thirteen, which I think it deserves; it is the
smallest piece of variable land on the pond. It is not
bulk-headed; most of these are bulk-headed. Every other piece
of property on the pond is good right up to the water. I have
all marsh area. These were reassessed to sixteen; mine jumped
to twenty.
Sam Markel: In this application you filled out, you have the
estimated value of the property at $450,000?
Clempner: Well, what I did on that was take the nearest sale,
that was about the property values of the homes in the area, I
just took it for what the market was at the time; I don' t think
anyone will come up with that today. I had it appraised when my
wife passed away in 1984, and that came in at $300, 000 for the
property with the house.
111
1
Sam Markel: Now Mr. Clempner, in your grounds for complaint,
you checked number one, however, you left what the assessment
• should be reduced to blank. We cannot put that figure in for
you, you have to decide what you want your assessment reduced to.
Clempner: I would still go back to my original assessment. I
mean I am basing this on that there are properties still
assessed at the thirteen; so I just want it back to where it
was. ( 13, 000)
Sam Markel: We do not make decisions today.
Clempner: I understand that.
Sam Markel: We have another day later on, which is decision
day, an in order to not keep everyone waiting.
Clempner: I ' ll go out and make copies and leave you everything.
Sam Markel: Does any one of the Board Members have a question?
Tom Henry: You said the value of your property is at a higher
percentage of value than the other properties, how did you come
to that conclusion?
Clempner: Well, What I did was take the actual usable piece of
property which goes from the road to the high water of 90 feet.
The rest of it is out in the water; 210 feet run right smack
• into the water. Also on the road 261 feet, which they have on
the card, I only have 90 feet. This was only done on the 8th of
July of this year.
Tom Henry: Is it your contention that before your recent
assessment you were assessed on the basis of the 90 usable solid
ground?
Clempner: No, I assume that that previously we were assessed
how they were assessing in 1973 . Okay, we were due for some
sort of a raise, but then everybody should be, not just pieces
picked out. Especially when these two pieces I own are the two
smallest buildable pieces on the whole pond.
Tom Henry: But every other property around there was assessed
on marsh & water.
Clempner: No, they don' t have any. I 'm the only piece of
property that has this.
Sam Markel: Their property goes out into the water.
Clempner: On this side some of it does; over here, no. Why, I
don' t know. But most of these are bulk-headed except for the
three pieces in here and they have actual use right out to their
• property line.
Sam Markel: The bulkhead is not necessarily the property line;
2
you would have to see a survey.
• Clempner: Well, on this contention that they own only to the
canal because Costello contends he owns the canal, and he' s
tried to charge all these people for a piece of the canal
property. But they only own out to the end of the line. They
are very good friends of mine and we have discussed this.
Especially where Costello tried to sell off the canal. So they
only own out to the end of the property. But whatever it is it
is viable land, they can use it. They can go right out to the
end of their land and they use it. I 'd have to go out 200 feet
into the water.
2) 1000-36-2-25. 1
The Meadows LTD
Raymond E. Clempmer
P.O. Box 671
Greenport, NY 11944
Sam Markel: Okay, sir we' ll now go on to your next one if
you' ll put the amount you want it reduced to.
Clempner: 1300 - that' s what it used to be.
Sam Markel: Would you like to make a statement on this?
Clempner: It is basically part of my original statement; the
• property itself runs way out to the depth. The use of the
property is roughly is six tenths of an acre, which is 26, 000
square feet. Because of the actual area itself we have 100 x 90
feet that is usable, which a 9,000 square foot piece against a
20,000 square foot piece that they say is on the . 475 acres.
The actual acreage comes out to about . 21 of an acre which is
usable. Again, all the rest is wetlands and marsh and it went
from 13 ,000 to 20,000, a 54 percent increase. I can't figure
out what it' s based on. I 've done nothing to it; it' s the same
way when I bought it 15 years ago. And then it jumps.
Sam Markel: If you will, leave us some supporting evidence.
Clempner: I will, I ' ll get copies and number them.
3 ) 1000-89-2-6
Frank & Agnes Licari
385 Orchard Lane
P.O. Box 261
Southold, NY 11971
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
• Frank Licari: I do.
3
Licari: I think this reassessment is a result of some work I am
undgergoing on my house; I got a permit for it. The work is not
done, so I guess that' s the cause of the reassessment.
411
Sam Markel: Well usually the assessors will not reassess until
a portion of construction has been completed.
Licari: Some of the work has been done, there is no question
about it. But it is not complete.
Sam Markel: Just the fact that you got a permit, they will not
reassess.
Licari: The permit is about a year old, I am doing all the work
myself, I figure it will take me about a year in a half to two
years. I did expect a reassessment of the work done, but not to
the opposed magnitude. The reassessment value proposed is 600
dollars over and above - from 7900 to 8500. The work that' s
being done is principally repairs. I started to work on the
deck because it needed repairs - I fell through - and I was told
that I needed a permit for that.
Sam Markel: To replace the deck, or did you enlarge it?
Licari: No, at the time I was just replacing it. For some
reason an inspector came down and I was told I would need a
permit. I got the permit, and while I was at it I decided to
enclose a car port so I applied for that as well. So the deck
• is being replaced; actually the deck size is a little bit less
than it was before. It was 700 feet of deck and the finished
product will be 627 feet. What I have done over the deck is to
erect a port over the main entrance to the house. The work on
the garage includes closing in two sides and half of a third
side, the fourth side is attached to the house. There was a car
port and a roof and a concrete slab and the work that I 've done
is to close in the two sides and the third side, on half of
that. It is so shown on the survey here.
Sam Markel: If you would leave us any supporting documents.
Licari: Certainly, I will leave you the survey, and if I may a
zerox.
4) 1000-4-7-16
Pat & Paul Kulsziski
433 Main Street
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Paul Kulsziski: I will.
•
4
Sam Markel: And now if you would like to proceed with your
complaint.
Kulsziski: I received the letter with the proposed increase in
the assessment of my property. The plan was to increase the
assessment by 300 percent. Needless to say, I think that is a
little outrageous. I have done some improvements to the
property. Here is the site plan, it shows initially the
existing building area was a little over 1500 square feet the
addition was 800 square feet. The reason I based my increase in
assessment was 50 percent increase based on the additional 800
square feet put on this building. This is a historical building
in the center of downtown Greenport. I 'm trying to maintain the
look of the old building. There was clappboard on the old
building, I put clappboard on the new building. Certain lines,
roof lines on the old building, yankee gutters, I tried to
maintain that look. As a matter of fact it looks pretty nice,
but I think assessing it at 300 percent of its original is
little bit crazy.
Sam Markel: When did you purchase this building?
Kulsziski: I purchased it in 1987 , 88.
Sam Markel: You bought it in 87 and they made no increases at
the time you purchased it.
Kulsziski: Correct.
• Sam Markel: They increased your taxes when you started
construction.
Kulsziski: Yes.
Sam Markel: They say an addition here is $150,000.
Kulsziski: Approximately what it is costing, for the
construction. Some of that is restoration work and some of that
is construction costs. My claim basically is that I 've added 50
percent additional footage and my rate has gone up times three.
NOTE: Sam Markel will research in regards to special allowances
for Historical Property.
5) 1000-68-3-8. 3
Elaine Axien
2555 Youngs Avenue
Southold, NY 11971
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Elaine Axien: I do.
5
NOTE: Charlie Watts was called in and stated that the property
assessment was raised due to an addition to the bungalow in 1988.
Elaine Axien: I just think the taxes are too high; I know you
compare to other homes, and I own a condo that is not much
different in taxes than this small bungalow. I just think a new
condo and an old summer bungalow are two different things.
Sam Markel: We do look at everything; we do not make decisions
today. You' ll get a fair shake.
Axien: That' s all I ask. Thank you.
6) 1000-4-7-15
Bary Bartolini
RR #1 Box 1087
Sag Harbor, NY 11963
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Gary Bartolini: I do.
Sam Markel: And now you can present your evidence.
