HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 •
GRIEVANCE DAY
MAY 19, 1992
The morning session of the Board of Assessment Review began at
9 : 15 a.m. ; present were:
John Sullivan, Chairman
Samuel S. Markel
Thomas J. Henry
William Weinheimer
Thomas Burdy
1) 1000-114-9-14 .2
Robert A. Celic
P.O. Box 1247
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?
Mr. Celic: I do.
Mr. Sullivan: Is this commercial or residential?
Mr. Celic: Residential .
Mr. Sullivan: Are you representing somebody?
Mr. Celic: No, I 'm representing myself. I submitted my
application on the first of May.
Mr. Sullivan: Is it vacant land?
Mr. Celic: No, it' s an improved parcel .
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. Mr. Celic.
Mr. Celic: As far as my application, I have nothing against
paying taxes, I know we need the taxes in town. I support the
2 •
municipal services and so forth. I has been my family house on
Marratooka Lake and New Suffolk Avenue and we have owned it
since 1978 . It cost me $92,000 dollars to build in 1978
complete. The land was a gift from my father-in-law, George
Penny, who is no longer with us . We have taken the pride of
ownership, we maintain the property and yet it has been bugging
me for the last ten or twelve years actually that my assessment
appears to be over what the competition appears to show. I am a
certified appraiser as well as a licensed real estate broker so
I am familiar with the market. We have a company, Celic
Reality which deals with real estate from Orient to Calverton
so I am aware of what has been going on and what is going on. I
have seen boom days and low days so I know what is selling. I
have attached an independent appraisal to this application. I
went through our files and grabbed some comparable listings that
have been on the market for five years, which still remain
unsold and have been actively and progressively marketed with no
results. In comparison, you can see the configuration, square
footage, the comparable features of my house to those listings
and the attached differential . The taxes are no where near
mine. I have just finished paying the second half at a total of
$7,045 . 37 which is a hefty payment. Why it is so hefty I
believe is because the assessed valuation is in excess of what
it should be based on comparable sales for a comparable
product. I personally think that the assessment should be
reduced to about $9,000 as opposed to $12,200, of which a $1000
would be land and $8000 would be improvements. Once again, I
mention that I don't object to paying taxes at all because I
know the avenue of resource does support our Town but what is
fair is fair and I don't believe this is unfair in terms of the
assessment. All of the figures I have provided to you basically
support that intention. I don't know any other comments I can
add to that other than the fact that I see this every day.
Another thing this Board should be aware of is that in contrast
to former years when people were looking to purchase and settle
out here, they have no question as to what the taxes are. That
is one of the very first questions they ask now. What are the
taxes? If we continue to increase our taxes as we have, we are
creating an atmosphere of absolutely no growth and making it
very difficult for our children. I have five children and I
would like to see my children settle here ultimately but I know
none of them at the moment could possibly afford the taxes even
a small three bedroom ranch because the assessment is awfully
high. Comparable to west end Towns, such as Garden City which
is a premium residential community. So, I am petitioning you to
consider my application and all your consideration will be
greatly appreciated. In terms of the residential assessment
ratio, the assessors have done a very good job. Bob Scott and
Scott have done a very fine job in bringing the ratio more in
line with values but not enough. Not because of their efforts,
but because of State mandates . But, at least it is a little
more equitable this year then it had been last year. As an
example, my house was estimated value last year at $420,690
dollars . With the new ratio, it is $338.887 . The value in my
• 3 •
opinion should be around $250. 00 and the attached appraisal
supports that contention by appraising at $249,500.
Thomas Henry: You say it is a custom built house?
Mr. Celic: Yes sir.
Mr. Henry: How did you arrive at the comparables that you use
here?
Mr. Celic: These are current comparables, these are not
comparable in terms of 1978 .
Mr. Henry: How did you conclude that these are comparable?
Mr. Celic: Basically, a combination. Being a certified
appraiser you take everything into consideration, you take
square footage, you take location, topographical
characteristics, maintenance, condition, amenities, fireplaces,
basements, garages, landscaping, condition of roof, type of
roof. Many factors that contribute to the overall analysis of
the product that you are comparing. You adjust for
differences. If there is a slight difference in square footage
that is basically what those are.
Mr. Henry: The relief that we are involved in is only one year.
Mr. Celic: I realize that but enough is enough. I have two
children in college which is costing me a bundle and it is just
a matter of dollars and cents and also principle. Dollars and
cents first.
John Sullivan: Any questions?
Sam Markel: Is it located on that lake?
Mr. Celic: It has a twenty foot strip that leads to the lake
and it is a fresh water lake, non navigable.
Thomas Henry: At the initial stage of your grievance, did you
talk to the assessors.
Mr. Celic: No.
Mr. Henry: Let me ask this question then, who is responsible?
Mr. Scott: I actually talked to Mr. Celic a year ago and that
was concerning the measurements and I explained to him how it is
done, the physical inventory that is taken, he had brought to me
his plans from the original construction. I went over the plans
we thought there might be a discrepancy in measurements . At the
time we went through a process where what we were doing is we
noticed that the rates were what ordinarily applied uniformally
would be incorrect for a full two story house like this. I had
• 4 •
mentioned that problem with him regarding if we were to go
review this house the rates might go up. Then, after about a
week or so of discussing it with Bob and Darlene we decided
there shouldn't be any penalty involved for us trying to check
our mistakes . We went and reviewed the house and found no
errors in measurement, we didn't change the rates at all to hurt
his assessed value but we couldn't decrease it either because
every square foot measurement we had on there was one hundred
percent correct according to our remeasurement but we did talk
to him about that. We just have a few questions regarding this
appraisal . The appraisal, is an independent appraisal but it is
done by someone who works for him.
Mr. Markel: Scott, please answer the questions that are asked
only.
Mr. Russell: Well, when are you going to give me a chance to go
into this?
Mr. Markel : On decision day. Did you pull any comparables?
Mr. Russell : Yes, Long Pond, there was a sale there in July.
Mr. Celic: The house next door is half the assessment.
Mr. Sullivan: You will hear from us later.
2) 1001-4-7-16 Pat and Paul Kulsziski
433 Main Street
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. William Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the
information you give herein will be give accurately and
truthfully to the best of your ability?
Mr. and Mrs . Kulsziski : We do.
Mr. Kulsziski: I tried to get refinancing. Got a bank
appraisal and comparisons were done with the appraisals.
Mr. Markel : Did you submit the appraisal?
Mr. Kulsziski: Yes. Own a business and have had no profit.
I own one twelfth of an acre of land in Greenport.
Mr. Kulsziski : My house attracts tourists to this area and I
feel like I am being penalized.
Mrs . Kulsziski: We can't drink the water, we have to supply
off the street parking for tourists . It' s been very quiet for a
long time.
Mr. Henry: Do you have comparable?
• 5 •
Mr. Scott: I have three comparables .
Mr. Kulsziski: Please take a look at the appraisal? This guy
knows the market and what he is looking at. When I bought this
house it was at the peak of the market.
Mrs. Kulsziski : We bought it before October 1987 . The
property on Donald Drive in Mattituck, it is approximately 1400
square feet in size and has an attached two car garage. I
contacted the assessor' s office and I was informed that the way
they calculated the assessments, it was based on living area.
On a one story ranch which is what we have here it would be a
total living area of 1400 times three dollars . According to my
calculations, it comes up with an assessment of 4230 . Also
garages are assessed separately at 125 square foot, giving a
grand total assessment of 5, 111.25. The Jerome' s received a
notice from the Townthat there assessment for this dwelling was
going to be 8500 and it was stamped partial . They just received
a C.O. for the property so I am sure when the Town went there it
was just in the middle of construction. We check also
assessments, similar sized homes in the vicinity. I have
attached maps and descriptions of the houses that I used as
comparables. A lot of the houses that we used some larger
homes, some two story, some with pools, decks, some waterfront,
some waterview homes . They are all coming in at about 5600
average. Like I said, their assessment, the partial assessment
they were given was 80 by 100. Now, the only thing that I could
find in that vicinity that comes anywhere near that is a
gigantic huge old mansion sitting right on Main Road. Like I
said it is just a one story ranch and it is only 1400 square
feet in size. This is just a partial 8500 . Like I said, he
just got a C.O. so it is now completed. I don't know when the
Town inspected the property or to tell you what stage it was
under construction.
Mr. Markel : Well, if they have gotten a C.O. , they will go
out and make the final inspection for the final appraisal but
you won't get that until next year.
Mrs . Kulsziski: The thing is, they are partial now and they
are 8500 .
Mr. Markel : O.K. , I 'm with you, I 'm just telling you what is
going to happen. It's unequal as far as other dwellings, is
that what you are saying?
Mrs . Kulsziski : Yes.
Mr. Weinheimer: Did you compare these figures back here?
Mrs . Kulsziski : I never saw that before, I don't know what
that is .
• 6 111
Mr. Weinheimer: That is how they arrive at your assessed
valuation.
Mr. Sullivan: You will be hearing from us.
3) 1000-103-13-31
Jeffrey D. and Susan Miller
395 Holden Avenue
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. & Mrs . Miller: We do.
Mr. Miller: We purchased this house in March. The assessment
stands at 7,500 . The purchase price was $160,500 . We would
like the assessment to be brought down to 5,778.
Mr. Robert Scott: The assessment does not reflect the current
prices. The Board of Assessors are in favor of a reduction.
Our recommendation is to reduce this to the amount requested.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions?
Board: No questions.
Mr. Sullivan: You will be hearing from us .
4) 1000-109-3-2 .40
John and Barbara Prestia
470 Moores Lane
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. and Mrs. Prestia: We recently checked sales in our area
and we think we have been assessed too high.
Mr. Sullivan: This is not completed. Part three has to be
completed. Please complete this and come back, we will take
someone else in the meantime.
5) 1000-87 . 1-1-8
Elizabeth R. Schloss
P.O. Box 421
Southold, NY 11971
7
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Ms. Schloss: I do.
Ms. Schloss: Good morning, I am here to visit you again this
year. As you can see, my assessment has been raised and the
question I have been asked is how come? What has happened? I
would also like to state that pride in ownership and I am very
willing to pay my taxes as I have in many years past. I have
maintained the property but it is somewhat embarrassing to be
living in the middle of a drastic eyesore and when your friends
and family come around and say what have you got here? It is
very hard to explain. I think that the conditions there are
unbelievable for an attractive area in a new development and I
am at a loss to understand just why they feel that I was
entitled to an increased valuation based on the fact if
anything, things are worst as you can see from the photos . It
is really pretty bad. They increased my evaluation one year
when they put in the swimming pool. The swimming pool this year
has been inactivated and it looks pretty awful. Nothing has
been done about it and we pay our monthly management fees and
the management company is trying to sue whoever they can attach
and foreclosure proceedings with the court and we have a court
receiver and the swimming pool looks like an open sewer. It is
just beyond belief. If you want anything done, since there are
caterpillar nests in the trees down by the unfinished units and
I have had to hire a landscaper myself to come on Thursday to
remove the caterpillar nests because nobody else will do it, at
my expense. I have painted the outside of my building.
Mr. Markel : Were you granted a reduction last year?
Ms . Schloss : Yes .
Mr. Markel: Has the reduction stayed in effect or did you get
an increase?
Ms. Schloss: That is why I am here because there was an
increase back to the original evaluation. There is no sales
value nor is there any rental value at the present time. There
are three units that are available for rental . One is under a
lease, one is vacant because the lease was broken and the third
one has no takers. All rental prices are less than the cost of
any mortgage or even one half of the value of the property. I 'm
totally confused as to what is going on. When the place is
completely finished, you will never see me here again. Should I
be forced at this point to sell my property I would probably be
fortunate to realize half of my buying price.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have any further questions or comments?
Ms . Schloss : No, just why?
II! 8 •
Mr. Sullivan: Does the Board have any questions or comments?
Board: No questions.
Ms. Duffy: I would just like to ask the Board not to make a
decision on this because Ms . Schloss is in a group action in
certiorari.
Mr. Henry: We can't do that. The certiorari will take care of
last years.
Ms. Duffy: They applied this year also. So we feel that that
should be handled as a group as not on an individual basis .
Ms. Schloss : An attorney has been hired by the management
company which we must say are less than satisfied. We hope in
the future to be self managed and hire local people to do our
work which would be far more satisfactory than having someone
come forty-five miles away to handle any difficulties or any
work that we need done.
Mr. John Sullivan: Do I understand it that the management
company hired these people.
Ms. Schloss: The management company hired these people and
they did it on a, I don't know what you call it, but they did it
on a group basis and a retainer and sort of a, so if they should
receive a settlement we would be advised at a later point what
the costs are. I think they have been ineffective.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you very much, you will hear from us later.
4) 1000-109-3-2 .40
John and Barbara Prestia
P.O. Box 66
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability.
Mrs . Prestia: I do.
Mrs . Prestia: I 'm not really on Country Club there is a
buffer there and my house, the back of it is onto 25 and the
right of it faces where all the trucks are parked for the
Country Club so I 'm really not on the Country Club Estates.
Mr. Sullivan: Your reason for requesting this reduction is?
Mrs. Prestia: Is because I don't feel my house is worth what
I am being assessed for. The comps that I got are for 150,
• 9
170 and I felt that if I was to sell it today, I would be lucky
to get $215 and I am being assessed for more than that.
Mr. Sullivan: Do the assessor' s have any comment?
Mr. Russell : Just that it was one of the original lots filed in
the Country Club Estates subdivision which we can make available
to you. Also, you guys had given a reduction last year and we
certainly couldn't argue with that and we didn't, we left it in
place. The comps that were provided for us we were looking
through trying to figure out really how comparable they were.
Most of them were considerably smaller in house size and less
than half of the lot size and certainly not in the exclusive
areas such as Country Club Estates and we would just ask you to
uphold last year's decision, the reduction you gave her last
year and keep it in place.
Mr. Tom Henry: Isn't it the essence of the contention that the
market is there to support the assessment?
Mr. Scott: Well then she would have to provide comparables
because we have a comparable value on it for $234,000 dollars .
The problem with these is that none of these houses are located
in exclusive areas such as Country Club Estates and every single
lot is less than half the size.
Mrs . Prestia: Mine isn't in Country Club Estates.
Mr. Scott: It is on the originally filed map.
Mrs. Prestia: I 'm right next to where the trucks pull in and
out so I am not on the exclusive Country Club Estates. There is
a buffer with my house and another house and my house is close
to 25, it backs up to 25 .
Mr. Scott: Because it is a very large piece of property.
Mrs. Prestia: But, I am right next to where the trucks are.
Trucks pull in and out and you know I can see the trucks from my
house.
Mr. Scott: Again, it is an exclusive area, we would contend it
is an exclusive area and it is fine if you think the $234 is too
high, but we would ask for better comps than Holden Avenue
and Westphalia Road in Mattituck for houses that are half the
size and lots that are half the size.
Mrs . Prestia: Well, I took that into consideration because
they did sell for $150 and some of them are 1300 square feet.
Mr. Scott: What I would ask you to do is rather than look at
what they sold for to support your claim.
411 410
10
Mr. Sullivan: Can we direct to the chair please? The trucks
that you see, what are you referring to?
Mrs. Prestia: The trucks from the Country Club Estates, they
keep
Mr. Sullivan: From the Country Club Golf Course?
Mrs. Prestia: Yes, there are trucks that are in and out, I
mean it is not like I have beautiful homes around me.
Mr. Sullivan: Any further questions?
Board: No questions .
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you, you will be hearing from us at a later
date.
6) 1000-87-1-1-24
George and Norma Decker
81 Poplar Street
Garden City, NY 11550
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. and Mrs . Decker: We do.
Mr. Decker: I am here representing my parents . I guess to make
it short and sweet, our case is very similar to Mrs. Schloss '
in that the taxes have almost doubled since last year and the
conditions are still horrible in the area so we just don't feel
that the increase is justified. Comparable assessments can be
difficult because there is really nothing that could be equal to
compare this particular condominium community, the condition of
it or anything like that. We do have paper work and an outside
assessor did try to assess it and he made comments to the fact
that it was very difficult to put a market value on it or to put
any value as far as the property to be rented or anything like
that because of the eyesore. We are right across the street
from Mrs . Schloss and are looking directly at a construction
dumpster. Two units that the foundation has been poured,
nothing has been built on top. Debris is around and the other
two units adjacent to those are not finished and they are pretty
much boarded up and look like a couple of burned out buildings.
So, we just don't know with all due respect how the property was
assessed at an increase for this year. That is basically all I
have to say.
Mr. Markel : Did you receive a reduction last year?
Mr. Decker: Yes we did.
• 11 •
Mr. Markel : Was it changed this year?
Mr. Decker: Yes, it was doubled.
Mr. Sullivan: Does the Board have any questions?
Board: No questions .
Mr. Sullivan: Assessor's?
Mr. Russell : One point, this is a group matter and they are all
filed as a group. The Real Property Tax Office of the State of
New York requires that they be assessed on an income approach.
They have one of the best law firms . Believe me, I wish I was
as incompetent as Mrs . Schloss was regarding Mr. Segal 's
ability. I can assure you that he is one of the best and any
reductions that they will be entitled to in the long run when
all the court matters are settled, will be refunded to them. We
would just again like to ask that in the meantime that all the
assessments stay even in place because of our roll as they try
to keep uniformity down there until the court decision is
finalized, at which point any reductions they are entitled to
will be refunded to them.
Mr. Sullivan: Back to when?
Mr. Russell : Back to the original certiorari .
Mr. Sullivan: O.K.
Mr. Decker: I guess what she and myself and my family are
concerned about is that it looks like it is a mistake and we are
charged so much for taxes and we are also concerned about the
fact that if it doesn't go into a group thing, we would like it
to be expedited as quickly as possible and if we are going with
a group, we wouldn't want it to hold us back since we are down
here today.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , you will hear from us at a later date.
7) 1000-35-2-11
Islands End Golf and Country Club, Inc.
P.O. Box 2066 - North Road
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Malano: I do.
12 •
Mr. Markel : I would like to make a statement at this time. I
am an officer and director of this corporation and have filed a
notice of disclosure and will step down for this time.
Mr. Sullivan: Does the assessor' s office have any card on this
please?
Ms. Duffy: I ' ll go get it.
Mr. Sullivan: I would like to make a statement. I am also an
officer at Island' s Inn Country Club and will file a notice of
disclosure of interest prior to grievance day at which time I
will abstain.
Mr. Scott: This was the only one that was filed.
Mr. Sullivan: Is it?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Gene Mazzifaro: We are the leasor for Blackman,
Dennington and King on whose property we rent. In light of
that, part of our agreement is that we pay the taxes so
therefore basically, we are representing the owners of the
property. We have been there thirty- one years, we are a public
golf course in Southold Town and a tremendous asset to the
community, I believe. This year the assessed value went up
thirty-nine percent which we feel is excessive in light of the
fact that in order to keep things in the light of the Town we
would like to keep people coming out here without putting it out
of price. We want to keep prices down so we should revert back
to the assessment granted last year and basically, I think that
is all we have to say.
Gentlemen with Mr. Mazzifaro: I would like to say that we do
bring a lot of people out to the community and we try to make
the golf course for the community and under those circumstances,
we can continue with our prices . I don't want to have to raise
the prices, I would like them to remain the same.
Mr. Sullivan: Is there a reason for the increase that you care
to comment on?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir, this has been a continuing exchange between
the golf course and the Board of Assessors going back to 1986 .
In 1988, when it went to the Grievance Board there was a
reduction last year, there was a review this year and the land
was assessed at $1000,00 dollars for the clubhouse which is less
than an acre of that type of property is assessed at in the
first acre. Then, the additional thirty acres was assessed at
$300.00 dollars an acre which is unfarmed farmland and it is
not taken into consideration that it' s of a higher use which is
a golf course, pristine maintained and everything else.
411
13 •
Mr. Sullivan: Could you repeat that Bob what you just mentioned
about the unfarmed?
Mr. Scott: The $300 . 00 dollars an acre is the value that we put
on farmed acreage is $250. 00 dollars an acre. Unfarmed
farmland is $300 . 00 an acre. That is the amount we put on the
property. We didn't put it on for any higher amount because it
is maintained and manicured and everything else, that we didn't
do. We also when we went and took a look at the property, we
also saw that the pro shop was not on the property record card
and that was added as well as a deck. That was an increase that
had to be done because it was a physical inventory that wasn't
on the property record card. In addition to which we submit
that the $24,800.00 dollars represents by using the equalization
rate a value of less than one million dollars
$972,549 . 00 dollars which we feel is a fair and just assessment
for that particular piece of property. Thank you.
Mr. Scott: If I can just add one thing, we did'nt reassess
Island's Inn, we merely returned the original assessment back to
the roll. We looked at a series of comparables including the
North Fork Country Club and other golf courses and we couldn't
in good conscience see where we could support any type of
reduction on our behalf.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.