Bartolini: What I found here is on the back of my record; it
• says that I am renovating existing commercial building. I
bought the old Suffolk Times building in Greenport. At the time
I purchased it, I was aware that there was quite a bit of
structural damage to it. The building had been backfilled on
both sides 24 inches below ground line. All the studs were
rotted up to that level; termite damage and water damage. The
sill was totally rotted, it was just crumbling. The building
was basically standing on the stucco. The building also had no
insulation; it was stucco and two by fours and time. When I
bought the building I had gotten an engineer' s report on what
had to be done and I had a few contractors come look at it. I
gave the bid - it was $24,000, and I had gotten a building
permit for $30,000 which I would say I at least went up to
$32,000 with the other improvements. Some of it was
improvement; renovating it for the use of an art gallery. The
square footage didn' t change; I used the same square footage for
the art gallery as it was for the newspaper. I did mostly
repairs - the building was going to collapse. There was just no
structural integrity left in the building. I feel like I have
been penalized for repairing the building. Here' s a copy of my
blueprints, it shows what had to be done just to support the
first floor; it was a very large undertaking. We had to rebuild
the sill out of concrete block out of the dirt on both sides
from the interior. The stucco walls really supported the
exterior of the building. Then we had to resupport the second
floor down to the first, down to the basement onto the lolly
• columns. Then we put insulation in - I heard the State grants
credits in some instances because you are increasing the
6
insulation because of the energy usage. So I increased my R
factor from about 2 to 30 and I feel like I 'm being penalized
because I repaired this building. It was in no state to be used
110 again. I see on the back of my card that even my depreciation
has gone from 25 to 15 percent. I don' t feel it is fair. I
feel if anything they should give me a credit for saving the
building, because it is somewhat of a historic building. Since
I haven' t increased my floor space, it' s basically the same
usage. I don' t see it as an improvement, I see it as a
restoration of structural integrity. If I can' t get a credit I
would say at least give me what I had before. You can have a
copy of the blueprint.
Sam Markel: I don' t think a copy of the blueprint is necessary.
Tom Henry: This is an estimate, do you have a bill? Or can you
state an amount it went to?
Bartolini: $24,600 - it went to $32,000. The reason I did it
at that price, I contracted the whole thing. I stayed on the
site. I had other bids and they exceeded $50,000. It is not a
commercial venture, it is a cooperative art gallery with 25
artists and we all share the costs and maintenance of the
building.
Sam Markel: We don' t make a decision today, on Decision Day we
will make our decision on this end and let you know about it.
Thank you.
• Bartolini: Thank you very much.
7 ) 1000-5-1-13
Joseph R. Henry
156 Central Avenue
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Joseph Henry: Yes, I do. I haven' t changed anything
structurally, I added a deck. I haven' t added any square
footage, change the roof line, or anything.
Sam Markel: How many square feet was the deck?
Joseph Henry: Fourteen by twenty.
Tom Henry: This says sixteen by ten, 160 square feet.
Sam Markel: And you said 14 by 20? That' s 280 square feet.
There is no picture of the deck - you have no picture here?
• Joseph Henry: No.
7
Sam Markel: But that' s the only addition you actually made?
Joseph Henry: The deck, yeah.
Sam Markel: You say the deck addition in 16 by 20?
Joseph Henry: 14. 6 by 20. My assessed value has tripled. One
of the reasons I bought the house was the low taxes and it
tripled.
Tom Henry: What did it go to?
Sam Markel: 1500 to 4300, a 2800 addition.
Joseph Henry: I have a hardship with the property because I do
not have a driveway. So in the winter the village has no
parking on the streets I have to walk three in a half blocks to
the parking lot. When it' s 20 degrees, I have to walk in the
snow and everything else. So I feel there is a hardship.
Sam Markel: Okay, I think we have enough information to act on
this one.
8) 1000-33-5-13 . 1
Paul Henry
236 North Road
Box 2111
• Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Paul Henry: I do. I 'm trying to understand what the criterion
here is for you decisions. Is there a criteria that you have?
Sam Markel: Basically the criteria we use is you make a
complaint and state you are paying more than your neighbor and
the assessor has charged you more than is called for under law,
or if he has illegally assessed you.
Paul Henry: Basically, you are here to conform to New York
State Board of Assessment Laws?
Sam Markel: Yes.
Paul Henry: Good, so then we all agree that there is a uniform
assessment that is supposed to happen in Southold and if I may,
section 305 of the Real Property Tax law defines the standard of
assessment for all assessing jurisdictions in New York State.
Assessor units are required to assess property uniform
percentage of value, correct?
•
8
Sam Markel: Now let me explain that to you. That does not mean
that we are assessing like Albany does, or Brookhaven. If it is
• unified in the Town of Southold.
Paul Henry: I understand that.
Sam Markel: We are not charging you more than the guy down the
street. If the assessor uses the same ground rules for
everybody in this town, then he is in the right.
Paul Henry: I beg to differ with you out of all respect. That
does not necessarily guarantee that there is going to be a
uniform percentage of assessment which I could show in Southold,
it' s not the case. The assessors have formulas that they assess
properties at, I am prepared to show you today why my property
is an exception. But if I may just read the next sentence here:
Value subsequently has been defined by the courts, Market
Value. I just want to see if we agree on the definition of
market value.
Sam Markel: What do you consider market value?
Paul Henry: What a buyer will pay a seller for a piece of
property.
Sam Markel: Market value is not one sale. Market value becomes
market value when there are general sales in that area of that
amount. In other words it can' t be a sale where you've arranged
• it - an arm' s length.
Paul Henry: I understand that but according to New York State
laws, now. . .
Sam Markel: If there is one sale that does not make a market.
Paul Henry: No, but I think it is a pretty good measurement of
the market value for that piece of property. As a matter of
fact, so does New York State. This is a brochure I got from the
Equalization Bureau. According to them, value has subsequently
been defined by the courts as market value or what a willing
buyer will pay a willing seller. Now I agree that there is
fluctuation and it is hard to - the price of a property might
not be an accurate reflection of the market value next week or
next month. But basically that' s the idea of the concept. I
just want to see if that' s what we're shooting for.
Sam Markel: If you are basing it on one sale, I don' t think the
Board would consider it a market value of the property.
Paul Henry: Well I 've come in here on one piece of property.
Sam Markel: That' s fine but it' s in an area where evidently
there has been a number of sales.
•
9
Paul Henry: I happen to have the Town of Southold' s last five
years of sales on my computer, and I am looking forward to
• showing it to you.
Sam Markel: Now you have created a market value. It is a
general area if sales.
Paul Henry: I just wanted to establish that the value, the
uniform assessment is shooting for a consistent ratio to value
of assessment, and the value is defined in the courts in New
York State as market value what one buyer will pay one seller.
I ' ll be submitting sales data to you which I am going to be
making a case for and I just wanted to establish the rules, so
to speak. I just want to see if we are congruent on that fact.
Sam Markel: We attend the Real Property Meetings every year.
Everything you read in that folder evidently is told to us at
these meetings. Do I have to go any further?
Paul Henry: I bought the house in 1985. At the time I paid
$325,000 for the property, and my assessment was 17,600.
According to the residential assessment ratio of that time frame
when I bought the house, and according to the assessment at the
time the property should have been valued at almost $600,000. I
have a letter from the appraiser, who has appraised the house
recently and who also did an appraisal for me when I bought the
house stating that I paid a fair market value for the house at
the time. So it wasn' t an inaccurate determination of market
• value at the time of purchase. Today my house is worth
approximately $450,000. But according to the residential
assessment ratio, my house should be worth $690,000 given the
17,600 assessment. I see a 70 percent discrepancy between the
value of my house when I bought it and today and its assessment
consistent across the board over the five years.
I have a listing of sales of property in the Town of Southold
during the residential assessment ratio period, which I believe
is September 1st through August 31st. This 70 percent figure is
consistent with equalization rates as well. What I wanted to
point out in these sales figures is - this is in sales price
order, by the way - and if you look at the highlighted line,
which is my sales, and you go up and down the columns and
compare the sales prices and the assessments, you will see very
clearly that my house sticks out like a sore thumb as far as
ratio of assessment to value as depicted by sales price. These
are all sales that fell within the R.A.R. period. They compute
the R.A.R. on an annual period. I have another interesting
diagram to show you; these are the same sales you see on that
sheet, the R.A.R. period when my house was sold. These are
assessments and these are sales prices.
Sam Markel: Now you believe you should be assessed at at 2. 55
percent of full value.
Paul Henry: Well, actually the most current R.A.R. is I believe
• 2. 55, but my figure of $10,000 assessment is derived from the
sales when I bought my house; I am establishing market value of
10
my house in 1985 when I bought the house. I have applied
current R.A.R. from the time when I bought the house.
Sam Markel: You're adjusting.
Paul Henry: Pro-rating, correct. But I think if you take my
appraisal on the value of my house today and you look at the
ratios today, it falls right in line with the same percentages.
Tom Henry: Since we' re trying to establish a record, explain
what this chart is.
Paul Henry: This is a listing of all the residential one, two,
and three family homes that sold during the R.A.R period of
September 1, 1985 through August 31, 1986. The R.A.R. was
computed by Albany for the Town of Southold to be 3 . 11 percent.
What this shows is the actual ratios of assessments to sales
prices and the R.A.R. is 3 .11 percent. Anybody above 3 .11
percent is higher than the average and anybody below 3 . 11
percent is lower than the average. This column over here is the
actual differences. One point seventy four means I 'm 74 percent
higher than the average. Point 73 means they are 27 percent
below the average.
Tom Henry: The relief that you seek. . .
Paul Henry: That is 74 percent lower. On this year's market
value of $325,000 - that' s what I paid for the house.
• Tom Henry: You said today's market value.
Paul Henry: Correct, today' s market value is $450,000.
Tom Henry: This number, 10,107 as relief requested, is that the
R.A.R. of the $450,000?
Paul Henry: I think it would be lower. This is an estimate.
To me, when my house sold, and my house sold for top dollar,
that was a very good measure and determinate of market value.
So what I did was take this figure from the sales price and the
R.A.R. at the time of the sale.
Tom Henry: When you say this figure, the 10,107 would be based
upon the original purchase price of $325,000.
Paul Henry: Correct, and the R.A.R. at the time of the sale.
Sam Markel: Mr. Henry, when you bought this property, and you
paid $325,000, have you split any properties off from this
property since then?
Paul Henry: No sir, nothing.
• Sam Markel: So all the splits were done prior to your buying?
11
Paul Henry: Well, there were some splits when Eastern Shores
was created, but I believe since 1964 when Mr. Jacobs bought the
• property, he did no splitting; he acquired two little pieces and
added them to the property, but they weren' t really significant
as far as. . .
Sam Markel: He bought a piece for $51,000.
Paul Henry: That might be. And added to my property, but I
might add that this can never be broken up again today.
Sam Markel: All I am trying to establish is that $51,000 was
paid for that property.
Paul Henry: I find that hard to believe - I would check that
figure.
Sam Markel: That is a record on the card. In 1979, four
parcels were combined, and in 1983 the barn was converted to
living quarters, and 16,000 was added.
Paul Henry: Here' s another neat graph. What I 've done here is
taken the assessments and the sales of the Town of Southold and
just plotted every one of them for that R.A.R. period of 3. 11,
which is when I bought the house. The middle line of the graph
represents the R.A.R. of that time. The bottom and top line
represents a 10 percent margin, which of course has some errors.
That means all these plots above and below the line are
• representing sales of property that is out of line with the
averages. Take a look where my sale falls - the one dot that
sticks out. I even circled it for you. I think this shows that
my piece of property is assessed way out of wack from the Town
of Southold' s average and from all the other values to
assessment ratios in the Town of Southold. I believe that this
is the criteria that this board should be looking for.
What I did for fun was I took the recent sales - I have all of
them on my computer - of 1989 and I listed them out in sales
price order, just to see where the assessments were falling.
This starts at $400,000 and goes to $1.6 million. This is just
the top end of all the sales for 1989. What I found is very
interesting; I had to go up to $600,000 and $700,000 before I
found assessments that met mine.
Sam Markel: Did you ever entertain the fact that you could get
$600,000 or $700,000 for your house?
Paul Henry: You want to buy it?
Sam Markel: You said that one sale made a market.
Paul Henry: I don' t believe I said that. What I said is that I
owned one piece of property and I was concerned about the
assessment on it. Bob Scott agreed with me on the market value
of the house; shouldn' t an assessor be present at these hearings?
• Sam Markel: Maybe we could get Bob or Charlie in here.
12
Sam Markel: Have you assessed this property recently?
• Bob Scott: Would took a look at the property recently, and we
didn' t reassess it, it' s the assessment that' s been on it for a
couple of years.
Sam Markel: In your judgement, would you say that comparable to
other properties of like size, etc. , that the assessment is in
line with others?
Bob Scott: Based on our method, it is in line with everybody
else. On the method of assessment in Southold Town.
Paul Henry: I thought the question was how much my house was
worth?
Sam Markel: Only if it is a sale assessment. In other words,
if you had just sold or bought. . .
Paul Henry: I thought you asked me if I could get $600,000 or
$700,000 for it. Could I ask Bob that?
Sam Markel: Sure.
Paul Henry: Bob, what is my house worth, ballpark?
Bob Scott: Off the record?
• Paul Henry: Of course, approximately.
Sam Markel: In Southold Town, we uniformly assess on brick and
mortar.
Paul Henry: You uniformly assess on brick and mortar to try an
approximate market value. That' s the law. I assume Southold is
trying to conform to the laws.
NOTE: The Board will request the Assessors to reassess Paul
Henry' s property within the next two weeks.
9) 1000-4-3-19
Patricia M. Orfanos
529 Main Street
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Patricia Orfanos: I do. I approached this from three different
ways, and the most important thing was the woman who owned the
house before grieved the house, so she had a body of
information. Then I went and redid the research to make sure
• that, first to figure out her method, then to figure out what I
was comfortable with. I came up with a rather different set of
13
criteria than she did. This is Greenport in the historic
district, and my house is probably the oldest house on the
block, 1830. It is comparable to the Sterlington Historical
• Society Museum. I bought the house a fairly renovated house
from the previous owner. She had carefully restored the house.
I bought the house over a year ago and added one room above an
existing kitchen, another words, I didn' t increase the footprint
of the house. I added one room above and I put on a back
porch. The house in its original condition had an enclosed
front porch.
Sam Markel: Approximately $20,000 .
Orfanos: Right. The lady destroyed in doing it. That' s why
I 'm here, because I have been reassessed based on that room I
put on, and the back porch. When I started to research block
three; what I have are the largest houses on the block, which if
I am allowed to have an assessment of $7300 which the assessors
want me to have, means these houses, two of which even have two
houses on them, with 50 percent more property as I, and they
don' t even pay as much. The rest of the houses on the block are
also above my house. I should fall somewhere in the 75
percentile because my house is fairly large, and these Main
Street properties are fairly narrow. I used the ratio of 2.42
that I got from your assessor, and also based on the present
market value, which is lower than what I paid for it. I am told
that I can only reasonably get $200,000 for my house. I have a
letter in here for that. The other problem in Greenport is that
houses are depreciated, and depreciations run all over the
• board. One house that had a fire is 75 percent, the most highly
depreciated, and then they go down to 10 percent. I found that
26 out of 34 house on my block have a depreciation factor.
Sam Markel: How old is your house?
Orfanos: 1830 . For me not to have depreciation is a hardship.
Sam Markel: Have you applied for a depreciation?
Orfanos: There is a depreciation of 25 percent; that is what
the lady before me won. I 'm going at it more thoroughly than
she did - I went through everybody' s card on the block.
Sam Markel: So you want an additional ten percent?
Orfanos: The present assessment is $7300. I come up with a
different figure based on market value. I feel the $4800 is
more accurate. And I would be willing to say ten percent
because my house is in good condition. I don' t understand how
these depreciations work, and either does Bob Scott really. He
feels they all were done according who was friends with the
assessor.
Sam Markel: You want ten percent depreciation off this figure
• here, which would bring you down to $4300.
14
Orfanos: Right, which would make me fall within this block
accurately. Certainly $7300 is way out of line based on the
• market dollars. A step further I could have taken it is to to
up a street where the very large houses and the biggest
properties are and see what those assessments are. The houses
on my block resemble my house.
10) 1001-7-3-11
Adele Dusenbury
Elizabeth Garrity
P.O. Box 863
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Adele Dusenbury: I do.
Elizabeth Garrity: I do.
Dusenbury: We are challenging our property' s total assessed
valuation, which is 8300, as well as the small depreciation
allowed on it. We challenge what we consider an exorbitant tax
rate of $5. 25 on 1104 square feet of the structure as unfair and
inaccurate as compared to any other property in the village of
Greenport. In our research we found not one other property
• charged with $5. 25 per square foot for any portion of the
structure.
Sam Markel: You're talking about the 1104 square feet?
Dusenbury: Yes. We are also challenging the highest rate we
found charges on any other 1 story extension in Greenport -
$3 . 25 on 304 square feet. This space in the house - it was the
Price house - the lady had a dental office in there and maybe
that' s why they charged at that rate, but we, of course are not
using it as a dental office and we have removed the laboratory
and bathroom and we feel the rate should be what all other
houses are charged for a one story extension at $2. 50. There is
an obvious inaccuracy where it says .75 of an acre; we can show
you a survey - it adds up to 20,894 square feet which about one
half acre. So we' re requesting that this be corrected. This
would reduce this 1600 to 1070. Apparently this reassessment
came up this year because of the transfer. We have attached the
very last page, from a tax payer' s guide, in yellow. We don' t
feel it is fair as new homeowners to be targeted. We have a
much higher rate than other properties we have come along. We
have listed other properties on page three for you.
Sam Markel: I have asked Bob Scott to come in here for one
specific question. Bob, evidently you have just reassessed this
• property.
Bob Scott: Yes sir.
15
Sam Markel: In its previous assessment, it was being used as a
dental office. Do you know that if the rate they were using at
• that particular time perhaps was a multiple rate because it was
$5.25.