Mr. Henry: Do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Mazzafaro: I would very definitely like to respond to
that. I think the last time I appeared here was something like
twenty-two years ago where we had a situation where we were
assessed quite a bit more. It is not comparable, the North Fork
Country Club and the Island' s Inn is not comparable in any
fashion. Number one, North Fork is a private club and I don't
think it entices any people coming into the Town for one thing.
It was there for years and years . The waterfront situation is
in access of the North Fork Country Club in regards to Island' s
Inn Golf and Country Club. So there is no comparable situation
in regards to that. You can take the acreage yes . We were
sitting here remarking before about waterfront. Waterfront is
not the big item in either golf course so I think the waterfront
situation can be entirely excused from any evaluation. The
value of the golf course is what brings people into it. It is
not for sale. The appraisal that was done probably seven or
eight years ago was in the vicinity of $600,000 dollars on the
entire thing. Land, building and golf course. Now true, I
think the one aspect that I have to relate to today is sitting
here and everyone has gotten up and said they are taking care of
their property and everything and they feel that is why the
taxes are increased. I don't believe that the Assessor's or the
Assessor's Review Board is going to assess someone value wise
because it looks nice and he is keeping it up cause that is
contrary to what we are here for. Keep your place up so I
4 14 1
really can't relate any comparable situation between North Fork
and Island' s Inn.
Mr. Henry: The one comment other comment or another comment
that was made by the assessor was that there was an inventory of
the building and in the past the building was not accounted for
and this year they picked that up.
Mr. Mazzafaro: Well, that building has been there for thirty
one years so I can't make any comment in regard to whether that
building was there or not because it has been there for
thirty-one years. The building has been added to in a sense
that there was an eight by twenty-eight wooden deck put on to
that building and an awning put on over that but, that is the
only increase. As a matter of fact, there was one building torn
down two years ago and I don't know if that has been relieved
from the tax roll . We have a one car garage that was taken down
completely. That was three years ago. We have not increased
the square footage of the property and it has been assessed for
the last thirty-one years .
Mr. Henry: Right, but as I understood it there had been an
error in the past and this year they picked it up. The card
should verify that. The other point that they have indicated
and I would like you to respond to this is that in coming up
with a ballpark figure of what they would apply for the acreage
there they came in somewhere between what they considered
practically farmland and they considered it somewhere between
farmed farmland and unfarmed farmland. Do you think that is
fair or equatical .
Mr. Mazzafaro: Well, if that is what the farmland has as a
status quo there is no problem with that.
Mr. Henry: O.K. , if so if what he said is true you would go
along with it.
Mr. Mazzafaro: Well, I don't see how you could do otherwise.
Now, the other thing would be to apply for a tax abatement
completely for whatever purpose that we could substantiate and I
think we tried to do that in that it is a very worthwhile
endeavor in the community for the last thirty-one years and it
has brought a lot of people out here. In other words, the
increase is thirty-nine percent over last year and since last
year not a thing has been done. I don't know when the last time
this was evaluated. You said 1988?
Mr. Scott: The Grievance Board had made the change in 1988 and
it had been changed in 1990 to 23,500 and it had been reviewed
last year by the Board and returned to 15,500 and this year it
was returned to the original 23,500 when the addition was put on
there. Could I just make one mention Mr. Sullivan. Waterfront
was questioned in this particular piece of property brought up
by the complainants that there is no waterfront piece of
15
property. On this specific piece of property which is being
complained about presently. We can only refer to what is being
complained about.
Mr. Mazzafaro: Well then, the only thing I can say in that
regard is that it was done in 1990 and in 1991 there has been
absolutely no change since 1990 and 1991.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions?
Board: No questions.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you gentlemen you will hear from us at a
later date.
8) 1000-115-15-21
Angelo Milazzo and wife
570 Donna Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Milazzo: I do.
Mr. Milazzo: Good morning, I think I am being over assessed.
What I did, is I took some houses in the immediate area where I
live and then compared them to mine and the application I put
before you with the comparables shows you that the square
footage in some of the houses and the selling prices of some of
the houses and what I did is I came up with an average price and
an average square footage. Realizing that my house was 18%
higher in square footage, I took the 18% and added to my
assessed value and I still came up with a lower figure. So if
you would just take it under consideration, I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Henry: Would you go through that reasoning, that last part
of the mathematical reasoning?
Mr. Milazzo: Well, what I did, was I took the prices of the
houses that were sold in the immediate area and I came up with
$168, 138 dollars . Then, I took an average of the square footage
which is 1314 feet, now my house is 1558 feet, so realizing that
my house was 18 .5 larger what I did was I added that to the 18%
and I came up with another $31,000 which I should be assessed
200,238 . 00.
Mr. Henry: The number that you multiplied by the residential
assessment rate you identify that as value, are you saying that
that would be the market value of the house.
S 16
Mr. Milazzo: Of my house yes. According to the comparison of
the other ones, what they sold for, since my house is a little
bit bigger, I could only get like $200,000 dollars. If you take
that same rate, and you multiply it by the $200,000 dollars, I
should only be assessed at 6748 not 8500 . I just want to be
fair.
Mr. Henry: I understand your reasoning, we're not here to
discuss the merits of it.
Mr. Milazzo: I just want a fair shake, just what everybody
else is paying, no more and no less. Do you have the eight
comparables?
Mr. Markel : As I understand it, you have listed here eight
pieces of property and are these recent sales?
Mr. Milazzo: Yes, as indicated on those cards that I got from
the Assessor's Office.
Mr. Markel: So, you are establishing the market value for
your area?
Mr. Milazzo: Yes, exactly. Three of those houses are right
across the street from me on the same exact block. One is
diagonally across and the other one is built to the side of
him. Like I said, I just want to get a fair shake.
Mr. Markel: I see you have given the square footage, but did
you possibly check the actual assessments on those, the actual
assessments?
Me Milazzo: Yes, if you take a look at the cards, it is right
on the card here.
Mr. Markel: Oh, you supplied all the copies of the cards.
O.K. , thank you.
Mr. Henry: How did you get the RAR figure?
Mr. Milazzo: First, I checked with the Assessor' s Office. I
was told that was the figure to multiply by.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions?
Board: None.
Mr. Sullivan: Assessor' s, any comments?
Assessor's : No comments.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you very much, you will hear from us at a
later date.
• 17 1
9) 1000-100-3-15. 3
Patricia M. Egan
580 Reeve Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully tothe
best of your ability?
Ms. Egan: I do.
Ms. Egan: Good morning,
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have any comments you would like to make
to the Board?
Ms. Egan: Well, I going through a divorce and I had my house
appraised and at the final proceedings, I realized my house is
appraised for a lot less then it is assessed at. I had it
appraised two years ago and I am sure it is down some from that
too.
Mr. Sullivan: Reeve Road in Mattituck.
Ms. Egan: I think everything is self explanatory there. I
have the appraisal, I had that done two years agoand according
to the tax records, they have me assessed at $225,000 and the
appraisal was done for $188,000. I guess it is down more than
that now but I just didn't have the money to have it reappraised
to have it updated. On the appraisal, I did put in a five inch
well, I don't know if that makes any difference. A year ago I
put in a new well, it was a year ago April .
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions?
Mr. Markel : I do have one question. Do the assessor' s have
specific districts for assessing? For instance, are you Orient,
and are you Mattituck, or do you go anyplace you want?
Mr. Scott: We, all three go out and assess all the properties
together but in the interest of the administration since I am
more familiar with Laurel, Mattituck and Cutchogue, I will
handle the cards and the building permits in those areas and
outline the agenda for the day. Someone can mention an address
to me and I will know where to go. Whereas, if I were trying to
do that in Orient, since Bob is more familiar with that it is
easier for him to outline the agenda for Orient and Darlene does
it for Southold. Generally, all three of us go out and assess.
Mr. Markel: Southold, Greenport?
Mr. Scott: Southold and Peconic is Darlene. New Suffolk,
Greenport, East Marion, Orient and Fishers Island is mine.
4 18 •
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you. Do you have any comments on this one?
Mr. Russell : No, as a matter of fact I talked to Ms . Egan
about this and we realize that this appraisal is a little out of
date but we also recognize the cost of getting a new appraisal
so we told her that we would be more than willing to accept the
value that was placed on it two years ago, if the Board of
Assessment Review would also be willing to.
Mr. Sullivan: You are willing to accept this appraisal?
Mr. Russell: Yes, because it just cost so much to get those
things done.
Mr. Markel : One more question. Do you feel that appraisal
that was taken a few years ago stands as true today?
Mr. Russell: I would say that it would be a closer proximation
maybe, the value of the property has decreased a little bit.
Mr. Markel : What percentage do you think it has decreased?
Mr. Russell: Depends on the area.
Mr. Scott: Can I say that I think the value is there, the
appraisal value is there but the residential assessment ratio
has changed which would affect the value and in the complainants
favor and that is what we talk about.
Mr. Markel: Are you recommending a reduction?
Mr. Scott: We are in effect, recommending a reduction based on
the appraisal and the residential assessment ratio.
Ms. Egan: Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you, you will hear from us.
10) 1000-74-2-12 . 003
Sheila & Ronald Ricca
P.O. Box 243
Peconic, NY 11958
Mr. Wm. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the
information you give herein will be given accurately and
truthfully to the best of your ability.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have any comment?
Mrs . Sheila Ricca: I hope I have explained it all . I have
given you a number of recent sales as comps in my area. I
also recognize it is a case of applies and oranges when it is
comparing houses so, they are as close as I can get. I also
allowed for the fact that I have larger property so I can use
• 19 •
some extra comps as far as land sales that have also been sold
in that area to show the comparison of one-half acre versus the
three acre lot.
Mr. Sullivan: Where is this located?
Mrs. Sheila Ricca: Mill Lane in Peconic.
Mrs. Sheila Ricca: I am just north of Route 48 between that
and Soundview Avenue geographically.
Mr. Sullivan: Mill Lane is a continuation of Peconic Lane.
Mrs. Sheila Ricca: That last piece of paper that I just
handed you is the vacant land permits to my property.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, we disagree with Mrs. Ricca's
estimation of what her value is of $480,000 because she is using
equalization rate and we would recommend that the residential
assessment ratio be used which would bring it from $480,000 as
she states to $320,474 dollars .
Mrs . Ricca: May I interrupt? My understanding was that I
could use whatever rate was the lower rate and I believe I heard
Mr. Scott earlier refer to the equalization rate when he was
discussing previous attempt in reduction of taxes.
Mr. Scott: That was on the Island' s Inn Golf Course which is
commercial and also for the bed and breakfast which is of a
commercial nature also rather than the strictly one, two or
three family house.
Mrs. Ricca: My understanding was that I could use which ever
one is lower regardless .
Mr. Scott: You can.
Mrs . Ricca: But either way, which ever one I use it is still
in excess of my market value today.
Mr. Scott: The only thing that we have to state is that she has
several comps which are substantially in size . One half acre
to one acre. The comps that were provided by her except for
the one which was in the $140,000 dollar range from $225,000 to
$260,000 some of which are 1700 square feet and some of which
are 2493 square feet. We respectfully submit that the $225,000
to $235,000 that she has as the estimated current value is not
sufficient. We do recognize that it may be less than the
$320,000 that is the residential assessment ratio and possibly
you might consider something in between which would be a blend.
Mrs. Ricca: As far as market value goes, the houses I have
submitted all have three bathrooms, two car garages . My house
• 20 •
has two bathrooms and no garage so that off sets some of the
square footage.
Mr. Scott: The square footage is not considered
Mrs. Ricca: You were saying that some of the houses are 1700
and some are larger.
Mr. Scott: The last comparison which she gave you which I think
is seven acres which is immediately adjacent to her piece of
property. Her piece of property was subdivided and at that
point became residential rather than farmland and was assessed
on that basis when it was done several years ago. That
particular piece of property that was left, which was not
subdivided is seven acres and is assessed at unfarmed farmland
the rate of $300.00 dollars per acre and if it were subdivided
into two acre parcels or something along that line as a
residential piece, as a potential use, it would be reassessed at
that point.
Mrs . Ricca: I would like to interject on that one. I did
discuss that with Mr. Scott yesterday and I looked at that
property and it has got the golden rod and poison ivy and it is
more profitable if it could be sold because it can be subdivided
where mine is not subdividable. So, whether it is considered
vacant farmland or whether it is extra land by my property
Mr. Sullivan: What is the total amount of your acreage?
Mrs. Ricca: I have 5 . 3 I think it is, just a little over five
acres.
Mr. Markel : The home is located where on the property?
Is it located in such a fashion that you cannot subdivision into
two acre parcels?
Mrs. Ricca: No, it is in the covenants and restrictions that
it cannot be further subdivided.
Mr. Markel: Do you know if there are any restrictions on the
piece that you are talking about?
Mr. Scott: No sir, there are no restrictions .
Mr. Markel: None what so ever so they can subdivide into
anything they want.
Mr. Scott: Her particular piece of property is assessed for
$1600 . 00 dollars for the first acre and $500. 00 for the remnant
for the 4 . 3 acres so there is consideration taken into that it
is a large piece of property and can't be used for other than a
one family house that is in there already.
Mr. Markel : $1600 .00 is where the house stands?
• 21 •
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Markel: But you do agree and admit to the fact that you
should get some kind of a reduction.
Mr. Scott: Some kind of a reduction but not the $235, 000 less
than $300,000.
Mr. Markel : I am not interested in the particulars but you do
agree that you should get some kind of a reduction.
Mr. Scott: Some kind of a reduction.
Mr. Markel : That is your recommendation?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: I am confused. One part is assessed at how much
an acre and the other part is assessed at how much an acre?
Mr. Scott: It is a policy of the Board of Assessors that the
first acre of a multi acre piece of property is assessed at
the highest use which would be the residential portion of it.
And then as it increases in size, goes from the second to the
fifth acre it is $500. 00 dollars per acre and then from the
fifth through the tenth acre goes to $300. 00 dollars per acre
because we recognize the use as the property size gets larger
and it is only a one family piece of property they can only have
one house on it so there is a decrease in value even though
there is an increase in the value ascribed to the property
because it is larger and some people have a particular use for
that and desire for that.
Mr. Markel: If I own a one acre piece of property, what is my
land accessed at?
Mr. Scott: $1600 if it is on the road. Not waterfront. This
is a general rule of thumb.
Mr. Markel: You made a statement that that is the way the
assessors are doing their job. That is the Board of Assessor' s
policy.
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Markel: But it not a state law policy?
Mr. Scott: The state law policy is that we have a uniform
percentage of value which is the way we are doing it. Uniform.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else?
Mrs. Ricca: I don't think so.
• 22 •
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , you will be hearing from us at a later date.
11) 1000-115-15-11
Gordon P. Brunow
Betty Sullivan
1165 Theresa Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
Wm. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Brunow: I do. Good morning gentlemen. I have for some
years now been seeking a basis for making a grievance before
this Board and I haven't been able to do it because I haven't
been satisfied that I could find comparables. At least
comparables that I would have confidence in using going toe to
toe with the assessor' s friendly or otherwise. So, starting
last year I took a different approach, a approach that shown in
the supporting documents that you have attached to my
application. The approach briefly is this, I took down all of
the transfers, all of the title transfers in the Town of
Southold for a certain period of time from April 1991 through
November 1991 and from the assessor' s records took the
assessment valuations for land and total. The second step was
to evaluate my own property and since I didn't intend to sell it
the only thing I could do is get a certified appraisal, a copy
of which you gentlemen have. In going through some 70 odd
parcels reported sold in the Town of Southold from Orient all
the way to Laurel the last year, I find that there is a ratio
between the selling price and the assessed valuation which is
obtained by multiplying out the assessed value with the RAR.
Basically, the group of houses that I included in this outline
comprise a range of values which are from roughly 60% of the
assessed value for selling price, up to as much as 120, 110,
1600 percent of assessed value. That is quite a wide range and
we look at that in a standard statistical fashion and narrow it
down and chop off the absurd ends, we come up with a medium
figure of selling price equal to 80% of assessed value. Since
our house is assessed at 61 percent, I felt we had a very large
disparity here amounting to about one third excessive taxation
or one-quarter, sorry one-quarter. I followed that up after
turning this in to the Board of Assessors with another look from
January of 1992 to April of 1992 of some eighty houses . So, I
have a total of about 150 properties that have been sold in this
town and have compared their selling price to my appraisal
price, I have compared their assessed value to my assessed value
and I come up with the result that we are over assessed by
approximately $250,050.00 dollars and the burden of this
complaint is that you gentlemen find in favor based upon the
data supporting the complaint that we are in fact over assessed
by $2000.00 dollars .
111
23
Mr. Markel: Is that actual assessment or is that actual taxes
you are talking about.
Mr. Brunow: Assessment. The taxes are going to shift from
year to year. In doing the arithmetic, I have used the RAR
but, whether the RAR shifts from year to year as it did from
last year to this year is inmaterial because it is a constant
factor and when you have a constant factor, it doesn't matter
what value you give it. I have a copy of the additional houses
I have clocked for this year. Would the Board like that Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, didn't you attach it with this?
Mr. Brunow: No. I just finished this. This is the second
part of it and you have the first part of it.
Mr. Henry: What is the first part?
Mr. Brunow: You have a copy of this . I don't know if you
want pictures of the property. These pictures were taken this
date so no one will think I supplied picture before
improvements . That is the substance of this request for
review. By the way, on the second group of houses, the
addendum, the ones that were picked up from purchases and
recorded this year, the disparity in assessment as compared to
selling price is even greater then with the group of houses from
last year.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions .
Mr. Markel: Mr. Scott, I might be redundant when I say but, I
understand that you do not assess by market value is that right?
Mr. Brunow: If I may offer this observation sir? The
complaint is not based on market value as such. The complaint
is based upon equality of assessment.
Mr. Markel: I didn't see a complaint form but as you kept
reading your comparisons and market sales value I just thought
perhaps you were putting forth the argument on that basis .
Mr. Brunow: No sir.
Mr. Russell: If I could just refer you to page seven of this
residential assessment grievance, the form that he attached with
this . The calculation that he did, I mean it is an impressive
amount of work and the only question I have is that when he is
at the bottom, the calculations that he uses he uses for a
residential assessment ratio which is last years . What we would
ask is that he use this years residential assessment ratio of
3. 37% which means that his new assessment that he feels it
should be is not 5850 but 6797 which is an 1103 decrease in
assessed value. We think that would be fine.
• 24 •
Mr. Brunow: Negative sir, negative. It would be residential
assessment.
Mr. Russell: In the previous calculation he uses an outdated
and no longer existent assessment ratio.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K.
Mr. Brunow: Negative to that. The RAR as used in this
presentation is a constant factor, it doesn't matter whether it
is one or 2 .9 or 3.5 or 8 . 6 or any other number. The results
will still have the same relative values . Same relative values,
same ratio. The change in the RAR which I understand is
different this year but which knowledge was not available to the
assessors at the time I submitted this. The change in the RAR
won't effect a gosh darn thing. That is why I did it this
way. Although the RAR is included in the arithmetic again it
is a constant factor. Nothing changes when you disturb a
constant factor in an arithmetic equation.
Mr. Markel: Scott, am I to understand and again I am being
redundant. You suggest and recommend that a reduction is in
order.
Mr. Russell : Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Sullivan: Any further questions?
Mr. Brunow: None sir, except it irriterates the point and I
understand the concerns Mr. Russell has about my use of the
RAR but if you follow through the arithmetic and pick an
imaginary RAR it won't change a thing. Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you, you will hear from us at a later date.
Mr. Brunow: Any idea how long?
Mr. Sullivan: It depends on the crowd today and the number of
grievances we get.
Mr. Brunow: Thank you.
12) 1000-5-1-13
Joseph R. Henry
156 Central Avenue
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Wm. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the
information you give herein will be given accurately and
truthfully to the best of your ability?
Mr. Henry: I do.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Henry, you may proceed.
• 25 •
Mr. Henry: Going back to the beginning here. In 1990 I was here
sitting at the same table and I was reassessed and I ended up
getting doubled in 1990. 3600 for a reassessment. I am back
here because they want to raise me again.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Henry, can I interrupt a minute.
Mr. Henry: Yes.
Mr. Sullivan: Before you proceed, this is not filled out
completely. Part three is not complete so if you would just
take a couple of minutes to fill it out then we will come back
to you.
Mr. Henry: O.K.
13) 1000-56-1-2 . 30
Patricia & Steven Sprengel
280 Pond Avenue
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Wm. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the
information you give herein will be given accurately and
truthfully to the best of your ability?
Mrs . Sprengel: I do.
Mr. Scott: In order to facilitate and save time. The amount
that Mrs . Sprengel has got on there of the sales price of
$151. 000 dollars, since it is a very current sale indicated
absolutely market value if you apply that with the residential
assessment ratio, the Board of Assessor' s will not contest it at
all .
Mr. Sullivan: Say that again now.
Mr. Scott: The sales price was as of 4-91 for $151,000 dollars
and the residential assessment ratio is .0337 and $5,089 dollars
we would not challenge at all.
Mrs. Sprengel: You are saying that is the assessment so that
wouldn't be the taxes?