Bob Scott: I want to clarify something. We are not going there
to reassess when there is a transfer based on the sales price.
We are going to assess to make sure the rates are correct, not
to increase it. What we did is to increase the depreciation
from 5 to 10 percent in this particular case. The rates we had
on the house went from $4. 00 to $5. 25 based on the fact that it
is a two story and doesn' t have a fireplace, we subtracted
twenty-five cents. That is the reason why we changed the rates.
Sam Markel: You would have used $5. 50 if it had a fireplace.
Bob Scott: Yes, it would have been $5. 50.
Dusenbury: But where the dental office is is this $3 .25.
Bob Scott: You don' t have a fireplace, it is a one-story
section, $3 . 50 minus twenty-five cents is $3 . 25.
Sam Markel: They did not take into consideration that she was
using it as a dentist office when they assessed.
Dusenbury: We don' t know, it was like this when we bought it.
I think maybe they did take it into consideration.
• Sam Markel: I doubt it very much, I just asked Bob that
question.
Dusenbury: Well, I ' ll show you the information we have on other
one-story extensions and no one is paying $3 .25.
Sam Markel: That' s the way to go.
Dusenbury: We drove around to find comparable property, and we
have a list here to show you. This research, on page two shows
the depreciation allowed now, which is 10 percent, is completely
out of keeping with other Greenport houses. It appears that the
assessors over the years have made the logical decision to allow
the outdated, huge old houses in Greenport a significant
depreciation so that the homeowners could afford to hold on to
them and maintain them. We agree for the need for such
consideration and wish to be included, especially since our
property is in worse condition than it was in 1979, which Bob
Scott noted himself. It needs a new roof desperately, it
actually leaks. It needs a lot of painting and repairs on the
outside. The depreciation of this house, when you see the other
comparables, to raise it from 5 to 10 percent is a joke.
We believe a 40 percent depreciation allowance would be
appropriate in keeping with similar properties, and hereby make
• that request.
Sam Markel: You certainly have done your homework.
16
Dusenbury: If you take a look at all of our comparables
starting on page three, you will see how larger and better homes
• are assessed lower than ours. The summary on page seven lists
all of our requests.
11) 1000-64-4-11
Richard F. & Marilyn Marschean
52 Willets Drive
Syosset, NY 11791
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of you ability?
Richard Marschean: I do. The only reason I am here is that my
mother-in-law passed away a few years ago and I took this house
over during that time. I know that since the house was assessed
in 1987, the price of real estate has drastically dropped. When
I got this assessment, I figured I got it because the house
changed hands. The appraisal I got two or three years ago, I
don' t think I could get that much money for the house today. I
put in my application what I thought I could get - approximately
$20,000 less, which would equal the original assessment. I plan
on making additions to this house, I just don' t want something
to start here and get out of hand. I just want to make sure I
wasn' t singled out with this increase, that I can get a fair
shake.
• 12) 1000-104-4-32
John P.A. Marcin and Christine D. Marcin
34 Harvard Street
Garden City, NY 11530
This application was accepted with no statement - assessment was
reduced last year due to litigation. (has no C.O. due to
violations) Property is still in the same state as last year;
however the assessment was raised back up.
The Morning session ended at 12:10 P.M. for lunch break.
The Afternoon session began at 2:00 P.M. with the following
Board members present:
Samuel Markel, Co-Chairman John Sullivan, Co-Chairman
William Weinheimer Thomas Henry Thomas Burdy
13) 1000-137-5-15
James K. & Rosett McKillop
64 North Corona Avenue
Valley Stream, NY 11580
•
17
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
• of your ability?
James McKillop: I do.
Sam Markel: You have an unequal assessment?
McKillop: Yes.
Sam Markel: And what did you base that on?
McKillop: Just some of the other assessments we understood
applied in the area on other homes similar to ours.
Sam Markel: Do you have any specific ones that you compared?
McKillop: We had some houses that were on Pequash and
Glennwood. We have four.
Sam Markel: Someone will go get their cards.
McKillop: We remodeled last year, the second floor. I 'm not
sure there is any more floor space upstairs than there was
before, it may be somewhat higher. It had a dormer on it. We
purposely did it this way to avoid tax increase and we got an 85
percent increase.
• Sam Markel: This year. How long have you owned the house?
McKillop: 1972.
Sam Markel: So this is the first time they reassessed it since
you bought it.
McKillop: No, they reassessed before, when we did the dormer.
We had filed to put in a half bath and never did. I don' t know
if that was taken into consideration. There is only one bath in
the whole house.
John Sullivan: In 1979 you put the garage and the accessory
building on, and it went the 3500; in 1989 it was only a
partial, because you had torn everything apart, that' s when it
went down to 2700.
14) 1000-40-3-6.2
Linda C. Wilton
P.O. Box 158
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of you ability?
110
18
Linda Wilton: I do. I don' t want to pay anything. It is in
the process of being determined by the State to be a freshwater
. wetland and until they either condemn the piece of property or
overrule the decision, I can neither sell the piece of property
or build on it. This point, the property has no value.
Sam Markel: How big of a piece of property is it?
Wilton: An acre.
Sam Markel: And the entire thing is wetlands?
Wilton: Yes. It is by the old Migrant Camp. My Dad owns it;
he built on a piece next to it, but when we applied for a
building permit, we were denied.
Sam Markel: This is the first time you've complained?
Wilton: Yes, we were hoping it would be resolved in our favor
by now.
Sam Markel: Has the D.E.C. made that decision on the wetlands?
Wilton: Yes. I have copies of the violations.
15) 1000-35-3-3
Jerome Mazzaffero
• 3060 North Road
Greenport, NY 11944
Note: Complainant not present.
Sam Markel: The land assessment value is greater than the
comparable neighbors; he is asking relief on land of $100. I
feel we should decide in favor of the complainant.
16) 1000-133-1-9
John Dinos
821 Boulevard East
Weehowisen, NJ 07087
Note: Complainant not present.
Sam Markel: The complainant did not state how much he wants his
assessment reduced to; therefore, we cannot act on this. The
application is not complete and we must deny it.
The Afternoon session was adjourned at 4:17 P.M. for dinner
break.
• The Evening session of the Board of Assessment Review began at
7 : 00 P.M. with the following members present:
19
Samuel Markel, Co-chairman John Sullivan, Co- Chairman
William Weinheimer Thomas Henry Thomas Burdy
• 17) 1000-22-3-8. 2
Stephanie J. Seremetis
Martha Ann Campbell
P.O. Box 641
East Marion, NY 11939
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
are about to give herein will be given accurately and truthfully
to the best of your ability?
Stephanie Seremetis: I do.
Sam Markel: You say on your application you want your
assessment reduced to $5900? What is the basis of your claim?
Seremetis: Basically, I went to contract on the house in
September of 1988, at the purchase price of $205,000, and for a
variety of reasons the sale was delayed until the fall of 1989.
The appraised value is the same as the purchase price at the
time. I am at a loss as to why the property is worth $120,000
now. I 've made an effort to improve the house; I did some work
- added a fireplace and upgraded the bathrooms and kitchen. The
roof has not been changed.
• Sam Markel: The physical size has not been changed?
Seremetis: Absolutely not.
Sam Markel: By adding a fireplace, you would be adding about 25
percent per square foot.
Seremetis: The cost of the fireplace was about $7700, and I
gathered there would be a raise.
Sam Markel: I pulled out some property cards earlier on
comparable properties to see how they compare with your
property. Just so you know we did not just pass you by; we have
here Richard Israel, Dorothy E. Cook, and Papazaharion to
compare with your records.
Seremetis: Yes, okay, I know who they are.
18) 1000-6-6-14
Myrtis Mixon & Randall Imell
428 4th Street
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
are about to give will be given accurately and truthfully to the
• best of your ability?
20
Myrtis Mixon: I do.
• Randall Imell: I do.
Randall Imell: Basically, what we did is took the formula on
the report cards, the property cards.