Mr. Scott: No, that is the assessment. Presently it is at
$7800 dollars and we can't argue fair market value of $491 of
$151,000 so we recommend that you make the change.
Mr. Markel : Are you recommending that we make the change to
what she is asking for?
Mrs. Sprengel: I am asking for the market value of the house
since we just bought it.
26 •
Mr. Markel : You are in accordance with that?
Mr. Scott: With the residential assessment ratio, yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed value of property is $231,000 and he
says the complaint believes the assessment should be reduced to
full value of $162,200 .
Mr. Markel : Does that figure out to the same ratio that we
are talking about an assessed value on?
Mrs. Duffy: $5100 .
Mr. Markel : Are you satisfied?
Mrs . Sprengel : Yes sir. There is a closing statement for the
sale of the house there.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
Board: No.
Mrs. Sprengel : Thank you.
Mr. Scott: Can I just make a comment regarding that. The
reason we are suggesting is that if there is an absolute sale it
goes counter to our uniform method of assessment and the only
reason we are recommending it is because you can make the
decision to change it. We can recommend it and hope that you
change it because we can't.
Mr. Markel: We're making no decision tonight.
14) 1000-104-4-32
John P.A. Marcin and Christine D. Marcin
34 Harvard Street
Garden City, NY 11530
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability.
Mrs. Marcin: I do. I received a notice doubling my
assessment which I did receive last year as well. I came before
you and appealed for a reduction which you granted me. My
circumstances are the same. Nothing has changed although we are
along with the lawsuit and we are diligently pursuing that. I
am in the same position that I was last year so that is why I am
asking for that reduction again.
Mr. Markel: Haven't you been in prior to that?
• 27 •
Mrs . Marcin: Yes, this is the third time I have been in
before you.
Mr. Markel : Circumstances are exactly the same.
Mrs . Marcin: We are still in litigation, we have come along
further in litigation but there have been numerous delays that
we have diligently tried to overcome delays that were not on our
part and we are still actively pursuing this .
Mr. Sullivan: Any comments?
Mr. Markel: Yes, Mr. Scott, I think you were involved in this
in prior years .
Mr. Scott: Can I defer this to Scott, he has been working on it.
Mr. Russell: Originally, this petition was applied for because
they didn't have a C.O. . It is my understanding after talking
to the Building Department that one originally was issued but
was denied by the owners because of an impending litigation with
the contractor. What they are asking the Town to do is to ease
the tax burden while they are settling the differences with the
man who was hired to do the work for the house. They have also
again, my understanding from the Building Department is that
they have full use of the home and they denied the original C.O.
and they requested an outline from our Building Inspector from
the Town of Southold to substantiate their claims against the
contractor but the Building Department has not denied they any
use of the building what so ever. They have full use of the
building both floors. Again, this is a litigation matter
between them and their contractor. We ask that it is denied for
the simple reason that we would rather wait for the litigation
to end up and be finalized with the contractor. It is not a
town issue, it is strictly a private issue between a client and
an unhappy customer.
Mr. Markel : Do you have a C.O. ?
Mrs . Marcin: No I don't. We did not deny accepting it, as a
matter of fact, we came to Town Hall hoping to find out why we
didn't get it. We were told that the Building Department denied
it to us. There is a memo in my file, I am sure that you will
find a note that states their is no C.O. on that building. It
was not our doing, it was the Building Department, they found
numerous violations which is the basis of this law suit.
Mr. Russell: I had talked to the principal building inspector
and also she had mentioned that nothing has changed since last
year but I think you have added the Town as the defendant in
your case.
Mrs. Marcin: Mr. Chairman, that was the same as last year,
the Town was a defendant last year as well . The original
28 •
complaint again, was based on the C.O. , the C.O. was unaccepted
because of certain problems with the builder. It is unfortunate
and we can sympathize for these people but they do have the
house in place, they do have full use of the house whether it is
to their satisfaction or not is not for the Town to decide. It
is between them and the builder and we ask that the reduction is
denied because they are using the full house.
Mr. Sullivan: What do you mean by the C.O. was denied?
Mr. Russell: It was issued from the Building Department and
unsigned therefore, unaccepted by the builder or perhaps by the
owner. They did issue a Building Permit.
Mr. Henry: Do we have a copy of this?
Mr. Russell : The unsigned Building Permit I can make one
available.
Mr. Marcin: Mr. Chairman, I never received and was denied a
Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Lessard told me personally on
more than one occasion that there is no C.O. . None was offered
to me. There was one prepared but not signed. It was never
issued.
Mr. Henry: There is a memo in here dated December 1988 where
Mr. Lessard indicated that he was at the property and at that
point and time it didn't appear there was any C.O. .
Mrs . Marcin: There was none, that is why the basis of our
lawsuit. My property right now, I cannot sell that property, I
can't do anything with that property until I get a C.O. . It is
an unmarketable piece of property. A lot of the time I spend at
that house is getting people in to try and very slowly try to
get some of these violations corrected. We do not have the
funds after having spent the money to originally get the work
done. We do not have sufficient funds to get it all done
immediately. Also, I do not have a complete official list of
what work has to be done to meet the requirements of the
Building Department.
Mr. Markel: How long has this been in litigation?
Mrs . Marcin: Since February of 1989 .
Mr. Sullivan: Any further questions?
Mr. Russell : Just a comment that it is contrary to what the
Building Department had told me. I will leave it in their
hands. Number one and number two we would ask that you consider
the fact that they do have full use of the house. Generally,
when a C.O. isn't applied for use is denied and use has not been
denied by the Building Department. They have full use of the
411
29 •
premises and we just ask that they pay their full share of the
tax burden.
Mr. Sullivan: We will take that into consideration.
Mrs. Marcin: Also, Mr. Chairman, that situation was present
last year when you granted me the reduction.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you very much, you will hear from us later
which you are well aware.
16) 1000-107-2-3.3
James and Christine Mullen Murphy
P.O. Box 368 Greton Court
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Russell: Just in the interest of time, this is another case
of a recent sale and we have no basis for argument and we ask
that his application be accepted. We recommend you accept his
application as a reduction.
Mr. Markel: As is?
Mr. Russell : Yes.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , you will be hearing from us .
17) 1000-117-8-6
Cathy Attonito
East Wind Development Corporation
9 Kennedy Drive
East Quogue, NY 11942
Mr. Wm. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the
information you give herein will be given accurately and
truthfully to the best of your ability?
Ms . Cathy Attonito: I do. I am president of East Wind and I
own the property on the corner of King and Second Street which
use to be the old IGA and I brought with me John Dorita as a
representative, he is the broker who sold me the building and
has been managing it since I bought it.
Mr. Markel: Mr. Dorita, are you going to talk at this .
Would you swear him in please?
Mr. Wm. Weinheimer: Please stand. Do you solemnly swear
the information you give herein will be given accurately and
truthfully to the best of your ability?
Mr. Dorita: I do.
• 30 •
Mr. Markel : John, is that your signature on this?
Mrs. Attonito: No, it's my husband's. East Wind Development
Corp. my husband and myself.
Mr. Markel : Are you designating him as a representative to
talk for you.
Mrs. Attonito: Yes .
Mr. Markel : Would you please come up and sign this?
Mr. Dorita: Yes sir. This should be her signature I think,
I ' ll add my to there. This property may give the assessor's
more difficulty than most. They generally use a square foot
valuation for structures. This is a very large building and of
course, because of present circumstances with the zoning and the
utility of a building like this in New Suffolk its value is a
very small proportion of the value placed on it by either the
residential assessment ratio or the state equalization rate.
Just for a little history, in the very hot part of the real
estate market in 1986, this property was offered at a price of
$225,000. 00 dollars by the former owner. It was on the market
for more than a year which is quite unusual and finally sold in
1987 to the present owners for a cash price of $180,000.00
dollars. At the time the property was last assessed it was an
operating full service grocery store. Since then, the heating
system on the main floor which is approximately 7000 square feet
has been disabled. The zoning has been changed from business to
residential. Under the residential assessment ratio, this
parcel is worth $477,000.00 dollars plus or minus and under the
state equalization rate it is valued at $631,000 .00 . I believe
this property is worth very close to its original sales price in
1987 . For purposes of this complaint we have established a
$190,000.00 dollar value and it is presently listed for sale at
$235,000 .00 dollars and I think that is basically it.
Mr. Scott: In the interest of trying to save time again, if the
complainant would have set the asking price at $235,000.00
rather than $190,000 .00 which is not a determined figure the
Board of Assessors at the residential assessment ratio will
accept the reduction to that amount. What I am saying basically
is that times . 0337 it would be reduced to $7,920 dollars from
$16, 100 which show a considerable effort on the Board of
Assessors. Based on the economic feasibility used at this
particular time.
Mr. Sullivan: Any comments on this proposal?
Mrs. Attonito: I would accept it.
Mr. Markel: This is a commercial property?
Mr. Scott: The zoning has been changed to be residential now.
411
31
Mr. Dorita: It is at least as commercial as Bed and Breakfast
I would think in terms of utilization.
Mr. Scott: For purposes of assessment what we are asking is
that they accept the $235,000.00 in light of the hugh decrease
that we are asking for here today acceptance of the residential
assessment.
Mr. Sullivan: You say that you will accept that?
Mr. Markel : I would like to just ask a question Bob, this is
the third or fourth case we have had where you have suggested it
be reduced. Did you realize that when you were assessing?
Mr. Scott: Sir, the thing is that we realize that there are
outliners that we cannot address under the present system that
we have in Southold Town, this is and small claims and
Certiorari are the only avenues for us to come in and recommend
a change legitimately under the system that we have to work
under. If there is a particular thing and she has demonstrated
$235,000.00 for several years that she is trying to receive as a
purchase price, if you accept that as a governing board over our
rules, we would go along with that reduction but, we cannot do
it outright in the office.
Mr. Markel: I just can't understand, you are the assessor' s
and if you go out and assess a piece of property, why would you
change your mind when you get in.
Mr. Scott: Sir, we have never changed our mind at all, what we
have said is that under the present system that we have here
there have been several cases where we would like to be able to
change it in the office over there but because of the way we
assess, we are not allowed to.
Mr. Russell: Sir, it is just an authority question, you have
that authority and we don't so we put it before you.
Mr. Sullivan: Let me ask you this, would you come up and make
any corrections that have to be done on this?
Mr. Dorita: I think you have to authorize me to speak in your
behalf.
Mrs . Attonito: O.K. , I authorize you.
Mr. Sullivan: Would you put in the figures?
Mrs . Attonito: We have to make it $235,000 dollars instead of
$190,000.
Mr. Scott: $235,000, 7,920.00 .
Mrs . Attonito: Thank you.
411
4 32
18) 1000-115-4-32
Eugene H. Miska
Box 100A
Marratooka Lane
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability.
Mr. Miska: I do. I have had my home on the market now since
February at an asking price of $159,000 and I believe the
assessed value ratio has it at $233,000 .
Mr. Scott: If I could just facilitate again in the interest of
time. He has a value here of $159,000 which we see is certainly
fair, we can accept that, it has been on the market and it is a
good indication. We would recommend you grant his reduction to
$159,000.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else? Thank you very much.
12) 1000-5-1-13
Joseph R. Henry
156 Central Avenue
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Sullivan: Has he been swore in yet.
Mr. Weinheimer: Yes, he is still under oath.
Mr. Henry: I would like to see the assessed value lowered back
to the 3600, where it was from the 3900 .
Mr. Sullivan: Your reason?
Mr. Henry: It has just been doubled since 1990, it went from
1500 to 3600 from two years ago.
Mr. Sullivan: It went from 1500 to 3600 in 1987 .
Mr. Henry: I purchased the house in 1987 at 1500 . I was here
two years ago, I believe in 1991 . I have a form here for
grievance day in 1991.
Mr. Sullivan: It went from 43 to 36, and now it is up to 39 .
Any questions?
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, would you please ask the grievant what
his estimate of the market value would be for the house?
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have any idea of the market value?
410
4 33
Mr. Henry: Somewhere around $100,000 dollars .
Mr. Scott: We have it at 3900 which we feel is $115,727 dollars.
Mr. Sullivan: How did you arrive at that?
Mr. Scott: Well, we took the 3900, which we don't assess on the
basis of market value, the state interprets our assessment by
the residential assessment ratio to be market value. An
indication of market value so the state's interpretation of our
assessment is $115,727 dollars. We feel that this is consistent
with the neighborhood and Mr. Henry has done an excellent job of
taking an abandoned shell and putting it back into shape. We
took a look at the area, we subtracted for area influence and we
felt that 3600 the reward of the award last year was a little
bit too much in evince of what the condition of the house was,
and we adjusted it slightly to indicate what would be more
adequate as to what the proper assessment would be in today's
market. It was a total renovation as evidence by the purchase
price a couple of years ago of $55,000.00.
Mr. Henry: The only major capitol improvement on the house was
the deck when I was here last time.
Mr. Markel: The house was the same last time as it is today?
Mr. Henry: Yes, I did not increase any square footage, I
changed windows, painted, repaired roof shingles, repaired porch
but did not increase any square footage except for the deck.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything further.
Mr. Henry: I would like to also add in that I don't have any
driveway and I don't have any access for a driveway like in the
winter in the Village of Greenport I have to park in the street
and I have a hardship there too because I have to park in the
middle of the winter approximately three blocks away. So when
you go outside in 20 degree weather you have to walk to your car
because there is no place to park. It is only 30 foot by 125
foot is the property.
Mr. Markel: Is it a corner piece?
Mr. Henry: No, it is in the middle, an inside piece.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , any further comments? You will be hearing
from us at a later date.
19) 1001-4-8-14
West Dublin Realty, Ltd.
400 Front Street
Box 463
Greenport, NY 11944
411
34
Mr. David Kapell : I would like to start by apologizing for my
error in addressing this letter.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , could you just hold on one minute while he
swears you in?
Mr. Kapell: Sure.
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Kapell : I do. I would like to offer one piece of
information which is not clear in my letter or my application
which is I am responding essentially to a notice that I received
a couple of weeks ago of an increase in my assessment from 7900
to 9100 that shows on the tentative assessment roll and in
considering that I reflected a general on the taxes I am paying
on this property and my income position with regards to the
property and as a result have decided to come forward with this
application.
Mr. Markel : Are you grieving under a business .
Mr. Kapell : This is a commercially zoned property, it is five
apartments and a couple of stores or a store and what the
village calls an accessory store. I have provided you with an
accurate and detailed summary of income and expenses .
Mr. Markel: I notice on the sheet that you have here your
rent schedule and expenses . Also you have a mortgage on this
property.
Mr. Kapell : Yes sir, I do.
Mr. Markel : You don't consider that an expense, the interest?
Mr. Kapell : Well, in my experience as a real estate broken
from an appraisal standpoint the mortgage is really not a
function of the value. It is my expense, I ' ll grant you.
Mr. Markel: In the case of running a business.
Mr. Kapell : It makes it very difficult. Frankly, the
operating profit that shows here is more than consumed by my
mortgage payments but for the purpose of trying to establish a
fair market value for the property, it really is irrelevant what
I owe.
Mr. Markel : You have a mortgage of $150,000.00, at what
percentage?
Mr. Kapell: At 10%. I am paying $1600.00 a month on that
mortgage.
411
• 35
Mr. Markel: O.K. , that was my question.
Mr. Kapell: My experience in the real estate business is that
you can't sell any income producing property for more than six
times the gross rents . My rents, I submit, are fair market
rents . There is nothing depressed about this rent roll, there
is also nothing extravagant about the rent roll. This is a fair
reflection of the rental market in Greenport. My tenants as I
say in my cover letter are working tenants, they are not
subsidized, I don't get the benefits of any premium rent as a
result of participating in a subsidized program and the taxes
combined with the water and sewage charges that the Village has
decided impose on properties like this in the last year just
render a building like this unaffordable for the owner and if I
were to pass this along to my tenants they would have to leave.
It is as simple as that so it is a hard place that we are in. I
don't think that there is anyway to justify a value of over
$200,000. 00 dollars based on these rents .
Mr. Markel : If you sold it other than a business property,
what do you think the value would be?
Mr. Kapell : It would be less . This is, I think, the highest
and best use, what it is. You can convert some of the
residential space into commercial space and it would sit
vacant. I am better off with the tenants I have got. My
feeling is that what I have got is about as efficient as it can
be under today's market conditions. I don't know of any tricks
that I can employ to or devices I could employ to increase this
rent roll in any significant way. I frankly, haven't raised my
rents in two years. People can't afford it. The assessor' s
value on this property is at $356,000 . 00 dollars.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions?
Mr. Russell: Yes, we talked to the petitioner about a week or
two ago to offer that we return the assessed value back to the
7900 rate which had been in place since 1979 . We recognize that
despite the fact that we could justify the increase in an
economic time such as the present one, it probably wasn't the
best time to do something like this but we were willing to go to
7900 but he declined our offer. What he has to do then, is have
this submitted to a Certiorari Court in the future because all
this income capitalization and direct capitalization has to be
held under scrutiny in a court like setting. We are going to
have to sit down and argue what you can count as expenses, what
you have to count as rent roll and it is my understanding that
the renters there have to pay a portion of the electric bill
yet, it is counted as an expense.
Mr. Kapell: I differ with that, the only thing I show . . . .
Mr. Sullivan: Excuse me, excuse me.
110
36
Mr. Russell : I am just saying,
Mr. Kapell: That is a house meter, that is not my tenants
electric.
Mr. Russell : Again, if that is the case, then we have to sit
down and sort all of those things out in a Certiorari setting so
we ask that unless you are willing to take this 7900 which is
again the original assessed value on the property for the past
over ten years, we would ask that you leave it in place until it
can be settled in a Certiorari Court. That seemed adequate and
we should leave it there?
Mr. Sullivan: You are saying that this is being grieved on a
business .
Mr. Russell : Yes, basically what we are saying, bottom line, is
if we can't return to the 7900 we would like not to settle
anything until we can take it to Certiorari Court and argue over
the entire direct capitalization process which would be a
business type of grievance.
Mr. Markel: According to the law, we are here to make
judgement on assessments, we are not here to make a judgement as
to whether or not this should go to a Certiorari Court for a
judgement. If we make a judgement and the person complaining is
not in agreement, then he has some outs . He can go either to a
Small Claims Court or he can go to Supreme Court but I don't
think we should examine anything with the thought of, we are not
capable of making a decision so let it go to a Certiorari
proceeding. God knows, we have got enough Certiorari ' s right
now in this Town to raise the tax roll maybe 30% is they are all
won. I think we are in a position to make our own decisions and
not say we are going to send it to Certiorari . That is all I
have to say.
Mr. Kapell: I would like to respond to one thing if I may
sir. This gentleman in his presentation has raised the question
about the voracity of the numbers I have put before you, I took
an oath, administered by this gentleman a few minutes ago and I
am telling you that these figures are accurate. The $200 .00
expense that I show which is a nominal expense for electricity
is the cost for my maintaining lights in the halls, in the
basement and elsewhere on the premises . That in fact, is my
expense. I am somewhat miffed that there should be a question
of the voracity of these numbers after I have taken oath. I am
a local resident, I have owned this building for twelve years
and I have never been before this Board, I have all kinds of
property in Southold Town and I have never brought a grievance.
I am here because these gentlemen had the nerve to increase an
already unfair assessment and now they are offering me nothing.
They are willing to acknowledge their mistake. My understanding
is that what happened after I came to question the increase that
they made a call to the State to determine whether my approach 3
S 37 i
with regards to capitalizing the income was correct and in fact
they did and that is why they are now offering to roll back
their mistake. I am not satisfied with that at this point and I
take offense at the tone that the assessor takes with regards to
my presentation.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Russell made a statement that you refused to
go back to the original 7900, is that true?
Mr. Kapell : Absolutely true.
Mr. Sullivan: He made the statement and I just wanted you to
verify it.
Mr. Kapell: Absolutely true, I would not be satisfied with a
return at this point. Frankly, I might not be here if the
increase hadn't been made because it has been my general
tendency not to bother and to pay my taxes, which I have always
done. After looking at this and realizing that after I pay my
mortgage that I don't make any money on this building, in fact I
have to put money in every year, why should I keep my mouth
shut, why should I pay taxes on a value that is substantially
higher than what the market would allow for this property. I
challenge the assessor to find any comparable property in
Greenport that would support any price above what I have put
forward here for the value of my property. Such comparables
do not exist. I know this market like the back of my hand. If
you are going to force me to go to Certiorari Court, fine, but I
think that is an unfortunate reality for this town. Why can't
the town get together and reasonably review something like this
and make a proper adjustment without having to waste your time
and mine in the court's? I leave myself at your discretion
gentlemen, I have full faith in your fairness .
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments?
Ms. Duffy: Can I just say one thing, I just want to point out
that Mr. Kapell is correct when he put forth the expenses.
The mortgage is never included in the income of (inaudible) to
value. Because, whether you have a mortgage or whether you paid
cash for the building you can't give a tax break to the guy to
has a mortgage and not to the man who pays cash for his building.
Mr. Markel: Excuse me but I don't like to argue with you on
that point but in a business sense, if you buy a building for
business and you have a mortgage it is part of a legitimate
expense in your operating expenses and it is deductible on
Federal and State taxes.
Ms. Duffy: Income tax, not the approached value.
Mr. Markel: It becomes a business expense.
lif38 S
Mr. Kapell: I would like to point out one other thing, with
regards to Mr. Russells ' contention that perhaps the expenses
are not accurately reflected here. Even if you were to
substantially discount some of the expenses which I have put
forth which I again maintain are 100% correct, it would not
alter the nature of my request because if you were simply to
capitalize my net income, this building is worth $126,000 .00
bucks and there is a long way to gobefore I get up to the level
that I have asked you to reduce it to.
Mr. Sullivan: Have you got a copy of his letter there?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: He is asking full value $200,000 . 00 .
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: What is that on assessed value?
Mr. Scott: Times the equalization rate which is for commercial
property . 0255 would be 5100 . 00 dollars.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , any other questions?
Mr. Russell : Just one, I am not at all questioning the
integrity of the numbers, I am merely saying that they have to
be scrutinized in a Certiorari setting because there is always
going to be argument over how income capitalization is derived
and he has been in the business a long time and he knows it is
not as easy as taking rent roll and multiplying by six.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. Scott, that is a lot more involved than what
this Board is going to take down. You are saying if it goes
into Certiorari?
Mr. Russell: We can a better reflection.
Mr. Sullivan: That is not up to us to put it into Certiorari,
that is up to the plaintiff.
Mr. Russell : He is making himself look like a victim. We
thought it wasn't a fair adjustment that was made that is why we
offered the 7900, I think he is deliberate trying to look like
he a victim for some sort of sympathic ploy. 7900 was a fair
offer on our part and it shows that the Town can sit down and
make an offer. Again, income capitalization, and he should know
this, he has been in the business, you don't take a rent and
multiply by six and use it as some sort of
Mr. Kapell: Gentlemen, that is done all the time
Mr. Russell : In a informal setting, not in a Certiorari matter.
111
39 I
Mr. Kapell : You can go from one end of this country to the
next and you will find that six times the rent roll is the
industry accepted standard for a rule of thumb valuation of
income producing property. If you would prefer to use a true
capitalization then I would ask you to reduce the assessment to
$126,000 . 00, maybe we should start there.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have any other comments?
Mr. Kapell : Not at all.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , you will hear from us at a later date.
20) 1000-97-17 ( . 1- .2-.3)
Patricia A. Bailey
2155 Skunk Lane
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Ms . Bailey: I do. I wrote a long letter to you and I think it
is going to take a little while to read.
Mr. Sullivan: How about condensing it for us .
Ms. Bailey: O.K. , it is pretty well condensed the way it is. I
think I forgot to dot my I in paragraph three. In February, I
received tentative permission to have a subdivision, a six acre
parcel divided into a three two acre parcels. The completing in
reality is only on paper. There is no way I can sell this
property at this time until roads are put in place and anything
that goes with the roads. It is a very costly endeavor and I
don't think therefore that the subdivision completion and the
fair market value would have to go into place after the roads
are put in place, not now before the roads are put into place.
I feel the Grievance Board should direct the assessor' s to go
back to cautioning the three lots as six acres until the land
can have a value of individual lots and all the paper work and
the roads are in place and the apportionment would be as before
2392 was 1300 . Also, there is a piece of property that abuts my
piece of property. My property is on Leslie Road and this is on
Skunk Lane and the property goes right next to mine. It has 206
feet of road frontage and mine has 117 and yet their three acres
is assessed at 1400 and mine with 117 feet for one lot two acres
was assessed at 1900 with the other two lots with no road to
them is assessed at 1700. I really feel at this time the
assessment is not fair because nothing is in place. I don't
think you can assess something if you can't sell it.
Mr. Markel : Were you granted a change by the Planning Board?
• 40 •
Ms. Bailey: I was granted a tentative change by the Planning
Board.
Mr. Markel: In writing?
Ms. Bailey: I think so, my lawyer has all of that.
Mr. Markel : You were granted a tentative change in writing
from the Planning Board. This in effect, would allow you to
make a contract to sell as individual parcels .
Ms. Bailey: Not until the roads are in place.
Mr. Markel: That's the mechanics. You have that in place
right now, you have the permit to do it. In other words, in
effect you have several parcels instead of the one parcel that
you previously had. Is that correct?
Ms. Bailey: Right now, the lawyer has the papers and he is
presenting them to the Suffolk County from what I understand to
have them approved.
Mr. Markel : Approval by Suffolk County.
Ms. Bailey: Right.
Mr. Markel: But in effect, Southold Town has said yes. You
have applied for it in Southold Town and they have said yes. Is
that right?
Ms. Bailey: Yes.
Mr. Markel: And you intent, is of course to sell individual
plots.
Ms. Bailey: You really want to know my intent? My intent is to
give two lots to my children and sell one.
Mr. Markel: The purpose is to break up the parcel into
several pieces instead of one.
Ms. Bailey: Right.
Mr. Markel: You have been granted permission to do that?
Ms . Bailey: Right.
Mr. Markel: You haven't put the roads in. How many lots
would you have at the completion?
Ms . Bailey: Three.
Mr. Markel: So, it isn't a major subdivision, it is a minor
subdivision where you do not have to put in paved roads .
• 41 •
Ms. Bailey: Yes you do.
Mr. Russell : If I may just interject. I did go to Planningand
this was a procedural error on our part originally because I did
talk to Planning and they said she has three years to complete
roads, drainage and curbs . At the end of three years, if there
is no initiative taken within three years, it will revert back
to one large parcel.
Mr. Markel: At the end of three years, but now it is three
parcels.
Mr. Russell : Yes, but again it is a tentative subdivision so
the final roads and all the efforts are made to complete it so
she can transact those parcels. Again, it was probably
procedural error on our part and I personally would recommend a
reduction.
Mr. Scott: Not a total reduction.
Mr. Markel : What was your recommendation?
Mr. Russell: My recommendation would be to go back to an
apportioned amount.
Mr. Markel : Why don't we give them a few minutes to decide
their recommendation.
Mr. Sullivan: Scott, what you are saying is that if she does
nothing in three years, it reverts back.
Mr. Russell: That is correct.
Mr. Sullivan: Now what do you do.
Ms . Bailey: I would have to go through the whole parcel again.
Ms. Duffy: At that point, we would change the assessment back.
Mr. Sullivan: To what?
Ms. Duffy: To the one parcel assessment, if it reverted back.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , so what you are saying is that you were
premature in doing this?
Mr. Scott: No, he said that.
Mr. Russell: There is a disagreement here so I am going to let
the other two assessors decide.
Mr. Markel: May I recommend that we get something from them
by decision day?
• 42 •
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. .
Mr. Scott: We will be happy to do that. We will get a
consensus on our part and we will deliver it to the Board of
Assessment Review.
Ms . Bailey: I also think they were unfair when they assessed me
even if it was for the three lots when you have a three acre lot
abutting you property with 200 feet on the road and you are
assessed at 1900 and they are assessed at 1400 so I actually
have two complaints .
Mr. Sullivan: You are complaining on excessive.
Ms. Bailey: I am saying I don't think the value they are
setting my lots at are accurate because I cannot sell them right
now. There is no way you can sell lots without the road.
Mr. Sullivan: What about the lots you are referring to next to
yours?
Ms. Bailey: The lot next to mine is on Skunk Lane and touches
mine in this manner. That lot has 206 feet on the road and my
lot has opening of 117 feet on Leslie Road which they have
assessed at 1900 for two acres. With about half the road
frontage.
Mr. Sullivan: Yours is assessed at 1900 and what is the other?
Ms. Bailey: 1400 . My inlots are assessed at 1700 with no
access . To build that road it is going to cost me about
$55,000.00 dollars .
Mr. Henry: Are these two different pieces of property you are
talking about now or is it three lots.
Ms. Bailey: I have three lots off Leslie Road.
Mr. Henry: Off Leslie Road.
Ms . Bailey: The first lot is assessed at 1900, the next lot is
1700 and the next lot is 1700. The third lot abuts this piece
of property that I am telling you about.
Mr. Henry: The third lot is the one that comes on Leslie Road.
Ms . Bailey: The first lot is the one on Leslie Road.
Mr. Henry: Is that past Swiatoccha' s house?
Ms. Bailey: No, this side of Swiatoccha's, closer to Skunk
Lane.
411
43
Mr. Markel: I would just like to hear the recommendation from
the assessor's.
Mr. Sullivan: They will submit it to us . Thank you very much,
you will be hearing from us later.
21) Patricia Heiser
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Ms. Heiser: I do.
Mr. Sullivan: Patricia, can you step up here please. This is
incomplete and we cannot act on it. How would I find this out?
Mr. Sullivan: No.
Ms. Duffy: We can go outside.
Mr. Markel : You want a 25% reduction. The assessor' s have a
list of the assessed valuation so all you have to do is subtract
the percentage and put down what you want and then we can act on
it.
Ms. Heiser: I can do that now?
Mr. Markel: Sure you can do that now. If you need some help,
one of these assessor's will be happy to help you.
22) 1000-56-1-2 .20
Penelope Candemeres
2530 Laurel Avenue
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Ms . Candemeres: I do.
Ms. Duffy: Excuse me, I just want to tell you that this is a
very recent sale at $155,000 .00 dollars and based on the
residential assessment ratio, we would be happy if you made the
adjustment.
Mr. Markel: Wait until we hear the complainant to see what
she is asking for.
Ms. Candemeres: When I first bought the house, I didn't know
what the taxes were. The builder couldn't be specific. When I
• 44 •
received the paper in the mail I was surprised. This isn't my
primary residence, I live in Port Washington and I rent an
apartment there so this is an investment for future retirement
and I didn't realize how expensive it was to live out here. The
water from Greenport, the electricity, living in Nassau I don't
pay as much so I would like about a 20% reduction in the tax.
Mr. Markel : How close to we come to the 20% that she is
asking for?
Mr. Scott: The present assessment is for 7700 . It is actually
more than 20%.
Ms . Candemeres: I was taking 20% of the 3800, not the 7700 .
I may have written that down wrong, I 'm sorry.
Mr. Sullivan: What are you recommending the assessment be
reduced to?
Mr. Scott: The 7700 is the present assessment and we are
recommending that based on the sale it would be 5224, not 7700 .
Mr. Sullivan: She is asking for 3000 .
Mr. Markel: You are asking for about 40%?
Ms. Candemeres : I may have filled it out wrong and I 'm sorry,
I was asking 20% of the 3800 that was listed not the 7700 . The
3800 is the tax.
Mr. Scott: She is talking about tax and we are talking about
assessment.
Mr. Markel : We don't go by tax.
Ms. Candemeres: I realize that now. O.K. , so it would be 20%
of the assessed value.
Mr. Markel: Of assessed value.
Mr. Scott: We would be more than happy to go with the 20% which
would be 6160 if she would accept that?
Mr. Markel : But, you just told me that you would accept 5224 .
Mr. Scott: She was asking for 3000 and we wouldn't accept 3000.
Mr. Markel: But, you have given he 5224.
Mr. Scott: Based on sale.
Mr. Sullivan: Are you willing to accept the 5200?
Ms. Candemeres: Yes .
• 45 •
Mr. Sullivan: Would you adjust this?
Mr. Scott: 5224 .
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , thank you.
23) 1000-117-6-32 .2
Suzanne Clarke
4253 Karensue Ave. New Suffolk Ave.
San Diego, Ca. 92122 New Suffolk, NY
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Ms. Clarke: I do. The assessment went from 800 this year to
3000 that was as a result of a mistake on the apportion that was
done for the current tax year. The people in the assessors
office put the building that is now located on this 32 .2, they
misread the old property card and they lumped it in with the
32. 1 lot so the 800 was too little. It should have been about
1200 more. The reason I believe that I received an assessment
increase was due to a lot split for which I received approval at
the end of 1978, the very beginning of January 1979 when I
purchased the property that was split the assessment was
increase in May of 1979 because of the approval for the lot
split and my purchase of the property conditioned on the
approval of the lot split. I did not deed any of the parcels
except for January of this year when I deeded one of the
parcels . That triggered an assessment increase for all three
parcels . Now, I believe that I am being hit with a review and
an increase twice for the same event which is the lot split
approval that was granted in January of 1979 for which there was
an assessment increase made that May and I think that is
unfair. The second matter is what should the assessment be?
There is a comparable property immediately adjacent to 32 .2 and
that parcel resulted from exactly the same kind of lot split
that my parcel of 32 .2 resulted from because at the time that I
got the approval for my lot split, the people that owned the
adjoining parcel made it clear that they were going to come in
and ask for approval for their own lot split, which they did and
they then sold off their big house and kept the parcel that had
a small cottage on it. Just as I kept 32 .2 which has a small
cottage on it. They also have a adjoining vacant lot as I have
a third unimproved lot. It is identical factual situation.
Where the cottage is located on 6-26 .6 it is also a one and one
quarter story or a one and one half story building and I believe
it is about the same size. It isn't as old as my cottage and
the total assessment on that parcel is $2000 . 00 dollars .
Ms. Duffy: Can you tell us where that is?
• 46410
Ms. Clarke: It's Hartung, and Hartung came in it must have
been sometime in 1979 after I got my approval, their parcels
were 117-6-26 .6, 117-6-26 .5, 117-6-26 . 3 . Now, I have asked to
see all of the assessment records going back to the 1979 - 1980
tax year and it is not clear if they are in the basement or not
in the basement, they may no longer exist. In order demonstrate
what happened to my assessment at that time and what happened to
the Hartung' s assessment and what happened when they sold
their big house and what happened when I sold my big house.
Mr. Scott: I asked Darlene to get the original card for the
main house.
Mr. Markel: Are you familiar with this situation?
Mr. Scott: Yes, I am. Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for
the card, can I ask you to ask Ms . Clarke what she feels the
value of the property is in today' s present?
Mr. Markel: I would like to see the application because she
probably stated that.
Ms. Clarke: I don't know what it is worth. I think it is worth
about the same as the other cottage that adjoins this cottage.
This is a market that who knows what anything is worth.
Mr. Scott: 117-6-26 . 3, 117-6-26 .4, 117-6-26 .5, 117-6-26 .6?
Ms. Clarke: Well, I don't know about four. I think somebody
else divided I believe it is 26 . 3, 26 .5 and 26 .6 .
Mr. Scott: We're getting another card.
Mr. Sullivan: What did Darlene come up with?
Mr. Scott: She brought the card for Hartung, she didn't bring
the original card so she is going to get that.
Mr. Markel: In any event, I think we are only waiting for
support of evidence. We' ll just make a comparison on grievance
day. If the fact bears her out she is right and if the fact
bears her wrong she is wrong.
Mr. Scott: The only thing is that the $3000. 00 represents an
interpreted value of the estate being valued at around
$89,000.00 dollars fair market value and she indicated to me the
other day that that particular value is probably less that what
the market is at the present time.
Ms. Clarke: I don't think I indicated that to you and I don't
think you indicated that to me. All I can say is that I think
there is a comparable property which is not for sale and mine is
not for sale.
411
47
Mr. Markel: Basically, I don't think we go by here say, we go
by facts and we have a card there and if that property is paying
less taxes than you are then you have a right to grieve and
perhaps persevere and that is the basic factor of this and I
don't think there is room for any other argument at this stage
of the game, that is my opinion.
Mr. Scott: I would like to submit this for evidence. This one
is . 29 acres also 713 square feet instead of 815 square feet so
there is a consideration to the size of the property plus, she
also has a garage.
Ms. Clark: As to the differential on the land, their land is
assessed at 600 and my land is assessed at 800.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
Ms. Clarke: It looks to me like the buildings are roughly the
same size.
Mr. Sullivan: We will take these into consideration. Thank you.
Mr. Markel : If at any time you want information, you can go
into the assessor's office during working hours and they will be
more than happy to give you the information.
Mr. Scott: She was at the office before and she had property
record cards in front of her.
Ms. Clarke: But, I was asking to look at the 1978, 1979
assessments rolls . They have been very cooperative. Thank you.
21) Patricia Hiser
Ms . Hiser: I am sorry to bother you but I spoke to the
assessor and he assures me that I can work this out. It is a
piece of environmental property and we won't have any problem in
coming to a decision . So do I sign a withdrawal?
Mr. Scott: Please take your application to Claire and sign a
letter of withdrawal.
Ms. Hiser: Thank you.
24) 1000-128-4-20
Eric and MaryAnn Alexander
4670 Peconic Bay Blvd.
Laurel, NY
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
48
Mr. Alexander: I do.
Mr. Sullivan: Eric, you had checked off unequal assessment?
Do you have any comparables on this?
Mr. Alexander: There are three specific ones . It is kind of
unique piece of property along Peconic Bay Blvd. on the bay side
that is not on the bay. There is only two or three comparable
pieces of property there, most of them are on the bay.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have the numbers etc. etc. ?
Mr. Alexander: I have the numbers of the comparables, do you
want the values or do you want the lot numbers?
Mr. Sullivan: Block numbers.
Mr. Alexander: 128-6-25 is assessed at 5900, 128- 6-27 is 6300,
128-6-10 is 5900 and there is 128-6-23 is 9700.
Mr. Markel : Would like to leave us all of the supporting
evidence?
Mr. Alexander: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have another copy of that?
Mr. Alexander: I have it available. Do you want this now?
Mr. Markel : Yes, we will put it with your file.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , do you have anything else to say to the
Board?
Mr. Alexander: No.
Mr. Russell: We are at a disadvantage because he didn't submit
anything to us . We didn't get any information, an appraisal or
anything so all we have is the application.
Mr. Sullivan: He just gave us the appraisal .
Mr. Russell : All I know is that he a building permit issued for
$50,000.00 . If you look at the increase in assessed value of
$2000,00 dollars and you use the residential assessment ratio,
it would give you indicated fair market value increase of
59,000. We were off by 9,000. I mean that is pretty darn
close, reflecting the amount of money put into the house with
the amount of the increase in assessment it went up.
Mr. Alexander: My assessment only shows that there was a just a
15% increase in the value. The numbers may be a little
different than what they feel is the market value but the
49
percentage is going to be a good indication to me at what it
should be and I feel that the overall assessment is too high.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.
Ms. Duffy: Did you submit any sales to them as
comparables?
Mr. Alexander: No, I didn't.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , thank you and you will hear from us at a
later date.
25) 1000-97-4-7 . 1
Stephen and Carol O'Connor
1425 Skunk Lane
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. O'Connor: I submitted two copies with the application.
Mr. Henry: Who did your appraisal?
Mr. O'Connor: Stype Reality, Andrew Stype. Comparable
number two is like a mirror copy of our house in probably a much
better area. They are paying 1100. We are on Skunk Lane which
was probably a potato field at one time.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have anything to say?
Mr. O'Connor: The appraisal report more or less speaks for
itself. The three comparable that he came up with are fairly
accurate as to comparable square footage and two of the homes
are older but whereas the six years and the other twelve years
old but again, the square footage is similar and yet they are
paying $2200. 00 dollars less a year in taxes than we are.
Comparable #2, like I said, Country Club Estates is practically
a mirror image of our home square footage wise . I can't really
expound on what is here because this is more or less all of what
we are saying. He said to bring in comparables and that is
what we tried to do. Comp one is like an older home on the
Main Road in Cutchogue. There is a map there on the third page
showing the locations in relationship to where our house is.
The taxes last year were $6,600 .49 but I think that is a typo on
his part typing it up. He was probably looking at 1990.
Mr. Henry : What I was looking at was the difference that and
what he has here so you are asking for an assessment on
$200,000 . 00.
• 50
Mr. O'Connor: That was my opinion.
Mr. Henry: That is what you are asking for.
Mr. O'Connor: Right. I was told to go to the lower figure
that that is what you would base your decision on. The
appraisers point of view was that it was worth a little bit more.
Mr. Sullivan: What were your taxes last year?
Mr. O'Connor: $6,600 .49 in 1992 . I think the assessed value
with the land is 11,300, I don't have the property card.
Mr. Russell: The land is 2100, total is 11,300.
Mr. O'Connor: The land is 3.36 .
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have any other questions sir?
Mr. O'Connor: I have submitted a color picture of the front
of the house.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Russell, do you have anything on this?
Mr. Russell: No, I am just having a hard time figuring out if
he is looking for the 200 or the 250?
Mr. Sullivan: 200 on the value.
Mr. Russell : We have some problems with the 200, but the 250
submitted by the independent appraiser seems realistic from our
point of view. We're not making a recommendation either way, we
are just saying that 250 seems pretty reasonable.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else? Thank you, you will be hearing
from us .
26) 1000-5-3
David Saland
Mill Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Saland: I do.
Mr. Markel: Is this Mill Lane we are talking about?
Mr. Saland: Yes it is . Wolf Pit Estates . I am the
representative and owner of Wolf Pit Associates.
Mr. Markel : Is the subdivision in place?
• 51 •
Mr. Saland: Yes it is .