Mytis Mixon: See, what happened is our assessment has been
raised 40 percent, from 2800 to 3600 in one year, and we contend
that this is an unjust, arbitrary increase, putting us into an
unequal position compared to comparable properties in
Greenport. I was actually encouraged to grieve this increase by
Mr. Scott. I called him last week to ask him why the assessment
was raised; he said he wouldn' t be able to defend the assessment
if we made a grievance. Although I never knew about grievances
before, I decided it was worth a try since he said that. We
were unable to determine from the record card what the previous
square foot formula was, or when it was raised. When I asked
Mr. Scott, he wasn' t sure. Right now, the square foot rate is
at $5. 00 per square foot, and the depreciation allowance was
changed in May from 45 to 25. We are not sure when it was
changed to $5.00, or what it was when. To support this
grievance, we took records on seventeen properties similar to
ours. And this wasn' t very difficult to do because I remember
when we were going into contract for our property, I asked the
realtor how he would describe our house. He called it the
Greenport barnacular, because there are so many houses just like
this with the three windows across the top. It was easy to find
• similar ones. On the attached graph we have copies for each of
you, we outlined these properties to show that ours is assessed
at an unequal rate to similar ones. In the ratio per square
foot these other houses range from $2 .75 to $4. 50; ours is the
only one at $5.00, and we feel that it is clearly unequal. Our
house was also given unequal treatment on its depreciation
allowance. We contend that our depreciation allowance should
not have been reduced from 45 to 25 percent. Our house was in
derelict condition when we contracted for it in 1987 at the peak
price of the Long Island real estate boom. Shortly after the
contract, the owner died, the house went into probate, so it
went into a long limbo which wasn' t good for the house or us.
It slipped into further disrepair because the attorneys for the
estate would not authorize coils to be replaced in the boiler,
and the house froze in the winter of 1987, and all the pipes
burst. The house was lucky we went to see it at the right time,
it was gushing. We rescued it from falling in on itself. We
closed on the house in January of 1988, in confusion, and found
the heating, wiring, and plumbing were inoperable. First we had
to try to get the heat back into the house because we couldn' t
use it until we did. We enclosed photographs and records of the
seventeen comparable properties to show these houses, many with
higher depreciation and in far superior condition than ours. We
see no reason why our house should be singled out as an
assessment raise. We did replace the back porch, and that is
why we got a building permit. It may have triggered the
• reassessment.
21
Sam Markel: There are several things that could have triggered
it; one is a building permit, the other is the change of
• ownership of property.
Randall Imell: Basically what the photos show is that the
respective houses that are on the graph here are in better
conditon than ours, and are assessed at a much lower rate.
Mixon: We haven,t been able to deal with a shingle problem
which is bad, but we haven' t been able to tackle it at this
point; so we haven' t been able to deal with the roof . The roof
looks awful, but it doesn't leak. We were wondering, though,
that somebody did give us a reference to a recent Supreme Court,
U.S. State court saying that it is illegal to assess property
for tax purpose at its current value, based on its recent
selling price, while similar properties remain at lower
assessments simply because they have not changed hands
recently. And that particular piece of information is in other
grievance books for towns, but isn't included in ours because
this booklet was revised in April 1990. It isn' t fair to
reassess our house based on what we paid for it, unless he goes
back and reassesses all the houses that are similar or better at
what their value should be, which is very difficult to
determine, I know. The assessor also said that he wants to
bring all of Southold Town to $5. 00 a square foot, for a two
story framed house, and most people would agree the properties
in Greenport cannot match most of the Southold properties per
square foot basis. And although we do love Greenport, I think
• any realtor would tell us that the value of a two family house
in Cutchogue is not necessarily the same as one in Greenport,
just level on the Town based on that. Because of unexpected
costs entailed by the extra problems caused by the negligence of
others and also of our own naivete about what old houses were,
we have been unable to address all the woes of this old house.
We enclose detail pictures of the house to show exterior
dilapidation in the roof and the siding, to show that this old
house is not in mint condition, and is assess at a higher and
unequal rate to houses in our comparable group that are in mint
condition. We request our house be reassessed to $4.00 a square
foot and returned to 40 percent depreciation.
Samuel Markel: We do not make decisions today. We are very
familiar with your situation, and what we will do is in a week
or two, we have a Decision Day. You then get the decision by
mail. I must say you did your homework.
Note: Bob Scott was asked to come in.
Sam Markel: Based on your information, do you think the
complainant is on solid grounds for a reduction?
Bob Scott: I think we are on solid ground.
• Sam Markel: On your assessment?
22
Bob Scott: Yes. The assessment for a two story house with a
basement and a fireplace is $5. 50, they have a basement, not a
• fireplace, so the the rate is at $5. 00, not $5. 25 which it could
have been. It could have been higher is what I am saying. We
believe that 50 percent depreciation is a house unfit for human
habitation, that' s our standing.
19) 1001-7-3-9
Jeanne Cooper
414 Clark Street
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
Jeanne Cooper: I do.
Sam Markel: Now, would you like to state your complaint?
Cooper: Basically what happened was I only had the house since
1979, and the title, it was my husband and myself on title, now
it is just myself on title, because we are divorced. Since he
was deleted from title they came in and assessed it. I owned
the home since 1979, but they reassessed anyway. I talked to
Bob Scott about it and told him it wasn' t fair. None of my
other neighbors who owned their homes since 1979 have had their
• houses reassessed. I haven't applied for a building permit, or
made any additions. He said at the time I should look for other
reasons than that. I didn't think it was fair, but I looked
through, and what I did find was that my house is an old house,
and I took a look at surrounding properties, to see what the
comparables were, but there were a lot of title changes in my
neighborhood. What I found was the houses that just recently
transferred have a much higher depreciation than I do. My house
only has a 10 percent depreciation - it is an 80 year old house
- because I cut the hedges. Other houses have forty percent or
more depreciation. I picked out two of the waterfront homes
around the corner from me to take a look. Here' s a much bigger
house in better condition than mine, and its got a forty percent
depreciation. Then there is a big house that was just purchased
a couple of years ago and even though they changed the
depreciation, it still is a lot more than mine. I felt that the
depreciations are not in line at all with the condition of the
homes. I would like to have the depreciation raised to
something more reasonable.
Sam Markel: Does anyone have any questions?
20) 1000-14-3-27
Margaret Ashton
P.O. Box 457
•
Mattituck, NY 11952
23
Note: Complainant was not present.
• Samuel Markel: Last year the assessors examined the house at
the Board's request; a depreciation was granted. She is now
saying that the house is in worse condition this year; we must
pull the 1988 file to examine the complaint and decision of last
year. She is now requesting a 50 percent depreciation.
21) 1000-115-4-31
Gertrude T. Baldwin
5375 New Suffolk Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
Note: Complainant was not present.
Sam Markel: The complainant is not making a claim; she did not
write in what she wants the assessment reduced to; therefore, we
cannot act on this.
22) 1000-122-4-17
Robert E. Waldron
2980 Ole Jule Lane
Mattituck, NY 11952
Note: Complainant was not present.
• Sam Markel: Mr. Waldron did not state what he wants the
assessment reduced to; we cannot act on it.
23) 1001-3-5-2
Dennis & Brigid McMahon
Box 458
Greenport, NY 11944
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
are about to give herein will be given accurately and truthfully
to the best of your ability?
Dennis McMahon: I do.
Brigid McMahon: Yes.
Brigid McMahon: What I did is went around my neighborhood, and
took pictures of houses that I know to be comparable to ours,
and at least the same size or larger. Then, I checked to see
what their assessments are; we are way out of line. These are
the places I took pictures of, and they are all marked on the
back.
Sam Markel: You did a good job, but what we are going to do
with these pictures is pull the property cards - that will give
•
us physical dimensions, prices, etc. . We don' t make any
decisions tonight anyhow.
24
Brigid McMahon: I understand that.
• Sam Markel: We pull all the cards and compare them with your
card.
Brigid McMahon: Well, unfortunately, what I found is that some
of the information is not up to date on the Assessor' s cards.
So, although, when you pull out the card it may look like a
place is not in as good condition or whatever, I can assure you
that I 've been to these places and they. . .
Sam Markel: How long have you lived there?
Brigid McMahon: We've been there for ten years. These other
houses, which are larger and in better condition, have lower
assessments than our purposed assessment, they are are not
comparable.
Dennis McMahon: I think the problem is basically in the
system. I don' t understand that when you improve your home and
you do a nice job and you have a little pride in your home, they
take it to a certain point every time you are assessed on this.
It seems a little backward, especially when a place like
Greenport really needs a breath of life. My brother and I came
in here in 1976 and bought two houses and put every penny we had
into it for about 10 years. Then you receive a royal drop-kick
from the community for doing all that work. I doesn' t make
sense. Every time you make a little improvement - I'm not
• talking major additions - I didn' t even add to the footprint of
my house. And you're penalized.
Sam Markel: Thank you.
24) 1000-70-4-37 . 1
John B. Amrod, Frances E. Amrod
P.O. Box 610
Southold, NY 11971
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best
of your ability?
John Amrod: I do. Gentlemen, before I came down tonight, I had
a feeling we were over assessed, and by examining the records
and comparing them with comparable properties, I am convinced
that we are horribly over assessed. My wife and I have a one
family ranch, a two bedroom house. Our taxes have gone up since
we bought it, but it looks like we will have to be forced to
sell. I wouldn' t be squawking if everyone around us was paying
their fair share, and if everyone was, the Town would have a
tremendous surplus. We are not waterfront property. We have a
thirty year old house that needs a lot of work. There are newer
homes that are larger and on the waterfront that are assessed
•
less or about the same as our property. I pointed out under
part three G that we have a house with two bedrooms, in only
25
fair condition, no air conditioning. The Crowley house was
recently sold; it is a much larger plot with central air
• conditioning in much better condition, and is assessed at only
$9200, which is $300 less that our property. Even more
dramatically, the Sacco property on Jockey Creek is waterfront,
larger, and in better condition, and is assessed at only $8600.