Mr. Markel: Improvements in place?
Mr. Saland: I am bonded for them.
Mr. Markel: These are five acre parcels?
Mr. Saland: Correct.
Mr. Sullivan: David, can you tell us more about this?
Mr. Saland: What happened was when I came in for the
subdivision the Planning Board asked me to develop, it was a 65
acre parcel, develop it into five acre parcels because there was
a swale that runs off from Oregon Road through a portion of my
property directly affecting lots one, two, three, four and
five. Number one I sold about a year ago to George Flagg for
$96,000.00 . The Town in approving my subdivision put covenants
and restrictions on those lots that I could not use almost half
of those lots for any purpose of other than walking on them so
that I feel that the fair market value of these lots with these
covenants and restrictions that run in perpetuity in this market
is $90,000. 00 per lot. I have other lots that run along Mill
that don't have the C & R's which the Town has assessed at
about $133,000 . 00 which I can live with in this market but, I
feel that these lots in particular are way over assessed and I
would like the Board's agreement that what I am saying is in
fact true. I know for a fact that I have been running ads on it
for the last year at $99,000. 00 on lot number two and I can't
give it away.
Mr. Russell: This was just brought before us and I didn't have
time to prepare for comparables .
Mr. Markel : Are you knowledgeable about the restrictions?
Mr. Russell: Yes, I know Mr. Flagg and I talked to him in
depth about it and we realize or the requirements . The green
way and the green belts and all sorts of things that are
restrictive but it might also enhance the fair market value
because you do have a rural setting that will be preserved
through those green belt areas. Ultimately, it is to the
homeowners benefit.
Mr. Markel : Ultimately, but what about today?
Mr. Russell: As soon as you get a homeowner down there sure.
There is no homeowner other Mr. Flagg whose house is under
construction. But, I would like to establish a fair market
value with a higher than $90,000 . 00 if I could just go get some
comparables.
Mr. Markel : You can submit any evidence you fellas want.
• 52 S
Mr. Scott: Mr. Markel, he prefers to use his sale which is
the only one that is in evidence right now which is at
$96,000.00 versus the $90,000.00. The $90,000. 00 is
speculative, $96,000. 00 is a definite sale of one of those
particular lots that he is talking about
Mr. Markel : When was that sale originated?
Mr. Saland: That originated about a year ago and the reason
why that lot sold, where I am valuing a little more higher than
the other four lots is because that abuts on Captain Hank
Drumm's farm which is one hundred acres of open space in
perpetuity next to it and it is also a high lot so you have a
tremendous view from that lot. From these lots I say it is
about twenty five to thirty feet higher so it has the open space
about one hundred acres behind it forever and it has a wide open
view across the fields and one other fact, I don't think the
market is any better than last year, I think it is worse. So if
I sold it for $96, 000 last year I don't think I could get
$96,000 for it this year and I submit I have'nt sold a lot for
a year and I have been advertising it constantly. I don't even
get any bites .
Mr. Markel: That's all the comments I have on it.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments .
Mr. Henry: At what time were the covenants and restrictions put
on?
Mr. Scott: Before the subdivision.
Mr. Henry: Was that the time the first lot was sold?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir. From the first application.
27) 1000-56-4-17 . 1
Schwartz, Therese Mr.
Haseltine, David W.
63745 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Haseltine: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Haseltine, can you step up here a minute?
We need to know that figures . You can just takethem out and
fill them in.
410
• 53
Mr. Russell: Can I submit some evidence regarding Wolf Pit
Associates .
Mr. Markel : Sure.
Mr. Russell : These are two comparables for two of the lots
that have been sold. Five acre lots.
Mr. Markel: You have until decision day to submit additional
information.
Mr. Russell: O.K. .
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Haseltine has returned.
Ms . Duffy: Can I ask what the use of the building is intended
to be.
Mr. Haseltine: It was a antique shop but it is now being used
as a home.
Mr. Markel: I know, it is the one on the water across the
street from Mill Creek.
Mr. Haseltine: Right next to the bridge on Mill Creek.
Mr. Markel : How is this zoned?
Mr. Scott: It was zoned for a particular type of use , I think
it was a grandfather use.
Mr. Markel: The area is now commercial isn't it? You have
commercial right next door?
Mr. Scott: I don't know, the only thing I can do is to check on
the zoning map.
Mr. Markel: In other words, you have it assessed as
commercial property.
Mr. Scott: At one time we did that is why we specifically asked
what the use is now because that is a different type of
evaluation and his answer was it was being used as a resident.
Mr. Markel: It is being used as a home.
Mr. Sullivan: Did you have anything you wanted to say?
Mr. Haseltine: I just wanted to say that the property was on
the market for twice as much as what we finally bought it for.
It was on the market for four or five years and it has some
definite disadvantages to be used as a residential area since it
is right on the highway. It has practically no land even though
it is . 33 acres and the State has grabbed up the fifteen foot
• 54 •
strip next to the bridge so it is even reduced a little by
that. The only reason that we found it attractive is because my
wife is an artist and we could use the fifteen hundred extra
feet for a studio otherwise, it is a lot of extra space that
doesn't fit with the house very much unless you need two living
rooms. That was used for the store when it was an antique
store.
Mr. Markel: The purchase price of this originally was
$180,000.00 dollars. That happened in 1990 .
Mr. Haseltine: I checked with the realtors and the market is
not any better.
Mr. Markel: It is a third of an acre. You say the state has
appropriated a fifteen foot strip to the East End.
Mr. Haseltine: Yes, right next to the bridge.
Mr. Markel : To the East end of your property. That in effect
limits the use.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Haseltine has said that the full value is
$180, 000. 00 which was in 3-90 when he purchased it plus $3, 000
dollars for the window. If it is rated or valuated as market
value as a residence which is times 3.37, it would be 61 . 67 .
The Board of Assessor' s would recommend to the Board of
Assessment Review that they will be considering at that basis
and we would not be objectionable to that based on the sales
price and the additional work that was done to it.
Mr. Sullivan: How much?
Mr. Scott: 6167, which is $183 thousand times 3. 37 .
Mr. Markel: You in fact believe it should be reduced down to
4667?
Mr. Haseltine: Well that is what I got when I divided by a
2 .25 rate but if everybody else is paying 3 . 37 then that is fair.
Mr. Markel : Well, it is your prerogative.
Mr. Henry: I would like to get Bob's response to that?
Mr. Scott: The reason why I specifically asked the first
question of Mr. Haseltine in the first place was to find out
the particular type of use that was used for the property and he
responded it was being used as a residence. The residential
rate is 3. 37 compared to 2 .55 which is an overall rate of all
types of property in Southold Town and the most specific use
would be the residential rate of 3 .37 and that is why we applied
it to the numbers that he provided.
• 55 •
Mr. Henry: Are you saying that the equalization rate is more
appropriate.
Mr. Scott: On commercial properties when they are used
specifically for commercial properties, yes sir.
Mr. Markel: As I look at this card Bob, I assume this card
was made out in 1991, 11-15-91 and that was when it was
commercial and it was at a total of 1108.
Mr. Scott: But, what you are saying is that how can we go and
recommend to you 6167 when we made a change. We made a change
based on a Building Permit and a uniform approach to value that
we have in Southold Town.
Mr. Markel : A Building Permit that was issued since Mr.
Haseltine owns the property?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir. 6-4-91, see where it says Building Permit
19918 for $1500.
Mr. Markel: That is not adding any additional area.
Mr. Scott: But, on the bottom of his card down here for
evaluation, what he estimates to be the value of the property
$180,000.00 purchase price plus $3000 .00 for the window. I am
taking his figures Mr. Markel.
Mr. Markel : The assessors would agree to a figure of 6167 is
that right?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Markel: This would be a deduction of elimination. That
would be about 20% .
Mr. Sullivan: How do you feel about that?
Mr. Haseltine: It's alright with me.
Mr. Sullivan: There offer is O.K. with you?
Mr. Haseltine: Yes .
Mr. Markel : I want you to understand, that we have the final
say. We are not coercing you into accepting their offer, that
is my point.
Mr. Haseltine: O.K. .
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else? Thank you Mr. Haseltine.
Mr. Sullivan: What is your name?
• 56
Paul Henry.
Mr. Markel : Did you sign in?
Mr. Henry: No sir.
Mr. Markel: Are you going to appear for each and every
application that you have.
Mr. Henry: I was hoping to meet at a later date with the Board
on the petition if that would be possible.
Mr. Sullivan: What do you a later date?
Mr. Henry: Another date, obviously you won't want to go through
all of them with me in this room today.
Mr. Tom Henry: How many do you have?
Mr. Paul Henry: I didn't count them.
Mr. Markel: Seventy-eight. I think that is a day' s work in
itself.
Mr. Paul Henry: I am available at your convenience.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Henry, how much notice would you require?
Mr. Paul Henry: Minimum, I am fairly flexible. I would prefer
a day or so notice just in the event that there is a conflict.
Mr. Tom Henry: When you say a day, do you anticipate eight
hours?
Mr. Paul Henry: No, I would just like to go through the cases.
Mr. Tom Henry: We willing to cooperate with you but we would
just like to know what time range you are talking about.
Mr. Paul Henry: It is hard for me to predict the duration for
each case but I will certainly try to move it along as fast as
possible.
Mr. Markel : I just want to advise you of the fact now the
assessor' s as you see today are sitting in on the hearings of
these applications . They have a right to listen to and voice
their opinions on these applications so it is a little more
entailed then it used to be.
Mr. Paul Henry: I am delighted to see the new format.
Mr. Markel: Naturally, it takes a little more time than
previously because they have a right to state their case as you
have a right to state yours . I would suggest to the Chairman
410
4 57
that when we finish all other applications that we will then
schedule you.
Mr. Paul Henry: That would be fine again at your convenience.
I would ask that the assessor be present or a representative be
present so that we could look for equity in these cases.
Mr. Sullivan: In as much as we do not have any clear cut way of
determining when we can have you in here to present your
grievances all I can say it will all depend what happens tonight
and with all the others and when we will be finished with
those. All I can say is that we will notify you as soon as we
can given you as much advance as we can.
Mr. Paul Henry: I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Scott: Mr. O'Conners withdrew his application, he was
asking for a correction of errors .
Mr. Markel : Was that number #25.
Mr. Scott: We made a submission to you of correction of errors
on the part of the assessor's.
Mr. Markel: This is the wrong one Bob. This one is on a
piece in Southold.
Mr. Scott: This is something else this is another one. This is
a correction of errors . Sorry.
28) 1000-56-1-2 .21
Gus and Rose Sclafani
2380 Laurel Avenue
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. and Mrs . Sclafani: I do.
Mr. Scott: They are asking for a reduction to 5700 which is 25%
less . The Board of Assessor's would request that the Board of
Assessment Review grant that.
Mr. Markel : For what reason.
Mr. Scott: Based on it would be consistent for what they are
asking for on the sale and the market value.
Mr. Russell : They just bought the house.
Mr. Scott: It is at their request.
411
58 •
Mr. Sullivan: Bob, would you explain that to the grievant.
Mr. Scott: Sure, there is a correction it is 5,820 dollarsfrom
7658.20 that is what they requested based on market price.
Mr. Sullivan: I take it that you are satisfied with that?
Mr. Sclafani: Yes . Thank you gentlemen.
29) 1000-61-3-1
Independent Group Home
Mr. Alex Sasbary
52550 Main Road
Southold, NY
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Sasbary: Yes.
Mr. Markel: Are you an independent contractor.
Mr. Sasbary: No sir. This is a non for profit company
providing services for the mentally retarded population. As you
probably know we just recently purchased Dr. Campbell ' s house
and we have been working on the facility the last couple of
months and we just moved into the house a couple of weeks ago.
Half of the client population is from Southold and we are a non
for profit and tax exempt everything. We have over twenty
facilities in Suffolk County all the way to Nesconset and out
to the South Shore to Southampton. The situation is such that
you know, our fundings are limited, we are mostly funded by
medicaid and as such the funding that is coming from Albany is
somewhat limited and because this is a new house which we just
opened we are not going to be funded for perhaps another year.
So, we have to deal this problem and it is going to be my
problem mostly. So, that is why we are requesting exemption for
this year already.
Mr. Markel : Have you been in to see the assessors and explain
the situation to them?
Mr. Sasbary: Well, we didn't have an opportunity. We just
sent our application through because they stated that we were
late with our application, the deadline was March 1, and we were
late because we moved in only the end of March. We missed the
deadline and I think the deadline was changed from last year it
used to be a later date.
Mr. Henry: Did the other part of the package come from you?
As far as precedents go, this is the first home you have had in
Southold Town?
59 •
Mr. Sasbary: That is correct.
Mr. Henry: Other parts of NYS?
Mr. Sasbary: Only Suffolk County. We have over twenty homes
in Suffolk County.
Mr. Henry: Do you have to get the exemption from each town?
Mr. Sasbary: Yes.
Mr. Henry: So the situation as I understand it by the time you
buy it is consistent.
Mr. Sasbary: That is correct. There really was a timing
difference there but we would definitely appreciate exemption
because of the financial restraints on us.
Mr. Henry: I am not sure what details are in the letter but
does it give you a cut off date for filing?
Mr. Sasbary: The cut off date was March 1 . That is a new
date in the Town, it used to be later I believe. We have been
looking out here for a couple of years .
Mr. Markel : A lot of people objected to your being in their
neighborhood.
Mr. Sasbary: Actually, as a matter of fact the people have
been very, very nice.
Mr. Henry: Another question I would like to ask is when did you
first become aware of that date?
Mr. Sasbary: Around the middle of March. We moved in on the
29th of March.
Ms . Duffy: That date is the same all over New York State. So
your other homes in Suffolk County, did you file for them also
late?
Mr. Sasbary: Yes, but also the other Town' s like Brookhaven
it is not an issue because we have been tax exempt there for
years so we filed at the same time for Brookhaven and
Southold. We don't have a problem with Brookhaven what so
ever.
Mr. Henry: Maybe, you could give us a copy for Brookhaven .
Mr. Sasbary: O.K. , we have no problem with other townships.
Mr. Scott: Can I just clarify something here. When they
presented it to us it was on 5-12-92 for the first time and the
tentative roll and already been done. It is out of our hands
60 S
completely. If they had done it March 15, or something like
that maybe we could have post dated it or something like that
predated it February 28th. We couldn't do that because it was
way, way after the tax roll.
Mr. Markel : Yes, I agree with what you are saying and I
assume, I 'm only assuming that you have no objection to the fact
that they are a non profit organization and should be handled
accordingly.
Mr. Scott: In our opinion, if they had submitted it we would
have granted it immediately.
Mr. Markel: However, the application that comes before us,
the one we have received here is dated within our jurisdiction.
Mr. Scott: And we told them to submit it to you also.
Mr. Markel : Right. So we can act on their application anyway
we see fit.
Mr. Scott: Right, that is why we told them to come before this
Board.
John Sullivan: Any other questions? Thank you.
30) 1000-125-1-2 .25.
David J. Saland
SanAndres
Main Road, Laurel
Mr. David Saland: I would like to hereby withdraw my
application for a grievance .
Mr. John Sullivan: O.K. , thank you.
31) 1000-117-10-20
Thomas M. Martin and wife
P.O. Box 637
Jackson Street
New Suffolk NY 11956
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Martin: I do. In 1991, 1992 I applied for a building
permit for a deck. The deck that I put on and I was before you
gentlemen a year ago on basically the same matter. In 1991,
1992, they up my assessed evaluation to 8600 dollars. I came
before the Board and I think what spurred all this or the action
or the trigger that caused this reassessment was the deck. That
started things so last year I was reassessed at 8600 and I came
• 61 •
before the Board and the Board came back and said that
evidentially it was a little high and I was decreased to 7500
dollars . This year, 1992, 1993, I get another one now and it
says my assessed valuation is 9800 dollars and on the notice
from the town it remains stamped partial that this is a partial
assessment. I really don't really understand what is going on.
Anyway, as a result of last year, I filed in small claims court
and I guess there were some problems with money or
administration or something that never happened because we never
got a hearing or whatever it was . I have been to my attorney
and my attorney told me to approach going before you gentlemen
again this year that I am not satisfied with what has happened
or with what is going on. I still think the whole thing comes
back to putting the deck on the house and it triggered this
whole reassessment. Last year I came before you gentlemen and I
had access to the tax maps and I had gone and picked out six
pieces of property that were equivalent or better than mine,
they were close in square footage and property and so on and so
forth and with that assessed evaluation last year I was by far
ahead of everybody else in the area. Including people who have
waterfront property.
Mr. Markel : Didn't we reduce you sir?
Mr. Martin: Yes, you did and then it pops right back up again
this year.
Mr. Sullivan: Let me ask the Board of Assessor's. What does
this terminology on here mean? What does it say, partial?
Mr. Scott: We found out that in March of 1991 when we assessed
the first time which was previous to last year's Grievance Board
that there had been an assessment on there of $4 . 00 and $2 . 00
for the two story and one story sections with 50% depreciation
and the Board of Assessor's felt that was excessive but we
didn't feel like putting Mr. Martin back where it should be at
the proper rates all at one time so we put in a step system
where it didn't kill Mr. Martin all at one time. So, we
scheduled it for a portion as far as last year, this year and
also a schedule for next year. We did this to bring him up to a
uniform assessment.
Mr. Martin: My wife called here about two weeks ago to check on
the small claims action and at that time one of the assessor's
told her that they had taken me aside and explained all of this
to me and I haven't talked to an assessor here ever so I don't
know where this came from. Again, I just think it is unfair, I
didn't bring all of the stuff today but I could go back into the
tax maps and bring you copies of the maps like I did last year
comparing it to my neighbors. I think I am way ahead of them
right now. I still think because I made an application for a
deck.
• 62 •
Mr. Markel: Have you raised anybody else in the immediate
area?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Markel: How many others?
Mr. Scott: Based on the applications, building permits, etc. .
I can't tell you how many.
Mr. Markel: This year.
Mr. Scott: There were others that were done in the step system
like this . I know of one or two others that were done the same
way. One, two or three houses down and I was explaining that to
that gentlemen also.
Mr. Markel: We haven't gotten the information before so I was
just wondering if some of those comparables are the one's you
did?
Mr. Scott: I can't tell because I don't know which ones he is
talking about. Are you willing to except this number or this
number? He has got an appraised value of $287,000 .00 dollars
here.
Mr. Markel: From whom?
Mr. Scott: From a refinance that Mr. Martin put here on his
application grievance. It is the opinion of this Board of
Assessors that if we take the $287,000 .00 and multiply it times
the residential assessment ratio, it would be 9672 and we would
not review it. We would make an agreement not to review it and
to leave it which would be a more accurate representation of
value even according to the refinance appraisal that he had
done.
Mr. Markel : I like the spirit of compromise but I can't
equate it.
Mr. Scott: The only thing is, what Mr. Martin was saying is
true, the building permit for the deck was the trigger for the
reassessment. When you took a look at the two houses in
question, which there were two houses in question, on that one
single piece of property and you took a look at the rates that
were on there plus the depreciation 50% off on the improvements
it didn't warrant that in no shape or form which his refinance
appraisal also substantiates .
Mr. Markel : Well, don't you break down depreciation?
Depreciation is for raises isn't that correct.
Mr. Scott: That is the criteria but not the total criteria.
• 63 •
Mr. Markel: Well, if somebody builds a brand new deck you are
not going to give them a depreciation on the fee of the deck .
Mr. Scott: The amount of depreciation on the entire two parcels
was excessive and it has to be changed because it hadn't been
reinspected since 1977 at that point and there had been
considerable change.
Mr. Markel : Has the age improved?
Mr. Scott: No sir, but that is not the only criterion. The
criterion is the age and the shape. The condition of the entire
building.
Mr. Markel: In other words, if a man keeps his house in top
shape and paints it every year, you are going to punish him for
doing that.
Mr. Scott: No sir, it is not punishment. The system of
taxation in Southold Town and New York State is according to
value and if the condition of the building increases and the
value of the building increases then we have to change the
assessment to reflect that increase in value.
Mr. Markel : It is just my opinion that if everybody let their
places go and looked like tobacco row you would have cheap taxes
and we would have a lousy looking town.
Mr. Scott: That is an opinion, but that is not the way it is
assessed in Southold Town and there has to be a constant
re-rating and there hasn't been for fourteen years, up until the
point that the building permit was issued and we went and
reviewed it for that first time.
Mr. Markel : But, has conditions changed since our Board of
Assessment Review has made their decision last year. Have
conditions changed in your mind since that date?
Mr. Scott: First of all, what condition has changed is the 2 .9
has changed to 3 . 37, there has been a change in value so that
there is a increase in the residential assessment ratio and a
decrease in the overall value. The assessment in our opinion,
the change was excessive respectfully speaking. We disagreed
because we had physically taken a look at the property in
question and I don't think that according to the pictures that
were shown to you that are on our property record card.
Mr. Markel: Can I see that.