You got us at $9500. I have listed other properties that are
assessed less and are nicer homes. I would trade in a minute.
The Brattle property is worth at least twice the value of our
property. They all are three and four bedroom houses. This
makes no sense to me. Where is the logic in this? This one
boggles my mind - the Bjerknes property - the house is larger
than ours, in better condition, you know what the assessment
is? $8300. And ours is $9500.
25) 1000-139-3-7
Daniel Reiter
2650 Wickham Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
Represented by: Fred N. Perry, Esq.
66 Commack Road, Suite 102
Commack, NY 11725
John Sullivan: Do you solemnly swear that the information you
are about to give herein will be given accurately and truthfully
to the best of your ability?
• Fred Perry: I do.
Sam Markel: So you are appearing as attorney for Mr. Reiter,
and he is basing his claim on competitive market analysis.
Fred Perry: Yes. I am relying solely on that ERA ALbo Realtor
Analysis which is actually one year old. I respectfully submit
that the home values if anything have only appreciated since
then. I am relying on that and the residential ratio and no
other documentation. My only purpose as an attorney here is to
once again emphasize - I firmly believe and respectfully submit
this; absent application of the residential ratio can do no
justice to the homeowners. Otherwise you are engaged in a very
small sampling of several properties and the residential ratio
on the other hand is based on hundreds of properties. That' s
why the courts and the appeals level rely almost exclusively on
the residential ratio. I appeared before this board last year,
and quite frankly I have the same exact market analysis and the
ratio. I did not get one dollar of reduction and I got the
maximum cap on appeal, which is twenty-five percent and led the
Town of Southold to refunding that money to the homeowner. The
reason why the ratio was created in the early 80 ' s and while we
pay taxpayers dollars for that agency to create the ratio is
because it is deemed to create some type of equity for the crazy
numbers we have to deal with. If you compare the assessment to
one or two properties in your locality, they may be all
• underassessed or overassessed; it may help you or hurt you.
That' s why they've aligned a ratio based upon hundreds of
26
studies. I understand they use corporate construction standard;
the last time I came before this Board, you bought in an
• assessor and they said they applied the cost to construction.
Sam Markel: Brick and motar.
Fred Perry: But if you simply just utilize that system, you are
rubber stamping the system, and I respectfully submit you are
hurting the homeowner. The Nassau County Board of Assessment
Review, because of the results at the appeals level, were
forced to start adopting the ratio. This only happened this
year. This is not meant to be a threat, but a realization that
at the appeals level, the only true equity is application of the
ratio. I come to this Board again, and the number result to a
25 percent deduction, I am positive I will get it. I probably
will go before the Board next year with the same client. This
would be the year to start using the ratio for what it' s worth.
If you want any further documentation from me relating to the
ratio, I will contact Albany and have it furnished to you.
Sam Markel: I understand where you are coming from. But in
Southold Town the Assessors, which we have no control over, work
on a brick and motar assessed valuation. As long as they
uniformly use it for the entire Town of Southold, we have to
accept it.
Fred Perry: It is totally at your discretion; and if you feel
legally compelled, please site the athority to me. You are an
• independent board. Lawyers should not get involved. Hopefully,
homeowners should be able to come to you and get justice. My
big tidbit is to help them out at the appeals level. I don' t
think I should have to. I don' t know why this Board is rubber
stamping the assessment; you have total power to do what you
want. The law specifically, at your discretion, use the ratio.
I don' t know of any legal president that says you have to do
this. If you really are on the homeowners side. And if you
want to avoid refunds by the municipalities.
The Evening Session of the Board of Assessment Review adjourned
at 9: 17 P.M. .
Respectfully Submitted:
911_4-41-4uL l,-L
•
27
1) 1000-666-2-4 TO 1000-666-15-3 ( 15 Lots)
Murphy, Lynch & Limone, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for New York Telephone Co.
411 CERTIORARI
2) 1001-3-4-31
Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman
Complaint on Real Assessment for Tidal Properties, Inc.
CERITORARI
3 ) 1001-3-4-47
Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman
Complaint on Real Assessment for Tidal Properties, Inc.
CERTIORARI
4) 1001-3-5-16. 2
Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman
Complaint on Real Assessment for Tidal Properties, Inc.
CERTIORARI
5) 1001-3 .1-1-1 Thru 48
Cruser, Hills, Hills, & Besunder
Complaint on Real Assessment for Stirling Cove Condominiums
CERITORARI
6) 1001-4-7-12
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Mandel Family Corp.
CERTIORARI
• 7) 1001-4-9-7
Koeppel Del Casino & Martone, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 235 Mill Street, Inc.
CERTIORARI
8) 1000-4-9-28 . 2
Podell Rothman Schechter & Banfield
Complaint on Real Assessment for Gusmar Realty Corp.
CERTIORARI
9) 1001-4-10-5
Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano
Complaint on Real Assessment for The Bank of New York
CERTIORARI
10) 1001-501-14
John W. Lappin, C.P.A.
Complaint on Real Assessment for John W. Lappin
CERTIORARI
11) 1001-7 . 1-1-1 thru 1001-7 .1-1-34
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Board of Managers of
Oyster Point Condominium
CERITORARI
28
12) 1000-4-3-3
Mr. W. Scott Blanchard
Complaint on Real Assessment for Betsy Cushing Whitney
CERTIORARI
13) 1000-15-3-17
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Anthony Pirrera
CERTIORARI
14) 1000-40-1-20.1
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Anthony Pirrera
CERTIORARI
15) 1000-40-1-20.2
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Anthony Pirrera
CERTIORARI
16) 1000-40-3-10. 3
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Nicholas Petikas
CERTIORARI
17) 1000-44-3-4. 2
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Dorothy Snyder
• CERTIORARI
18) 1000-44-3-4. 3
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Southold Ventures, Inc.
CERTIORARI
19) 1000-45-4-8.1
Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for New York Telephone Co.
CERTIORARI
20) 1000-102-5-24
Wimpfheimer & Sherman, Esqs.
Complaint on Real Assessment for The Southland Corp. 16440
CERTIORARI
21) 1000-51-3-3. 11
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for the Tamrah Management
CERTIORARI
22) 1000-61-3-7
David G. Koch, Esq.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Norstar Bank
• CERTIORARI
29
23 ) 1000-73-3-1.1
Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman
• Complaint on Real Assessment for Marlake Associates
CERTIORARI
24) 1000-83-2-1
Cronin, Cronin & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises
D/B/A The Beachcomber Motel
CERTIORARI
25) 1000-83-2-2
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Pond Enterprises
D/B/A The Beachcomber Motel
CERTIORARI
26) 1000-84-2-4.1
Certilman, Balin, Adler & Hyman
Complaint on Real Assessment for Marlake Associates
CERTIORARI
27) 1000-97-5-4.7
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for WMS Realty, INC.
CERTIORARI
28) 1000-97-5-12
• Arthur J. Kremer, Esq.
Complaint on Real Assessment for King Kullen Grocery Co.
CERTIORARI
29) 1000-97-5-11
Murphy Lynch & Limone, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for New York Telephone Co.
CERTIORARI
30) 1000-97-5-12
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for S & E Realty Co.
CERTIORARI
31) 1000-99-4-1
Margiotta & Ricigliano
Complaint on Real Assessment for Vantage Petroleum Corp.
CERTIORARI
32) 1000-100-3-2. 2
D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo, & Joseph
F. Carlin, Esqs.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Crysellen Bouziotis
CERTIORARI
•
30
33) 1000-100-3-2. 3
D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F.
• Carlino, Esqs.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Crysellen Bouziotis
CERTIORARI
34) 1000-101-1-4. 1
Koeppel Del Casino & Martone, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for L & R Vineyards Assoc.
CERTIORARI
35) 1000-101-1-5. 2
Koeppel Del Casino & Martone, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for L & R Vineyards Assoc.
CERTIORARI
36) 1000-102-5-26
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 808 Realty Corp.
CERTIORARI
37) 1000-105-2-1
Siegel, Fenchel, & Peddy, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Thomas T. Shannon
CERTIORARI
38) 1000-115-6-3
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
• Complaint on Real Assessment for Frederick & Dolores Boeje
CERITORARI
39) 1000-122-3-10
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Hodor-Staller & Kasper
Building #170
CERITORARI
40) 1000-142-1-26
Certilman, Balin, Adler, & Hyman
Complaint on Real Assessment for Alan A. Cardinale
CERTIORARI
41) 1000-142-1-26
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Genovese Drug Stores, INC.