Mr. Scott: That is two magnificent structures and we will go
along with valuation on the appraisal report of $287,000. 00 and
we promised as we told you before that we will not revalue and
we will stop what we might be considered a war between the Board
111
• 64
of Assessor's and the Board of Assessment Review and Mr. Martin
and we don't want that.
Mr. Markel: We're not at war with anybody.
Mr. Scott: There is a difference of opinion.
Mr. Markel: We trying to do this in a fair manner that is our
job.
Mr. Weinheimer: In the case that his deck triggered the
reassessment of his property, does that automatically force you
to reassess all the surrounding houses and bring them up to the
same point?
Mr. Scott: No sir. That is a good question, it could be that
if there is a request by a particular individual for an area to
be done, we could do an area and we would do an area. Most of
the time, the individual in concern don't want to trigger a
reassessment of their neighbors and we are limited as to what we
can do. We can't base it on the basis of sale, that is illegal
and we are not doing it on that basis.
Mr. Martin: Last year on this deck thing I would just like to
mention what Scott says, I compared that also going to the tax
maps and I got a couple of neighbors who added decks last year
which I brought to your attention and at that time you told me
there was a figure used and that you go by square footage. One
of my neighbors, granted the house is a lot smaller, but their
deck is the same size as mine and their total was a eight dollar
bill when they raised the assessment. We both did the decks at
the same time. Granted, they are a couple of blocks from me and
granted, I ' ll will be the first to admit that the house is a lot
smaller. But, they got hit by the formula and mine went the
other way. Can I ask one other question? The attorney that I
had talked to, he felt that the 3 .37 which you said is the new
number, that would have given me something like an assessed
valuation of 326, 409 .
Mr. Scott: What is the original assessment 9800?
Mr. Martin: I am not into what these numbers mean.
Mr. Scott: $290,000.00.
Mr. Sullivan: You have not indicated as to what you think the
assessment should be reduced to.
Mr. Martin: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: You have to complete that.
Mr. Russell : I would like to point out that his appraised value
is $287,000 and according to our figures, we have it assessed at
• 65 •
$290, 000. 00 and that is not too much of a difference. I think
that is exactly what we are suppose to be doing as assessors and
that is assessing property on its fair market value that has got
to be the ultimate determination.
Mr. Martin: I just want to comment on that. Since we got that
house, the house was not lived in in twenty years and the house
was in disrepair, there is not question about it. This house
belonged to my wife' s grandfather and it was left in an estate
to his heirs and we split it between us about fifteen years
ago. As of three days ago, I 'm still up trying to get the roof
sealed, maybe the outside of the house looks nice but that still
doesn't help with all of the other problems. Twenty years of
non use there hadn't been a thing done to the house so sure we
put a face on the house if you want to call it that by painting,
nothing has been changed on the outside with exception to the
deck. We painted and tried to keep it clean, we've keep the
grass down and so on and so forth but I don't know what that has
to do by looking good. You are always told stories about where
the outside looks terrible but the inside is like a castle and
people keep it like that because their assessed valuation stays
down and they don't pay much as far as taxes go.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Martin, you are presently being assessed at
9800. What do you believe the assessment should be reduced to.
Mr. Martin: Mr. Scott, what was your number?
Mr. Scott: It would be 9672 .
Mr. Sullivan: Scott, do you want to say something?
Mr. Scott Russell: Only that again, we have to show the fair
market value ultimately that has to be a determination for an
assessment. We don't relish that we have to reassess people
because they take pride in their homes. Unfortunately, the
State compels us to and our value of $290,000 is very close to
his submitted value of $287,000.00.
Mr. Markel: So we are talking about $3,000 . 00.
Mr. Sullivan: What was the figure?
Mr. Russell : Well, we have an assessed value of $290,000 and he
submitted $287,000 .
Mr. Martin: That is what the bank assessed it at. I 'm asking
$275,000.
Mr. Markel: He is asking $275,000 and they came up with
$290,000 .
Mr. Russell: We're saying $290,000.
• 66 •
Mr. Markel: What did the appraiser come up with?
Mr. Martin: $287,000.
Mr. Markel: Well, we have got three different figures.
Mr. Martin: My only point is that I don't think the appraiser
from the bank understands either when he looks at the house he
doesn't look again if there are leaks in the roof or if there is
a boiler that is twenty years old or whatever.
Mr. Markel: But, he is the one who is sticking his neck out
by loaning you money so you can be pretty certain that they are
not going to go overboard unless you are a cousin of his .
Mr. Martin: Except the amount that we asked for is no where
near what the value of the house was suppose to be.
Mr. Sullivan: Any further questions?
Mr. Martin: Can I ask you where I stand as far as last year
goes now? We filed in small claims and we have never heard.
Mr. Markel: Well, there was no decision made for you in small
claims.
Mr. Martin: Why? As far as I know that was still on going.
Mr. Scott: Basically, what happened is that the last we knew
there was 1667 cases from last year's grievance day and all of
Suffolk County had not been heard. They provided funding so far
on the budget for 67 cases to be divided between ten towns so
there is still 1600 cases approximately that have not been heard.
Mr. Markel: I would say that is in limbo.
Mr. Russell: That is the State running out of money and we are
in the same boat regarding those cases.
Mr. Martin: I am just asking a general question, what happens
now, do I still go?
Mr. Henry: There are no answers. No action has been taken on
those cases.
Mr. Sullivan: Last year you were granted relief by the Board.
Mr. Martin: I filed a small claim.
Mr. Markel: He wasn't satisfied.
Mr. Sullivan: You weren't satisfied with that relief?
• 67 •
Mr. Martin: Again, I still say I was picked on individually
because I had a deck put on and I don't think that is right.
I have got neighbors that don't bother getting building permits.
Mr. Markel: But, we reduced you.
Mr. Martin: Right.
Mr. Markel: You were not satisfied.
Mr. Martin: No.
Mr. Burdy: You asked for $7, 000 dollars and we gave you
$7,500 dollars and you were'nt satisfied.
Mr. Martin: That was on the advise of my attorney.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you, we will get back to you as soon as we
can.
32) 1000-126-8-26
Leslie J. Bauer
1325 Wells Road
Laurel, NY 11948
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Ms . Bauer: I do.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, Ms. Bauer just purchased this property
fairly recently and she is asking on the basis of $140,000 after
a purchase of $138,800 . We will not complain if the assessment
is awarded to her on the basis of a residential assessment ratio
times $140,000 which is what she is asking for.
Mr. Markel: Do you have a calculator?
Mr. Scott: No, she already told me about it before.
Mr. Markel: The present assessment is 5600 total?
Ms . Bauer: Correct.
Mr. Markel : And according to that you agreed to have it
reduced to what?
Ms. Bauer: 4718.
Mr. Scott: Correct.
Mr. Markel : Are you satisfied with that?
1 68 •
Ms. Bauer: Yes, that is what I was looking for.
Mr. Sullivan: That is based on the RAR Bob?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , if nothing further, you will hear from us
as soon as possible.
33) 1000-74-3-21
James and Ruth Hubbard
Carroll Avenue
Peconic, NY
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Hubbard and Pastor: We do.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Hubbard, would you like to state your case?
Mr. Hubbard: I would just like to know why I am not exempt as
a minister?
Mr. Sullivan: Did you file?
Mr. Hubbard: Yes. I think you've got one of the letters up
there.
Mr. Markel: Mr. Hubbard, you area minister in a local
church?
Mr. Hubbard: Yes .
Mr. Markel: How long have you been a minister?
Mr. Hubbard: Three years.
Mr. Markel : Is that your main occupation?
Mr. Hubbard: No, I work here at the Town.
Mr. Markel: You are a minister and you are here for support?
Mr. Hubbard: He is the pastor.
Tape not working.
Pastor: All of us was exempt so that is why I came down on Mr.
Hubbard behalf just to explain.
Mr. Markel : Have you attended this seminary?
410
69
Mr. Hubbard: Yes.
Mr. Markel: And credited.
Mr. Hubbard: I 'm still in the school.
Mr. Markel: How many hours do you put in at the church?
Mr. Hubbard: 35 hours .
Mr. Markel : Is that a paid job in any manner. No, he is the
pastor there.
Mr. Henry: Do you have a copy of the letter from Scott Russell?
Mr. Hubbard: Yes .
Mr. Henry: Doesn't that answer your question. You said you
didn't understand why. Here it says that ministry is not Mr.
Hubbards primary occupation.
Mr. Hubbard: This is the only Town that has that policy is
that correct?
Mr. Henry: Well, do you disagree with it?
Mr. Hubbard: Yes.
Mr. Henry: I would like to ask Scott to comment on it.
Mr. Russell: When we denied this exemption, it was not
something that we did lightly. I called assessors from several
west end and east end town to ask them the criteria and the
unfortunate thing about the State Law about the holy exempt is
. . . . (tape not working) so we devised a policy where we asked
the congregation to come up with one minister. One per flock
sort of speak and it was the same case here and we decided that
Mr. Fulford would be the pastor that would qualify for the
exemption but with the guidelines that we have and we follow
from the other assessor's and from the previous Board and we
couldn't qualify Mr. Hubbard as a minister. He has a full
time employment with the Town of Southold and although his
service to God is commendable.
Mr. Henry: Does the law define what a primary occupation is?
Mr. Russell : No it doesn't.
Mr. Henry: Do you know how it has been interpreted.
Mr. Russell: by this Board and by previous Board' s I would ask
them and also some of the other assessor's .
Mr. Henry: Do you know if they have had a court decision on it?
70
Mr. Russell: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Weinheimer: As a comparison, in a Catholic Church where
they may have three or four priests doing full time duty and if
each one of them had their own personal property, would you
grant exemption to all of them?
Tape not working.
Mr. Markel: Are there any churches in this Town where
somebody beside the top minister or pastor gets an exemption?
Mr. Russell: None.
Reverend Cornelius Fulford: According to a what Mr. Russell
just stated we qualify and spend a lot of time doing physical
work and also the clergy work of the church but according to
what we in, we in the Eastern Baptist Association and in order
for you to be a minister the work is for the church and it don't
determine whether you a clergy or a minister or not, it
determine your qualification where you been to school in the
seminary. This determine what you are because you got to prove
yourself right and that is why the Baptist is different than the
Jehovah Witness when it come to who is the clergy because they
go out and walk and visit and they go to a school but they don't
have all the degrees that are necessary to prove that they are
clergy and minister. The clergy preaches all over the world
like Mr. Hubbard do and myself. We have been called to teach
and called to train and so you have to have a degree and a
license recognized by the State of New York in order for you to
be a clergy in the Baptist organization. So that mean, from the
Baptist standpoint, everybody in the Baptist Church cannot be
clergy. You have to have a license in order to be a clergy.
That mean that once you get that license and go to school in the
seminary and all the qualification, that mean you are a full
time minister. Meaning that you might not be the pastor but you
are a full time minister and you go all over and preach to the
world and teach the school, be superintendent of the Sunday
School and all of that but that is why Baptist organization
cannot come in and say I am a minister you got to qualify and
licensed with the New York State that you are a clergy.
Mr. Markel: Do you have that Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Hubbard: Yes, I do brought it in for them and I have it
in the truck now if you want me to get it.
Mr. Markel: We' ll take your word for it. You do not receive
any salary from the church what so ever?
Mr. Hubbard: Only with the pastor is gone and say I preach
one Sunday and they take up whatever they want to give me and
that is all I get. But, for being paid, no I don't.
71 •
Mr. Markel: And, I imagine that the Church is not that rich
that they could afford to pay you.
Mr. Hubbard: No.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments? O.K. , Mr. Hubbard, Mr.
Fulford, you will hear from us as soon as possible.
34) 1000-59-9-10 . 6
Russell and Tammy Gregg
65 Great Pond Way
Southold, Ny 11971
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mrs. Gregg: I do.
Mrs. Gregg: This is an affordable housing home and my husband
and I had closed on the home in December of 1990 . The purchase
price of the house was $87,000.00
Mr. Markel : Is it in Cedarfields?
Mrs. Gregg: No, off Soundview.
Mr. Scott: It is the old dump ground that they converted.
Mr. Markel: O.K. , I know where it is .
Mrs. Gregg: The purchase price of the house was $87,000 . 00
and $20, 000. 00 dollars of that was a State Funded Grant. The
price that my husband and I paid was $64,000 . 00. There is a
seven year rider on the mortgage for the lot itself. Any
restrictions?
Mr. Markel: Are you restricted to selling it at a higher
price than what you paid for it or you can't sell it at all.
Mrs . Gregg: Can't sell it for seven years.
Mrs . Markel: What is the assessment? Do you know what the
assessed valuation is?
Mr. Russell: $4100. 00 .
Mr. Markel: $4100. 00. That is the assessed valuation that
the assessor' s have placed on it.
Mr. Henry: When did you close on the house?
i 72 i
Mrs . Gregg: December 30th 1991. We rented the house for a
year from the housing alliance.
Mr. Henry: Your assessment was not increased.
Mr. Markel : You would like it reduced?
Mrs . Gregg: Yes .
Mr. Markel : To what?
Mrs . Gregg: To whatever you feel is fair.
Mr. Henry: What do you feel is fair?
Mr. Markel : We can't tell you what it should be reduced to,
you have to say to use that you would like it reduced to such
and such. There are a lot of formulas and maybe if you take a
minute the assessor' s can explain the various formulas that you
can use so that we can get the application filled out properly.
Mr. Henry: Is there some kind of precident that has been set
up with Cedarfields?
Mr. Scott: Can I make a statement that we would be acceptable
over here because it is affordable housing. Even if there was a
$20,000.00 dollar grant, there still is a value of $20,000.00
dollars in the house. I think that is recognized by you and by
everybody else. If we take the $67,500 and multiply that times
.0337, we come up with 2274 . 75 and we take the $20,000 which has
the covenants and restrictions for seven years and extend that
10% reduction on that to the year 99- 2000 which is consistent
with Cedarfields. That would be an additional 607 . 00 which
would be a total of 2882 from 4100. That is acceptable for this
Board of Assessors to present to this Board of Assessment Review
for its consideration.
Mr. Markel : In other words, the assessment would be 2800
instead of 4100?
Mr. Scott: 2882 instead of 4100 .
Mr. Henry: Will one of you take this young lady outside and
explain that .
Mr. Russell: Would your permission, we would like to submit for
their neighbors in the interest that there are five houses that
should be assessed with the same requirements.
Mr. Markel : I was going to suggest that but you people are
the assessors . There are no other complaints that I know of in
the same area.
73 S
Mr. Scott: Can we put a correction of errors to those five
houses in there?
Mr. Markel: I would say so.
Mr. Scott: The only thing is, we don't want another situation
like last year where a partial portion of them are changed and
the others aren't. If we can put up a correction of errors
right now and correct the situation right now, we are happy with
that.
Mr. Markel: Good idea.
Mr. Scott: We can submit that before decision day.
Mr. Sullivan: What was that figure again Scott?
Mr. Scott: I gave it to her it was 2882 .
Mr. Sullivan: O.K.
Mr. Scott: And that is consistent with the other ones .
35) 1000-40-3-10 . 3
Judy and Charles Kozora
64290 North Road
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Kozora: I do. Mine is a rather simple one, the home was
purchased a year ago in March for $193,500 .00 and the assessment
on the house is 6900. If you take the equalization rate of 2 . 35
% and divide that into the assessment you come up with the full
value of $293,617 which is one hundred thousand dollars more
than the fair market value. The house had been on the market
for two and one half years prior to my purchasing it. It was on
the market for $225,000.00 dollars and at $225,000.00 and at
$225,000 .00 it could not be sold and finally the deal was
consummated at $193,500 and as a result I would say that that
was the fair market value of it. There have been no
improvements on it or any changes in it and as a result I would
request an assessment of 4,550 which the equalization rate would
be $193,500.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have a comment on that Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott: I sure do. First of all, the equalization rate is
not 2 . 35, it is 2 .55 and should not apply in this particular
case because it is a one family residential piece of property
and it should be applied at 3. 37 . In addition, I have to differ
• 74 •
that there has been a considerable amount of work that has been
done on the property and it is much more of a house than it was
when it was purchased and the value of $193,500 is
questionable. If it was $193,500 times the residential
assessment ratio which I am not empowered to by the Board of
Assessors to offer as a compromise, it would be $193,500 times
3.37 which is 6521. He is asking for 4550 . The work that has
been done is of a cosmetic nature and this was a house that was
a spec house that couldn't sell it, he had hardships and he left
it in an acceptable finish to sell to meet the letter in the
contract but it wasn't a complete finished house.
Mr. Markel: Who was the former owner?
Mr. Scott: It was Paticus.
Mr. Russell: I would like you to just notice that he was given
a reduction last year and he went to small claims and got a
reduction there too and it has been in place ever since and that
6900 using the residential ratio would translate to a fair
market value right now of only $204,000 . 00 which is about
$10,000.00 more than what he purchased it for and he put in that
landscaping and a number of other things .
Mr. Markel: Do we tax on landscaping in this town?
Mr. Russell: No.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions?
Mr. Kazora: Can I make a few comments? I direct you to this
publication that I received from the assessor' s and it says in
there on page 10 that the one family residence that and you
believe is either assessed at a higher portion of the full
market value than other residential property or the higher
proportion of full market value assessed valuation or real
property and that is why I would say the choice as directed by
equalization assessment should be mine because they directed
that. You may claim unequal assessment and that the option
should be chosen by the grievant and also to reemphasize that
you will want to use the RAR instead of the equalization rate
only if the residential assessment ratio is lower than the
equalization rate so I would reject that argument. When the
comment was mad e it is much more of a house, what has been done
is that there have been some trees cut out and there have been
some shrubs that have been replaced. The hardships I would
suggest to you that the sale was done at a hardship it would
have been consummated more quickly than two and one half years
on the market. It was on the market at $225,000 .
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you, you will be hearing from us .
34) 1000-59-9-10.6
• 75 •
Russell and Tammy Gregg
65 Great Pond Way
Southold, NY 11971
John Sullivan: Tammy Gregg has returned. Tammy will you
please sign this? O.K. , do you agree with the assessment to
reduce full value?
Mrs . Gregg: Yes .
Mr. Sullivan: You will hear from us as soon as possible. Thank
you.
36) 1000-115-15-24
Kathleen M. Simpson
Venetia A. McKeighan
240 Donna Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Sullivan: Would you like to speak?
Mr. Simpson: I purchased my home for $165,000 . 00 and it was
assessed at 7300, the assessed value should be reduced to 4200 .
Mr. Sullivan: What rate did you use?
Mr. Simpson: What rate is ever consistent with the Board is
fine.
Mr. Henry: Bob, did you compte this?
Mr. Scott: At $165,000,00 if you consider the RAR, we can't
argue with the sale price, it is a fairly recent sale.
Mr. Sullivan: Bob, is the assessment 5155 .
Mr. Scott: 5561 . 00.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions? O.K. thank you, we will get back
to you as soon as possible.
37) 1000-109-2-18
Irene Sawastynowicz
1100 Alvah's Lane
Cutchogue, NY 11935
John Sullivan: Are you here on this also?
• 76
Nancy McCarthy: Yes, I am here with my mother.
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Nancy McCarthy and Irene Sawastynawicz: We do.
(Tape broke)
36) 1000-100-3-15 .5
Matthew Tzavellas
860 Reeve Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Tzavellas is represented by d'Amato,
Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Carlino, 120
Mineola Blvd. P.O. Box 31, Mineola, New York 11501
Mr. Markel: Mr. Tzavellas believes the assessment should
be reduced to 4,201. The latest residential ratio is 3. 37 which
is right and this is how he figures it. Now we don't have a
card, yes we do have a card and the present assessment is 7500
which was done on 5-10-87 . Did he receive an increase this
year? I don't see any increase, he is just complaining on the
old assessment in 1987 .
Mr. Russell : We would just like to point out that he doesn't
submit any proof for the value of 125, at least he hasn't to
us. I don't know where he got the figure from.
Mr. Markel: And what figure do you have for him?
Mr. Russell : We would have the total assessed value of 7300 .
Mr. Markel: I mean the comparable figure for the 125 that he
is talking about, do you have a figure there?
Mr. Markel: There are no comps in that area.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state that the
burden of proof is on the petitioner, in other words the
assessor is assumed to be correct.
Mr. Markel : How big is the property?
Mr. Scott: One acre.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments or questions .
39) 1000-66-1-1
William D. Henn
• 77 •
1045 Town Harbor Lane
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Sullivan: The present assessment is 5900 and I would like
a reduction to 3825 . E. FishelTuccio appraisal came in at
$150,000 . 00 basing this on the equalization rate of 2 .55 .
Ms . Duffy: I don't have any comparables.
Mr. Markel: He is using the rate of 2 .55 .
Mr. Russell : I don't know how Mr. Tuccio arrived at a figure
of $150,000, and we recognize that he is using the equalization
rate and we would ask you to please consider the RAR rate
instead. The appraisal itself, we would ask you to consider a
couple of things first, he has got no comps and second of all
it is dated on February 9th and which according to real
property tax in the State of New York the appraisal has to be
done by January 1, 1992 . That is the evaluation rate of
February 9th, he missed it by five weeks. This in a court
setting would be considered null and void this appraisal .
Ms . Duffy: I don't see any comparables, I don't see any
sales or anything to be backed up the estimate of value.
Mr. Sullivan: What is the rate on the $150,000 on theRAR?
Mr. Russell: I would be $5,055 . Mr. Henn believes the
assessment should be 3825 .
Ms. Duffy: Are you done with Mr. Henn. I just wanted to
tell you that looking at Mr. Tuccio appraisal is in my
opinion that it is worth $150,000 . 00 and there is no
substantiating evidence. However, in my opinion he might be
right.
Mr. Russell: The assessors are standing by the recommendation
to take the 5055 which would be the accepted value of
$150,000 .00 calculated by the residential assessment ratio of
3. 37 percent. That was Darlene' s recommendation and I would
certainly stand by that.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
40) 1001-2-1-19 .2
Richard and Michelle Feeley
P.O. Box 1917
837B Main Street
Greenport, NY 11941
•
78
Mr. Markel: There is a land map with several houses in the
area but no cards on these houses, no comparables . This is a
situation where they are being assessed on a partial and her
partial is more than the finished houses in the area.
Mr. Russell: This is a situation where uniform rates really
don't have a place in the village. This house won't be worth it
if it were placed somewhere else. We might grant you a 20%
depreciation if you would consider that?
Mr. Markel: We would like your recommendation.
Mr. Russell : We recommend a 20% depreciation which would reduce
the assessment to 1200 as we recognize the difficulties with the
village.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments? No more questions so meeting
was adjourned and will readjourned on May 21, 1992 at 9 a.m. .
****************************************
Mr. Sullivan: The Town of Southold Board of Assessment Review
Meeting is in order on the 21st day of May 1992 .
Mr. Weinheimer: Do you solemnly swear that the information
you giver herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the
best of your ability?
Mr. Paul Henry: Yes sir.
41) 1000-55-6-15 .41
Kevin Flynn
1490 Oriole Drive
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Paul Henry: If I may I could save us some time by giving a
brief explanation of one of my approaches to this whole process
that will be consistent for all of these cases. So, rather than
go through it for everybody, I could just go through it once. I
am as you might be aware very interested in statistics and
ratios and the different approaches to measuring uniformity and
proportional assessment. One of those ratios which is issued by
the State is called a RAR which you are probably familiar.
The other ratio, the equalization ratio, they both have merits
and as far as I am concerned, these hearings are really dealing
with the issue of ratio, what the Town assesses the real
property at and the market value of the property. These are, as
far as I am concerned the only two issues here for any of these
cases. One of the things that I like to do is look at the
changes in the RAR over the years. One of the things that the
equalization bureau is interested in as well is how these
ratio' s change and how they reflect the market because it is not
enough to have a ratio obviously, you have to have market value
79 1
and when you have a sale that is two or three years old somehow
or other you need to bring it forward and adjust it. There are
different ways to establish values . One is appraisals, one is
comparable sales of similar type properties in close proximity.
The other is to take a cost approach and the other is to take an
income approach so you know unfortunately as we are all aware,
market values isn't as definitive as brick and mortar square
footage and I think that is traditionally what the grip has been
against the market value from the assessors point of view.
However, we don't really have the privileges to make the laws
here, we just kind of try to abide by them, I think. So, to
make a long story short, what I would like to do, is I would
like to look at the RAR just for a relative comparison as to
what is happening in the market and let me just show you these
sheets. This is Mr. Flynn's sheet but for most of the sheets
today, I will be presenting similar sheets and if you will
notice, these are the RAR's in the Town of Southold for the
last eight years and this column on the right which I call the
delta RAR' s are actually the change in the RAR. Now, if all
was perfect and this world were exact science which it never is,
these changes in the RAR's would essentially reflect what has
been happening in the real estate market. If you notice, it is
kind of consistent with what you might have imagined. For
instance, from 1985 to 1986 we had an 18% appreciation. From
1986 to 1987 we had a 16% appreciation. 1987 to 1988 we had a
4% appreciation, 1988 to 1989 another 18%, 1989 to 1990 we lost
5.4%, 1990 to 1991 we lost 13%, 1991 to 1992 we lost 16% . Now,
I am not presenting these as the perfect answer to anything, all
I am suggesting is the trend is interesting and useful for the
purpose of estimating market value, what is happening to the
market in terms of these ratios . The ratio' s have short
comings. They are not ever going to be perfect. There are
problems with any type of inferential statistics, or descriptive
statistics. Obviously, we can't assess the Town every year.
But, we make an assumption that we don't have to assess the Town
every year because we assume that the market is appreciating
proportionally. If we didn't assume that the market was
appreciating or depreciating proportionally, then to keep a tax
roll good we would have to reassess every year. We make an
assumption that if we had a perfect tax roll today that over the
years, the market whether it appreciated or depreciated goes
proportionally. Of course, over enough time it is going to fall
apart because different neighborhoods appreciate at different
ratesand that is why a tax roll that is twenty or thirty years
old is essentially useless. The equalization bureau suggests
that a tax roll be updated and maintained every three to six
years politically and economically, it is not realistic. So, it
is kind of a problem with having a perfect tax roll and keeping
it perfect but we do the best we can do. We use ratio' s, we use
statistics, we use really whatever we can to make a roll as good
as we can. I think that it is the responsibility of this Board
and the Assessor' s Office to improve the roll and conform to
the laws and conform to the rules that have been established and
I think primarily are being more excepted every day. That is
411
1 80
really the story. If you look at Mr. Flynn, I will show you
how I used the ratio's to infer what his assessment should be.
On the bottom of this page, there is Mr. Flynn's assessment of
8200. Now, that 8200 dollars reflects the value of $243,000 .00
dollars . In other words, according to the ratio the current
RAR, and I am just going to talk about RAR' s today, although
I think equalization ratio's are important and relative to all
of these cases as well . But, for the purposes of this hearing,
out of respect because I am grateful to be here, I am going to
stick to RAR's today. However, the RAR in Southold is 3 . 37
this year and that is the average assessment to value ratio that
has been determined by NYS. If you divide the assessment of
8200 by .0337, you come up with what is called an equalized or
implied value and in Mr. Flynn's case it is for $243,000 . 00
dollars. For all intensive purposes, that means that Mr.
Flynn is being assessed as if his house was worth
$243,000. 00. Now, Mr. Flynn and I believe that his house in
today' s market might be worth $160,000 . 00 dollars, no where near
$243,000 . 00 dollars . Unfortunately, I don't have any
documentation to back up this case today because I wasn't really
intending to make this appearance and I 'm working up my cases
for the appeals. All the same, if we were to accept the
$160,000. 00 dollar value, that would equate the RAR 3. 37 to
assessment of 5392 . In other words, if we multiply $160,000. 00
by .0337 we come up with an assessment that we feel is implied
more realistically today at 5392 . Now, I am not sure where the
assessor's are at with this property and I certainly would
respect their comments that they are not prepared to guess the
market value of this particular property because I have no
supporting evidence today for it.
Mr. Russell: We are going to stand by our assessment.
Mr. Henry: I respect that. As I said, there are certain cases
that I will present today that I have nothing to give you the
market value on. However, I don't know if you know the
neighborhood but I think that we could all agree that there is
nothing that is ever going to sell in there for $243,000 . 00
dollars for a long time.
Mr. Sullivan: What did you say it equals out to?
Mr. Henry: $160,000 equals 5392 .
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, the only thing is that we respectfully
submit that there is no proof of that value.
Mr. Markel : Mr. Henry, this complainants says this property
should be assessed at 2 . 35 percent now, you also have 3 . 37
percent down here. The present assessment on this property is
8200 and you are looking for a 50% reduction down to 4100. Is
that the assumption I take from this application?
1 81 •
Mr. Henry: I think you are correct in reading the application,
but what I am looking for to be honest with you is the 5392
today.
Mr. Markel: Then, why do you ask for 4100.
Mr. Henry: Let me answer that if I may. The answer is that
there are two ratio' s that are issued from the Bureau of
Equalization and Assessment. The first is the RAR which is
derived from a sub set of residential sales in the Town of
Southold. It is computed once a year from sales data that is
corrected by the Assessor's Office and other people interested
in it and it is fairly accurate and I use it for a lot of
things. However, interestingly enough in Towns like Southold,
Riverhead, East Hampton and Southampton that have a lot of
vacant land, the equalization ratio which is derived from all
property types is generally lower than the RAR and this is
because we tend to underassess our vacant land. Most of the
vacant property, agricultural property and undeveloped lots of
land are generally assessed in my estimation a quarter of what
they should be. In fact, this is the big problem and the can of
worms that has opened up in Southampton. They just recently
assessed the entire Town and the vacant land owners who are used
to paying one-quarter of what they should have been paying
according to the law, there assessments have been brought up to
par with the rest of the Town and now they are all being
squeezed to sell or develop their properties because it is no
longer feasible to sit on top of vacant land that is being
assessed at the same proportion of value as improved land. The
law is very clear about this and it turns out if you live in a
$200,000 dollar house and I own a $200,000 dollar piece of
vacant land our assessment is suppose to be the same and our
taxes are suppose to be the same. As we are all aware, that is
not the case and I personally believe that it shouldn't be the
case. I don't think that vacant land which is unusable and
unprofitable as it sits be taxed as a usable piece of property
such as a improved house or a commercial piece of property.
Anyway, the law is very clear that property is suppose to be
assessed uniformly to all property types, not just residential
land and so the equalization ratio actually is more in
accordance with the law in terms of equalizing property
assessments uniformly. As a matter of fact, in the Bureau of
Equalization and Assessment handbook they recommend that the
property owner use the lower of the two ratio' s . All I have
done is actually filled out the form according to the
recommendations to the equalization bureau which specifically
say use the smaller ratio. The reason that the smaller ratio is
valid, is because it reflects all property types in the Town of
Southold which is what we are shooting for when we talk about
uniform assessment. The law does not say that residential
property should be assessed according to other residential
property. It says that residential property should be assessed
at the same ratio as all property in the Town which the
equalization ratio reflects much more evenly. Now, to answer
411
82
you question, if we use the equalization ratio we will actually
from $160,000 come up with a ratio of 0235 come up with a 3760
assessment. So, if you were going to take $160,000 value and
apply the equalization ratio, actually the assessment would be
3760.
Mr. Markel : Now, you claim that the value is $160,000
dollars. Have you got an appraisal?
Mr. Henry: As I previously stated, I don't have a work up for
this property and I am not prepared for all my cases today. I
wasn't expecting this hearing and I certainly would not, I would
expect the assessor's response and respect it.
Mr. Markel : I am going on this particular instance where
there is nothing to support the value that you claim of $160,000 .
Mr. Henry: I agree with you.
Mr. Markel: I am not going against the figures of 235 or 337
but in order to have a basis for those figures you must first
have a value for the property.
Mr. Henry: Agreed 100% . I am so glad to hear you say that.
Mr. Tom Henry: Are you saying, that the 3760 is the
equalization rate? Then, the 4100 on the application form is
incorrect?
Mr. Henry: I am not saying that at all. All I am saying that if
we applied the equalization ratio to the $160,000 dollar value
the assessment would be 3760 . That is all I am saying.
Mr. Tom Henry: Then, why did you show 4100 as the other.
Mr. Paul Henry: Well, I show 4100 as a, I computed off my
computer and it is something that gives us room. The formula
that I used to derive that is just comes off the computer. I
believe you might call it a pro form.
Mr. Tom Henry: Then I understand that the 4100 does not
represent a true mathematical conclusion from the equalization
rate.
Mr. Paul Henry: There are too many variables . One of the
variables is that the equalization ratio right now is tentative
and has not even been finalized has it Bob?
Mr. Tom Henry: What I want to know is simply, why do you have
4100 instead for 3760 and if the answer is that you didn't want
to narrowly interpret the equalization rate and you gave us some
latitude and you came 4100 I can accept that.
Mr. Paul Henry: You said it better than I could.
• 83
Mr. Weinheimer: The fact that this complainants asks for his
assessment to be reduced to 4100 that is the maximum amount we
could give him even though you have a lower ratio then what is
indicated on here. We can only go by what he is actually asking
for.
Mr. Henry: That is correct.
Sam: In your estimation you are coming up with a value of 82
which would fast drive him into what as a selling price for the
home?
Mr. Scott: $243,323 .00 dollars.
Mr. Markel: This is in the area of Mandel development? Do
you happen to know any comparables in that area?
Mr. Russell : One comparable but I just want to say, Highpoint
is in the affordable housing project and the land alone, the
land values are only assessed in the range of $23,000 . The
lowest price that they sold for in the affordable housing
program is $32,000 and we think we have taken more than a fair
approach to the covenants and restrictions. All the capital
improvement to the properties such as the building of the homes,
there is no covenants and restrictions on those. They can
receive whatever profits they make from those. There is one
house that sold in that development that is considerably smaller
than this one and that was sold for $175,000 . It is about the
same size piece of property.
Mr. Markel : Do you have that particular card available to us?
Mr. Russell: Not with me.
Mr. Markel: I would like to suggest that it be attached to
this by decision day.
Mr. Sullivan: Those prices you were quoting, was that per acre?
Mr. Russell : That was for each one half acre parcel. We have
an assessed value of $22,000 . 00 dollars .
Mr. Scott: I would like to make a correction, $32,750.00 dollars
was the highest price. Otherwise, they sell for $28,000 and
$30,000. The other correction is that the equalization rate is
not 2 .25, it cannot be used because we have to use the last
final which is 2 .55% .
Mr. Sullivan: The average on that was $28,000 .
Mr. Scott: The average was $30,000, some were $28,000 at the
beginning and some were as high as $32,750 .00.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other further questions on this?
84 •
Board: No.
42) 1000-55-6-15.52
Joseph and Sandra Kollen
P.O. Box 343
1205 Tuthill Road Extension
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Paul Henry: This is another example of how we use the RAR
but it is not a good example for me because I am currently
working up these cases and I don't have anything to present
today for its value.
Mr. Markel : In looking at the application, I see that you
have again reduced the price to over fifty percent of the
assessor' s assessed valuation and since there are no burden of
proof at the present time, I suggest that we allow you possibly
bring in any burden of proof by decision day.
Mr. Henry: I would appreciate that.
Mr. Tom Henry: Why don't you pull out the cases that you are
prepared for.
Mr. Paul Henry: O.K.
Mr. Sam Markel: As we call them out you can tell us whether
or not you have the supporting evidence.
Mr. Henry: Sure. May I just say though that on grievance day
if you will remember I was told that you would call me in a
couple of weeks at the end of the process .
Mr. Sullivan: I don't recall saying a couple of weeks.
Mr. Henry: My interpretation of what you said was that after
you went through all of your other cases, and you had time, you
would see me. But, it doesn't matter, I can see what you are
saying and I agree with you.
Mr. Markel: I would like to say that our Board will consider
all cases by the law set before us and that is what we follow.
Whatever the law says that we are allowed to use to determine
assessments whether fair or not that is what we use.
Mr. Henry: I understand.
Mr. Scott: To make it also on the point of the record, we
didn't request to Mr. Henry previous to grievance day if he
would bring the cases in to see if he would facilitate some of
the changes on a case by case basis and he chose not to do it so
I am just letting that be known to the Board of Assessment
Review.
85 •
Mr. Henry: I appreciate that and if I had known what I know
now, I would have taken him up on that because again the
assessor's sitting at the grievance board computing ratio's and
market values is a very new concept to me in Southold Town and I
am delighted with that and I think it is terrific and I hope you
guys put me out of business .
43) 1000-55-7-3.0
Richard and Patricia Snow
1585 Long Creek Drive
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Henry: Let's pass over this.
Mr. Sullivan: His assessment is 10,400 and he is looking for
5200.
44) 1000-59-3-16 .3
Salvatore Rizzo
640 Chestnut Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Henry: I have got something here. Actually I was expecting
an appraisal on this property and I don't have it on hand today.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , this is a reduction of 13,600 to 6800.
45) 1000-62-1-12
Jerry Gambone
4860 Rocky Point Road
East Marion, NY 11939
Mr. Henry: There are two owners on this property, he is one of
them on the deed.
Mr. Markel : According to the card, there is a Kestutis
Zapkusgcho. There is no Gambone on any of the record cards,
only on the application and I feel that perhaps we should have
the correct card names.
Mr. Scott: The reason for that is because there is only so much
space on the bill print out to list the owners .
Mr. Markel: I was not sure I had the right card.
Mr. Scott: What I am saying is that if we can go to the deed it
will show that other person could be the owner.
Mr. Henry: Doesn't the property number.
Mr. Scott: It only shows the first person and another (ano)
410
86
or it could say and others, if there is more than two.
Mr. Henry: I might just say that I don't even have his folder
with me because he was literally, the last morning so I am not
prepared to present anything for that case today anyway.
Mr. Markel: What do you want to use as identification now?
In this particular instance there is no name like the applicants
name on the card.
Mr. Sullivan: We are going to have to go with the owners name,
and prove that the card is right.
Mr. Markel : Mr. Henry is representing the owner, now what
signature is on that thing to allow Mr. Henry to represent?
Mr. Henry: I think if I had the file here, I could resolve it
because I believe I have a copy of the deed in there.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. we will take the name that is on here, the
application.
Mr. Scott: Can I make a suggestion? Put Gambone and then in
quotes , put Zapkusgcho.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions on this? His assessment is
7100 and he wants it reduced to 3074 .
46) 1000-68-4-22 . 0
Robert and Sandra Laub
36452 ROW
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Paul Henry: I do have some information on this that I hope
you will consider today. Mr. Laub, you might be familiar
with. I believe he is the gentleman that LILCO came to his
backyard and cleared his growth. You might have read about it
in the papers.
Mr. John Sullivan: The high tension wires?
Mr. Paul Henry: Yes. Apparently, he had some words with the
forman in the morning and he came back after work and his
whole property had been cleared by the LILCO team. Quite a
story.
Mr. Markel : It doesn't effect the assessment, that fact that
they cleared the land.
Mr. Paul Henry: It probably does effect the market value but I
am not even prepared to evaluate how to do that. What I would
like to point out, Mr. Laub brought his house in 1989 and paid
$290,000.00 dollars for it. Now, if he had of grieved here and
411
87
he would have been granted a assessment according to that value,
according to the RAR at that time, the assessment should be
7395. Now, I am sure we are all going to agree that somebody
who bought a house in 1989 for $290, would be very, very lucky
to get $250 for it today and that's essentially the way the
RAR's work and I think it makes sense to all of us that when
we adjust values to RAR's today, that that assessment is not
only going to be good this year but it is going to be good next
year and the year after that. That is the way the whole system
works. We have a market value of this house in 1989 for
$290,000.00 and if that person would have grieved that year and
we would have used the most current RAR that we had that year,
his assessment would have been adjusted to 7395 and that is what
I show on my sheet if you look on the right column of the
Southold sheet that I handed out. What we are doing is we are
taking that 1990 RAR of 2 .55 and applying to the sale price of
$290,000 dollars . The reason we are using that 1990 RAR, is
because the sale took place in 4-17-89 and notice that is the
range underneath the RAR of 2 .55 of when those sales were
taken to derive the RAR and for the same reason that this
assessment should be lowered to 7395 is the same reason that you
are taking today's RAR's and adjusting assessments according
to the market value today. You are doing that and you are doing
that because you know the assessment is good today, it is going
to be good next year, and it is going to be good the year after
that approximately. We can correct these assessments to where
they belong and clean up the roll. We are currently working up
a market value approach to this property as well and we feel
that the assessment should be 7395 as it should have been when
he bought the place for $290,000.00 dollars, disregarding the
LILCO incident.
Mr. Tom Henry: We are going to have problems with all of your
presentations because you are verbally presenting one number for
an assessment and then your written assessment is different.
Mr. Paul Henry: On the applications?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes .
Mr. Paul Henry: I don't know why that would be a problem.
Mr. Tom Henry: Just to make it straight forward, we would like
to know if you are going to be consistently inconsistent?
Mr. Paul Henry: Let me put it this way, those applications were
prepared specifically to cover my client' s interest at the
appeals stage. To be honest with you, today I am prepared to
give you numbers that we are looking for today at this level.
We are not going to be asking for the same numbers at the appeal
level .
Mr. Tom Henry: So long as we have a statement of clarification
from you that this will be true in all the cases.
88
Mr. Paul Henry: I would say that 100% of these cases today for
the purposes of this meeting, I will be asking for a different
number then what reads on these applications. If you want, I
can tell you why I do the applications the way I do.
Mr. Tom Henry: We understand that but to clarify it for us to
clarify it for us so we know what to expect each time.
Mr. Paul Henry: I think I am prepared for that issue. The
number that is circled on these sheets is the number that I am
asking for today.
Mr. Scott: The value of $250,000 is a speculative type
valuation and it is not verified. Today's ratio is what counts
for the value as today's value if you are saying that $250, 000
is the value as of today then this year's RAR has to be used
and at that point instead of 7395 dollars, what we are talking
about is 8425.