CERTIORARI
42) 1000-31-18-10
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Daniel Mooney
CERTIORARI
43) 1000-55-5-2. 4
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.
•
Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp.
CERTIORARI
31
44) 1000-61-1-13 . 1
Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp.
111 CERTIORARI
45) 1000-61-4-22
Meyer, Suozzi, English, & Klein, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp.
CERTIORARI
46) 1000-63-1-10
Meyer, Suozzi, English, & Klein, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Pudge Corp.
CERTIORARI
47) 1000-122-3-4
Meyer, Suozzi, English, & Klein, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Maureen Mooney
CERTIORARI
48) 1000-122-3-5
Meyer, Suozzi, English, & Klein, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Maureen Mooney
CERTIORARI
49) 1000-122-6-31
Murphy and Bartol, Esqs.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Parviz Farahzad
• CERTIORARI
50) 1000-21-6-1
Cronin, Cronin & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoc.
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
51) 1000-21-6-2
Cronin, Cronin & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoc.
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
52) 1000-30-3-12
Cronin, Cronin & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoc.
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
53) 1000-21-6-3
Cronin, Cronin & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoc.
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
•
32
54) 1000-21-6-4
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoc.
•
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
55) 1000-31-1-5. 4
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoc.
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
56) 1000-21-6-5
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoc.
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
57) 1000-31-1-5 .73
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
58) 1000-31-1-5. 8
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
• CERTIORARI
59) 1000-21-6-6
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
60) 1000-31-1-5. 5
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
61) 1000-31-1-5. 6
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
62) 1000-30-3-7
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
•
33
63) 1000-21-6-7
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
• Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
64) 1000-30-3-8
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
65) 1000-21-6-8
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
66) 1000-30-3-9
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
67) 1000-30-3-10
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
• CERTIORARI
68) 1000-30-3-11
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
69) 1000-30-3-6
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
70) 1000-30-3-5
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Assoicates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
71) 1000-30-3-4
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
•
34
72) 1000-30-3-2
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
411Staller
on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
73) 1000-30-3-1
Cronin, Cronin, & Harris, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for 70 Marion Associates
Staller Associates Building #88
CERTIORARI
74) 1000-26-1-31
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Pasquale A. Gemma &
Penelope Gemma
CERTIORARI
75) 1000-114-9-11
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Eleanor Salomon
CERTIORARI
76) 1000-9-9-3 . 4
Richard F. Lark, Esq.
Complaint on Real Assessment for David R. Wilmerding, Jr.
CERTIORARI
• 77) 1000-109-1-12
Wickham, Wickham & Bressler, P.C,
Complaint on Real Assessment for Wickham Homestead, Inc.
CERTIORARI
78) 1000-106-9-13
Wickham, Wickham, & Bressler, P.C.
Complaint on Real Assessment for Stuart D. Wechsler
CERTIORARI
110
35
THE FOLLOWING PARCELS ARE COMPLAINTS
ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR 1990
• FROM THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPTARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
By: Gerard P. Goehringer, Land Management Spec. IV
1) 1000-15-5-24. 8
Parview Avenue, Orient
2) 1000-84-1-6.18
Bridge Lane, Peconic
3) 1000-52-3-36. 1
Roads off CR 48, Greenport
4) 1000-15-9-1. 31
Roads in Lands End Subdivision
5) 1000-15-5-25. 2
Road in Orient by the Sea Subdivision, Orient
6) 1000-15-5-25. 3
Roads in Orient by the Sea Subdivision, Orient
7) 1000-43-2-5
Private Right of Way to 7, Greenport
8) 1000-43-5-23
• Beach Area off of Bay Road, Greenport
9) 1000-50-3-3 .1
Off of Lighthouse Road, Southold
10) 1000-54-2-11
Horton Road, Southold
11) 1000-59-1-26
Paper Street off Kenney Road, Southold
12) 1000-59-4-5. 9
Green Fields in Southold
13 ) 1000-59-4-7
Off of Turken' s Lane, Southold
14) 1000-59-9-6
Off of Soundview Ave. , Southold
15) 1000-59-9-9
Paper Street Access to Town Refuge Area, Southold
16) 1000-67-7-12
Soundview Ave. , Peconic
• 17) 1000-70-6-14
n/s Pineneck Road, Southold
36
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF REAL ESTATE (cont. )
18) 1000-71-1-43
•
Creek Front Area, N. Bayview Rd, Southold
19) 1000-74-1-44. 11
Henry' s Lane, Peconic
20) 1000-78-8-11
Private Road to provide access/N. Bayview Rd, Southold
21) 1000-78-9-26
Summit Rd. , Southold
22) 1000-79-7-41
Park Area for Subdivision, Leeward Dr. , Southold
23 ) 1000-83-1-11
Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue
24) 1000-86-4-1.9
Park Road Playground Area in Subdivision, Peconic
25) 1000-87-5-12. 3
s/s Main Bayview 344 w/o Cedar La. , Southold
26) 1000-87-5-23 .9
Canal Frontage off Main Bayview, Southold
• 27) 1000-98-1-7.18
Private Road, Cutchogue
28) 1000-100-3-10. 16
s/e/s Inlet View East, Mattituck
29) 1000-100-3-15.14
e/s/o Reeve Ave. , Mattituck
30) 1000-100-3-19
Paved Road in Subdivision, Reeve Ave, Mattituck
31) 1000-102-8-35
Crownland Lane, Cutchogue
32) 1000-106-10-28. 4
Deer Path, Mattituck
33 ) 1000-107-2-3 .15
Greton Court, Mattituck
34) 1000-108-4-7 . 22
Off of Elijah' s Lane, Mattituck
35) 1000-113-6-5
•
Unpaved private road -access to Miller' s Rd, Mattituck
37
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. OF REAL ESTATE (cont. )
36) 1000-126-9-8
•
Wells Road, Laurel
37) 1000-126-9-28
Peconic Bay Blvd, Laurel
38) 1000-126-11-14
Peconic Bay Blvd, Laurel
39) 1000-128-2-23
Peconic Bay Blvd, Laurel
•
S
38
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
CORRECTION OF ERRORS
411 1989-90 TAX WARRANT
NAME FROM TO
1. Kourosh Javaheri 9900 9000
2 . Barry & Linda Improte 12500 11900
3 . Ali Jewlery Corp. 4100 3900
4 . Vincent Matassa 7400 7200
5 . Arthur & Anneliese Kreiger 8500 8300
6. Eugene A. & Wendy L. Pacholk 4600 4400
7 . Pawling Views Inc. 24900 11700
8 . Bessie A. Goldsmith 0 2600
9 . Frederick E. Hulse III & Wife 4100 4000
10. Walsh Park Benevolent Corp. 7700 6700
11 . Joseph Santora & wife 13500 12800
12 . Peter Panagopoulos 8500 7900
13 . John N. & Linda Sabatio 0 574
14 . Gerald Dale Dorman & Wife 12100 11800
15 . Guillaume & Renata deDalmas 4400 4200
16. Dirck Winser Brown 8400 8200
17 . John A. & Diana Shelley Prizeman 7800 7300
18. Edward Paul & Catherine J. Forte 5100 4800
19 . Robert Wissman & Wife 10150 10050
20. Frank J. Thorp 600 400
21 . Robert & Vera Jean Brown 4800 3900
22 . Anna Andriotis 8900 7200
•
23 . Hayk Kalenderian & Wife 8300 8100
24. John Katramados 5300 5100
25. Edwin M. Latson 2100 1000
26. Edwin M. Latson 600 200
27 . Edwin M. Latson 400 100
28. Susan E. Egan & Sally A. McGuire 3400 3100
29. Philip Barth & Wife 8100 7100
30. Harold Taubin & Wife 2500 3500
31. Lorraine H. Anlyan 6500 6100
32. Christopher Miceli 5700 3400
33 . Francis E. Stephan & Barbara Brown 4200 3700
34. Dorothy R. Bragonier 6400 6000
35. Robert G. O'Brien & Wife 6700 6300
36. John W. & Patricia Burke 9400 9200
37 . Ralph W. Tuthill & Wife 7400 7300
38 . Thomas Novak & Wife 4900 3900
39. Thomas E. Samuels 9100 8700
40. Edward P. Krebs & Wife 6400 600
41. Marybelle Carde 12900 12700
42 . Jeffrey & Dawn E. Bauer 0 $177 . 53
43 . Sal Tusa 9700 8700
44. Grace A. Finora 8200 5400
45. William Pymn & Wife 9900 9300
46. Gregory Leperides & Wife 8700 7700
47 . Kourosh Javaheri 8000 68000
• 48. Anthony J. Bucich 6100 6000
49. George Petersen & Wife 2100 900
50. Ernest G. Robinson & Wife 7500 7400
51. Elizabeth A. Allen 4700 4400
39
DECISION DAY
• August 2, 1990
The Decision Meeting of the Board of Assessment Review was
called to order at 9: 00 a.m. . In attendance were:
Samuel Markel, Co-Chairman John Sullivan, Co-Chairman
Thomas Henry William Weinheimer Thomas Burdy
1) Raymond Clempner
1000-36-2-4
DENIED
2) Raymond Clempner
1000-36-2-25 .1
DENIED
3) Frank & Agnes Licari
1000-89-2-6
DENIED
4) Pat & Paul Kulsziski
1000-4-7-16
DENIED
• 5) Elaine Axien
1000-68-3-83
DENIED
6) Gary Bartoloni
1000-4-7-15
Assessment reduced to 5400 from 7400.
7) Joseph Henry
1000-5-1-13
Assessment reduced to 3600 from 4300 .
8) Paul Henry
1000-33-5-13 .1
DENIED
9) Patricia M. Orfanos
1001-4-3-19
Assessment reduced to 6100 from 7300.
10) Adele Dusenbury
1001-7-3-11
Assessment reduced to 7500 from 8300.
11) Richard & Marilyn MMarschean
1000-64-4-11
• DENIED
12) Christine & John Marcin
40
1000-104-4-32
• Assessment reduced to 3000 from 6200.
13) James & Rosett McKillop
1000-137-5-15
DENIED
14) Linda C. Wilton
1000-40-3-6. 2
Assessment reduced to 750 from 1200.
15) Jerome Mazzafero
1000-35-3-3
Assessment reduced to 6800 from 6900.
16) John Dinos
1000-133-1-9
DENIED
17) Stephanie J. Seremetis
1000-22-3-8. 2
Assessment reduced to 8800 from 9100.
18) Myrtis Mixon & Randall Imell
1001-6-6-14
Assessment reduced to 3000 from 3800.
• 19) Jeanne Cooper
1001-7-3-9
Assessment reduced to 4600 from 4900.
20) Margaret Ashton
1000-14-3-27
DENIED
21) Gertrude T. Baldwin
1000-115-4-31
DENIED
22) Robert Waldron
1000-122-4-17
DENIED
23) Dennis & Brigid McMahon
1001-3-5-2
Assessment reduced from 3600 to 4500
24) John Amrod
1000-70-4-37 .1
DENIED
25) Daniel Reiter
1000-139-3-7
• DENIED
26) Norma & George Decker
41
1000-87 .1-1-24
81 Poplar Street
•
Garden City, NY 11530
Form not filled out properly; DENIED.
27) Alan Goodman & Elena Seibert
1000-52-5-11.1
277 Water Street
New York, NY 10038
Form not filled out properly; does not say how much they want
taken off assessment; DENIED.
28) Elaine Kelfer
Margaretha Kloos
1000-3-5-70
155 Sterling Avenue
Greenport, NY 11944
Wants assessment reduced to $4850; presently at $6180 . She sent
in comparables, ie. Thomas Monsell. Mr. Monsell main building
is assessed at $300, hers is $500 .
Assessment reduced to $4850.
29) Paul & Claudia Budine
1001-3-4-36 . 5
• 165 Sterling Street
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Budline sent in a letter and spoke to Sam Markel on the
phone; he got the letter in on time but wihout an application
because he did not understand the form. John Sullivan called
Mr. Budline to explain, but did not reach him. Cards were
pulled for comparables; ratios were compared of square footage;
he is not being overcharged.
DENIED.
30) Agway, Inc.
1000-60-1-5
Youngs Avenue
Southold, NY 11971
Assessment was reduced to $20899 due to bulldozing of
buildings. Agway wants it reduced again to 16500 - 18000
because reduction was not sufficient.
DENIED.
31) Steve Moraitis
1000-39-1-4. 2
7995 Main Road
East Marion, NY 11939
• Vacant piece of land; wants assessment reduced to 1450 ; Land was
sold to him in for $78,000; In August of 1987 it was reduced to
42
5 acres from 18 acres. Now paying $2894 total tax; figures were
checked out with assessors.
•
DENIED.
32) Louise Cardinale-Busch
1000-126-5-9
9060 Peconic Bay Blvd.
Laurel, NY 11948
Property is not on Great Peconic Bay; it butts Mattituck Park
District. Has access but not direct access to the Bay.
Comparable cards were pulled; Land value should be reduced.
Assessment reduced from 9300 to 9150.
33) Mr. & Mrs. Domick Sblendio
Angela Auricchio
1000-43-4-37
6 Clark Street
Huntington, NY
Assessment raised from 4100 to 7300; Wants it reduced back to
4100. House is not liveable; it is unuseable and building
permit was revoked, so no C.O. can be issued.
Assessment reduced to 4100 from 7300.
The Board of Assessment Review meeting was adjourned at 1: 30
• p.m. .
•
43
• ,1.'+T, Jc ASSESSMENT ROLL - YEAR 1910. /_21
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Complaint Last Name
or Of Owner Property Assessment Assessment
Grievance No. On Roll Desc. From To
1 Clempner, R. 1000-36-2-4 DENIED
2 Clempner, R. 1000-36-2-25. 1 DENIED
3 Licari, F. 1000-89-2-6 DENIED
4 Kulsziski, P. 1000-4-7-16 DENIED
5 Axien, E. 1000-68-3-83 DENIED
6 Bartoloni, G. 1000-4-7-15 7400 5400
7 Henry, J. 1000-5-1-13 4300 3600
11111 8 Henry, P. 1000-33-5-13.1 DENIED
9 Orfanos, P. 1001-4-3-19 7300 6100
10 Dusenbury, A. 1001-7-3-11 8300 7500
11 Marschean, R. 1000-64-4-11 DENIED
12 Marcin, J. 1000-104-4-32 6200 3000
13 McKillop, J. 1000-137-5-15 DENIED
14 Wilton, L 1000-40-3-6.2 1200 750
15 Mazzafero 1000-35-3-3 6900 6800
16 Dinos, J. 1000-133-1-9 DENIED
17 Seremetis, S. 1000-22-3-8.2 9100 8800
18 Mixon, M.
Imell, R. 1001-6-6-14 3800 3000
19 Cooper, J. 1001-7-3-9 4900 4600
20 Ashton, M. 1000-14-3-27 DENIED
• 21 Baldwin, G. 1000-115-4-31 DENIED
R.P.T.S.A. - 500 - 4/7 •
BAR-2 - Part II
44 •
III7,--„,7-/A7; ,,,,-- ASSESSMENT ROLL - YEAR 1990/ 91
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Complaint Last Name
or Of Owner Property Assessment Assessment
Grievance No. On Roll Desc. From To
22 Waldron, R. 1000-122-4-17 DENIED
23 McMahon, D. 1001-3-5-2 4500 3600
24 Amrod, J. 1000-70-4-37.1 DENIED
25 Reiter, D. 1000-139-3-7 DENIED
26 Decker, G. 1000-87. 1-1-24 DENIED
27 Goodman, A. 1000-52-5-11.1 DENIED
Seibert, E.
28 Kelfer, E. 1000-3-5-70 6600 4850
• 29 Budline, P. 1001-3-4-36.5 DENIED
30 Agway, Inc. 1000-60-1-5 DENIED
31 Moraitis, S. 1000-69-1-4.2 DENIED
32 Cardinale-Busch 1000-126-5-9 9300 9150
33 Sblendio, D.
Auricchio, A. 1000-43-4-37 7300 4100
i
R.P.T.S.A. - 500 - 4/7
BAR-2 - Part II
45
111
COMPLAINTS ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR 1990
TOTAL COMPLAINTS RECEIVED
COMPLAINTS 33
CERTIORARIES 78
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPT. REAL ESTATE 39
CORRECTION OF ERRORS 59
La9
• TOTAL
S
46
,19
0 STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ) ss:
TOWN OR VILLAGE OF )
The undersigned, being duly sworn do severally depose and
say that deponents are members of the Board of Assessment Review;
that deponents have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof;
and the matters set forth are true to the best of the deponents '
knowledge.
Sworn to before me this 'o d y
of - r� i , 199C, .
HELENE D.HORNE
NoWi►Public,Stats of NSw Yrak
/12,
No.4951364
Notary Pub�i �mt�
oare
Cl3iPanisaion Expires Mair?2,t e Z .
ti
•
Gee �� /, �(
d /S
airman Mee
M- /•er r )f'
Member
.oriZ27.7 I
Me r
R.P.T.S.A. - 200 - 4/72
BAR-2 - Page 2 of 2