Mr. Paul Henry: Are you talking about a value of 290,000?
Mr. Scott: No, I am talking about a value of $250,000 which is
the value you specified as of today.
Mr. Markel: In other words, the question that I asked, you
have just answered stating that by figuring out the value of
$250, which Mr. Henry says is the probably value, you come up
with of 8425.
Mr. Scott: Based on a unverified value today.
Mr. Markel : What is the assessment on the sheet as of today?
Mr. Sullivan: 10,500 .
Mr. Henry: I would be asking if the assessors would be willing
to take all my values that I submit on the application?
Mr. Scott: No, I didn't say I would take this one. This is a
non specified value.
Ms. Duffy: I would like you to ask Mr. Henry, "when he makes
a statement of his determination of value, that he not say that
"I think we should all agree that" because I would not like him
to speak for myself.
Mr. Henry: I apologize.
Mr. Sullivan: He is requesting 5250 on the card and 7395 on the
RAR.
47) 1000-70-4-37 . 1
John J. and Arlene Z Ryan
489 S
200 Hill Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Paul Henry: This is a pretty easy one actually. Mr. Ryan
just bought his house for $230,000 .00 dollars on 6-13-91 . One
year ago and so if Mr. Ryan would have grieved last year and we
would have adjusted his assessment to the RAR last year he
would have come out with
Mr. Scott: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, we would accept the $230,000
as the sales price because it is relative recent and with
today' s RAR it would be 7751. We would make that
recommendation.
Mr. Markel : And, you are asking for?
Mr. Henry: Let me tell you exactly what I am asking for. If
Mr. Ryan has grieved last year, he bought the house prior to
grievance day, his sales price of $230,000 his assessment would
had been 6670, that would have been the year last year. The
market since then has depreciated.
Mr. Tom Henry: Excuse me, I think the chairman wanted to know
if you would accept the offer made today by the assessor' s?
Mr. Paul Henry: Now, what was the assessor' s offer?
Mr. Sullivan: 7751.
Mr. Paul Henry: My question is, the sale price that we are
using is a year old.
Mr. Sullivan: It wasn't grieved last year and as Mr. Scott said
in his previous statement any grievance must go with the RAR' s
used this year.
Mr. Paul Henry: He is using last year' s value.
Mr. Tom Henry: Mr. Chairman, a proposal has been made to accept
the figure. If you do not accept the figure you will risk going
before the Board to see if you get anything at all .
Mr. Sullivan: Do you accept this offer that the Board has
made? The offer has been made by the assessor's for 7751, do
you accept it?
Mr. Paul Henry: May I qualify that? If I accept it is that
what the Board' s decision is going to be?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes .
Mr. Markel: That is the point I want to make. Decision Day
we will decide the result of this application. We are not today
111 410
90
accepting or denying any offer made by the assessor or the
complainant.
Mr. Sullivan: Hold it, I stand to be corrected. It will be
taken into consideration on Decision Day.
Mr. Paul Henry: I am agreeable to that number.
48) 1000-70-10-18 .0
Robert and Jane Covatti
270 Gagens Landing Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Paul Henry: This is on Gagens Landing Road in Southold
and was purchased in 10-19-88 for $159,000.00 dollars. Again,
that sale is four years old and judging by all the indicator's
that I am aware of, would never realize that amount today, if
the subject property would have been grieved and if the
assessment would have been adjusted according to that sale price
and the RAR at the time of sale, the assessment should have
been or would have been reduced to 4054 as indicated on the
sheet. That would really be all we would ask for today.
Mr. Markel: However, that is not the figure on the
application.
Mr. Paul Henry: Correct.
Mr. Sullivan: You are basing that on the purchase at the time
of purchase or on the RAR today?
Mr. Paul Henry: The RAR at the time of purpose.
Mr. Weinheimer: Are we dealing on a retroactive basis here?
Mr. Paul Henry: No, not at all . We are not asking for any type
of retroactive relief.
Mr. Weinheimer: I don't mean a reduction of taxes
retroactively, you are applying a principal retroactively to
determine what the assessment should be.
Mr. Paul Henry: It is the same concept that we have in terms of
adjusting today's sales to today's RAR' s three years from
now. What you are asking is, if someone buys their house today
and we adjust it to the RAR today, is that assessment going to
be better than it was three years from now. My answer is yes.
If you use these RAR's and you take them literally, you can
adjust for time with them.
Mr. Markel: Do the assessor's have any dealings on the value
of the property as of today.
91
Ms. Duffy: Are we going to just throw out the window that his
neighbors are probably all assessed the way he is, that doesn't
come into the picture at all .
Mr. Sullivan: Yes it does, that will come into the picture on
decision day. If we have questions.
Ms . Duffy: I think you have to take that into consideration.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. .
Mr. Scott: As far as that particular question is concerned, we
feel that a 1988 sale from a record card is not a valid
determination of value today because of the length of time it
has been since the sale. If it is less than a year or something
along that we would consider that because that is a indication
of fair market value. 1988, we cannot accept.
Mr. Markel: In you knowledge, is there any other sale in that
area to your knowledge that would sort of show us a market
value. One sale is not a market value in my mind.
Mr. Scott: To my knowledge right now, seeing this is the first
time I am seeing this card, I don't have any sales right now. I
would be able to investigate them to see if there was, but I
can't tell you for sure.
Mr. Sullivan: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Again, with all due respect to everyone in the
room, that it would be the petitioners responsibility to point
out any sales that would prove that our value isn't right. In
the meantime, we have to stand by our value until we are proven
wrong and we don't see that.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.
Mr. Paul Henry: May I just close by conceptionally agreeing
with Mr. Russell and again these are all cases that we are going
to be preparing and working up comps and everything like that
and possibly if you give me two weeks I can supply that to you
if you would permit it but, it is your choice and I understand.
Thank you.
49) 1000-71-1-24
Diana and Michael Morris
215 Northfield Lane
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Paul Henry: He bought his house in 1980 for $70,000 . 00.
Ms. Duffy: It has no bearing.
411 92 411
Mr. Paul Henry: It is a 2000 square foot house and we feel that
anyone on Northfield Lane would be lucky to get $200,000 . 00
dollars for the house. Therefore, we have circled 6740 and
would be willing to accept that.
Mr. Markel: Mr. Chairman, I would like it to be noted that
there was a building permit and construction and a addition and
alterations in 1985 to the tune of $30,000 dollars .
Mr. Sullivan: 4550 is what he is asking here, what is circled
on your sheet?
Mr. Paul Henry: 6740.
Mr. Sullivan: Based on?
Mr. Henry: $200,000 estimate of the market value today. I
believe the improvements that you mentioned resulted in
assessment increase so it was adjusted at that time.
Mr. Sullivan: What did you say he bought this house for?
Mr. Henry: I have a 1980 sale of $70,000 . It might have been
the land. Probably was .
Mr. Sullivan: This card shows building permit, new dwelling
$35,000. Building permit swimming pool $4,400 .
Mr. Markel : Those other figures you quoted John, were prior
to 1980, except for the swimming pool. In 1985 is the addition
that I am looking at. That was for a alteration of $30,000. In
1987 the assessment was placed at 9100 total .
The prior assessment in 1980 was 6000.
Mr. Sullivan: Based on the market value of $200,000, you
request 6740 and what is that RAR based on.
Mr. Henry: Today's RAR 3 . 37 .
Mr. Markel : I would just like to ask the assessor' s .
Northfield Lane, could you brief me a little bit as to where
that is?
Ms . Duffy: You go to the entrance of Harbor Lights, you know
where the two pillars are, make a quick left and then a quick
right.
Mr. Markel : Do you know the location of this house on
Northfield Lane.
Mr. Scott: Second house in on the left hand side of the street.
Mr. Russell : We would like to ask the Board to please recognize
that there are no comparables to establish the value.
• 93 •
Consider that there is 2210 square feet of living space with an
inground pool and we are going to stand by our assessed
value. Also, there is a cathedral ceiling that they are not
being assessed for. We think that we are being more than
reasonable in our assessment of the property.
Mr. Henry: Are you including the garage in that?
Mr. Russell : The back portion of the garage had been converted
to living space. The total living space is 2210 .
Mr. Scott: A lot of times, the tax payers are not aware what
the assessor's do is take an exterior measurement so they may
consider their interior space to be 2000 feet but because of the
exterior walls it adds a little bit in square footage.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
Board: No.
50) 1000-78-2-12 .0
Leonard Rosen
3145 Bayview Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Henry: We have a very recent sale on him 3-26-90 with a
2 . 9 RAR.
Mr. Markel: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a
comment. This property was foreclosed by Southold Savings Bank
for $150,000 dollar mortgage and then resold for $155,000,
establishing a value at that time in 1990 when it was purchased.
Mr. Henry: Which is approximately two years ago.
Mr. Markel: What I am trying to point out is, that a resale
by a realitor would have been, in my mind, probably higher
because Southold was just interested in getting back their
mortgage money. No bearing on the application, I am just
quoting fact.
Mr. Henry: I appreciate that information, I wasn't even aware
of that. I would like to point out that that was two years ago
and again, in my opinion and everybody else that I have
consulted, the market has deteriorated significantly since then
as well which is why the bank was bailing out so quick. There
is another interesting question that comes up when you talk
about foreclosure and what is actually going on out there in the
market and my contention is that when you have a market full of
foreclosures in distress, that is the market. Either way, we
feel that the property is worth about $140,000 right now.
• 94 •
Mr. Russell: No recent sales or comparables. Current
assessed value indicates a fair market value of $204,000 for a
house with almost 1700 square feet of living space and over 1000
feet of decking on the water, we don't think that is
unreasonable.
Mr. Markel : It backs up on Goose Creek.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, if you notice the condition of the
property was greatly deteriorated when it was foreclosed. I sure
the people in the meantime have changed the value of the house
by just fixing it up.
Mr. Russell : Our assessed value represents a value of
$204,000 . 00. 1672 square feet of living space and 1080 square
feet of decking.
Ms . Duffy: 40 feet on the water.
51) 1000-78-4-4
William Murray
4450 Main Bayview Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Henry: We have Mr. Murray's appraisal. Currently the
property is assessed at $10,200 dollars which implies a value of
$302,000 . 00 dollars and I have an appraisal in hand for
$320,000 . 00.
Mr. Sullivan: They are asking for 5100 on this one.
Is this based on 3. 37?
Mr. Henry: Yes sir. Bottom number is also based on the 3 .37
and it is 7414 . This house is overbuilt and the neighbors are
selling for $140,000 .
Mr. Markel : Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the
building permit was issued in 1984 for $90,000 . The builder in
this particular case was also the owner of this house and the
$90,000 figure would in my mind not be so if another builder had
built this house and not intended to use it as his residence
which he did for a while prior to selling it. It was on the
market for quite a while.
Mr. Henry: One of the other interesting things that I like to
do is to show you how the market depreciates . In this
particular case Mr. Murray is assessed as if it was worth
$302,000 this year but interestingly enough if you take last
year's RAR and take that assessment of 10,200 divide it by
.0290 . If I were to come before you last year for this
property, the equalized value would have been $350,000 dollars .
If I were to come to you the year before that, the equalized
value would have been $400,000. So you see, not only to the
• 95 •
ratio's change but how it effects the equalized value. So, in
other words, the value of 302,000 two years ago was $400,000,
just to give you a little perspective of how these ratio's
adjust with time.
Mr. Russell : We respectfully request a copy of the appraisal
and then we would like to issue a response before decision day
on that. Please ask Mr. Henry to keep the issues at hand which
is this year's RAR and this year's market values . We don't
feel it is relevant.
Mr. Henry: I use the RAR's to adjust sales prices to time.
We are not worried what the RAR's are, we are worried about
what the properties are worth today. The market has depreciated
over the last couple of years and the RAR is the best
measurement that I know of that definitively.
Mr. Markel : In answer to Mr. Russell, when testimony has been
given, I don't think we can restrict the complainant in any
manner or form as long as it relates to specific cases that he
is presenting. I don't think we can restrict him on what he has
to say.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, a recommendation to Mr. Paul Henry.
If he has additional information that he is giving to the Board
of Assessment Review, if he could make a copy to be given to the
assessor' s so we could all review it at the same time so we can
make a faster determination.
Mr. Henry: Gladly.
52) 1000-78-8-15 . 0
Anthony R. D'Elia
775 N. Bayview Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Henry: This property was bought 12-11-89 for $145,000
dollars and please note that that sale is almost two and one
half years old and if the assessment would have been adjusted at
the grievance for that sale date, it would have been brought
down to 4205 as circled and indicated on my sheet. Our
estimated value of the house today is $130,000 .
Mr. Russell: The assessed value has not changed since 1965, the
house is 1538 square feet of living space on over 6/10 of an
acre of property and we have no reason to use the 1989 sale
since it is three years out of date. We also have no reason to
assume it just wasn't an exceptional deal in 1989 . No comps .
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.
53) 1000-79-7-1 . 0
III 96 •
Carl F. Holthausen Jr.
6360 N. Bayview Rd.
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Tom Henry: Bought in 12-2-88 at the peak of the market for
$197,500.00. It is assessed today as if it were worth
$261,000.00 dollars. Quite a decrepancy. I have a picture of
the house.
Mr. Markel : I think there was an additional building permit
for about $17,000 in 1989 .
Mr. Sullivan: On this one you are going back to 2 .5 to get 5036?
Mr. Henry: That is correct.
Mr. Sullivan: Any comment?
Mr. Russell: No comps and a sale price that is four years old
and there has been no adjustment made for the building permit
that was issued a year later. I don't mean estimated cost of
construction.
Mr. Henry: Was the assessment increased when the building
permit was issued?
Mr. Russell: There is no fair market value established for
todays market and this sale is four years old.
Mr. Henry: I guess that we can conclude that the assessment was
adjusted from that improvement.
54) 1000-79-7-27
Joe and Kim Schoenstein
305 Leeward
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Henry: I don't believe her name is Schoenstein yet, I
think it is Gibbs.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have a sheet?
Mr. Henry: Subject property was bought for $167,000.00 in 1989
and it is currently assessed as if it is worth $252,000
dollars . We believe the subject property is worth approximately
$150,000 and are willing to accept assessment adjusted to that
figure.
Mr. Markel: Any recent sales in that neighborhood?
Mr. Russell: I am sure there are some in that neighborhood but
we don't have any with us.
• 97 •
Mr. Sullivan: You believe it is worth $150,000?
Mr. Henry: Yes sir.
Mr. Markel : I would like to ask the assessor' s if they could
possibly provide some recent sales in that area by decision day?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Tom Henry: This seems to be another case where there is no
supporting evidence.
Mr. Henry: I would ask that you lean on that sales price, the
higher market $167,000.
Mr. Russell : I would ask the Board to consider a few factors .
Number one, we saw a value of two sales prices in 1988. It went
from $195,000 down to $167,000 then it showed during the course
of 1988 the value had lost 14 .4%. However, when Mr. Henry
submitted the RAR and the delta RAR changes, it shows that
the value has been already submitted as the most valid proof to
his knowledge or his opinion. The RAR actually showed an
increase in property values of over 14% that year and this sale
shows a decrease in value so we have to assume on the assessor's
part that this wasn't an arms length sale but there were
mitigating factors. Again, that aside it was a sale of four
years ago and there is no evidence for support for the fair
market value today.
Mr. Henry: Could I ask that you clarify that I didn't
understand.
Mr. Russell : The sale itself, if you accept this $167,000 as a
arm length sale, then the value of the property decreased by 14%
that year.
Mr. Henry: What sale are you talking about?
Mr. Russell: The $167, 000 that you want to lean on.
Mr. Henry: What was the other sale.
Mr. Russell : Right before that, March 3rd of that same year
for $195.
Mr. Henry: The sale I am talking about is 1-10-89, right?
Mr. Russell: We are talking 3-3-88 and then 12-29-88 Gaines
to Schoenstein.
Mr. Henry: Do you have any information about that sale?
Mr. Russell: What we would like to point out is that with the
delta RAR, Mr. Henry contends that we saw a 14% increase in
• 98
that year 1988 however, this sale demonstrates a 14% decrease in
value. We can't have it two ways, one is right and one is
wrong. We suggest that the $167,000 had mitigated factors and
wouldn't be a arms length sale. Once more it is four years out
of date.
Ms. Duffy: The assessment on this property has not been
changed since 1973 .
Mr. Markel: The reason I asked the assessor's for possible
sales in the area is because it might be a arms length
transaction, not a true sales price.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.
55) 1000-79-7-45
Stephen Perricone
1930 Leewood Drive
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Paul Henry: Again, I only have one sheet for Mr.
Perricone. This is very close to previous subject property on
Leewood Drive and our feeling is that it is worth only
$150,000 dollars today too. Mr. Perricone said he has had
the house for sale and could not sell it. It was listed in the
$180 ' s and did not get a bite on it.
Mr. Markel: I would like to make a comment. The last
transaction on the property was in my mind a arms length sale.
Mr. Sullivan: Do we have any comparables.
Mr. Russell : We will certainly try and find some.
Mr. Markel : Schoenstein.
Mr. Russell: The petitioner's responsibility is to provide a
fair market value and he hasn't, he has no comparables .
56) 1000-086-4 . 17
Frederick and Bernadine Bauser
P. 0. Box 52
450 Indian Neck Lane
Peconic, NY 11952
Mr. Henry: I have a very recent appraisal of this home done in
February 13, 1992 for $218,000. We would ask for a modest
reduction to that figure.
Mr. Sullivan: 7346 based on the appraisal of $218,000 at . 0337 .
Mr. Henry: Yes sir. A modest request I might add.
. 411
99
Mr. Markel: Who is the assessor on this?
Ms. Duffy: I am.
Mr. Henry: You heard Mr. Henry' s comment that you thought his
request was a modest one. Have you any comments on this
situation?
Ms. Duffy: I think the Board of Assessor's will stand by
their assessment. It is an acre of property and the house is a
2000 square foot house.
Mr. Russell: We would like to ask the Grievance Board to
recognize the New York State Law requires valuation to be as of
January 1st, 1992 .
Mr. Sullivan: Are you standing by your decision.
Mr. Russell: Yes sir, we are standing by our assessed value.
57) 1000-98-3-28.0
Henn, Robert and Joanne Tedeschi
1050 Smith Road
Peconic, NY 11958
Mr. Henry: This house was purchased in 1989 at $170,000.00 .
Mr. Sullivan: What did you base this 4335 on.
Mr. Henry: 4335 is what his assessment would have been adjusted
to if he had grieved in 1989 when he purchased the house.
Mr. Markel: Darlene, I note on the back of this card that in
1989 a building permit for a demolition of an existing dwelling
on this property and then in 1990, it was 5600 and in 1991 it
went up to 6200, with a reduction of $1000,00 for the
demolition. Am I reading this correctly?
Ms . Duffy: I wasn't here.
Mr. Scott: The $1000 .00 is what they estimated the cost to be
to tear it down.
Mr. Markel: If you take a look at the card, in 2-22-90 and
there was a building permit for the construction of an addition
at an estimated cost on the part of the owner of $18,000 . In
1990 there was added the assessment for 23 by 20 one story plus
a basement extension at the correct rate with 40% for completion
and then the following year on 5-8-91 the 40% completion was
taken off because the building was completed.
Mr. Sullivan: Any comments?
III III
100
Board: No.
58) 1000-140-2-19
Joanne Ship
445 Pike Street
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Markel: In this particular application do you happen to
know the rent rules.
Mr. Henry: I can obtain that information and submit it to you.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else on this?
59) 1000-55-6-15 .40
Wayne and Deborah Langer
1390 Oriole Drive
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Markel: We noted that on 9-5-90 a building permit was
issued for a deck and balcony with a garage for $90,000 . 00
dollars and I would like it noted that Mr. Langer is a
building contractor. The reason I am pointing this out is
because if the building contractor is doing his own work, there
is the possibility that the cost would be less than if he were
doing it for someone else.
Mr.Paul Henry: The assessed property is 8200 which reflects a
value of $246,000 dollars and it is our contention that the
property is worth about $160,000.00 dollars and I have a sale
price of $150, 189 .00. I think we all know that nothing is going
to sell in there for $246,000.00 for a long time.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have an appraisal for this?
Mr. Henry: No.
Mr. Markel : That is the Mandel property isn't it?
Mr. Scott: Yes, affordable lots.
Mr. Sullivan: Read the presumption of law burden of proof. The
presumption of the law is that the assessor has probably done
his job and the assessment is correct. The burden of proof is
always on the complainant to overcome the presumption that the
assessment is correct. The complainant must present convincing
evidence that the assessor' s judgement was incorrect.
Mr. Henry: That wasn't the issue I was responding to. I was
responding to the issue of the Board being able to use the
knowledge they have to derive my statements. For instance, I am
saying that houses in there are worth $160,000.00 not $240,000 .
411
101 S
Now, this Board is allowed to use their knowledge to either
substantiate that or disagree with that.
Mr. Tom Henry: In my opinion, the value of the Board is not to
provide evidence or documentation. The purpose of the Board is
apply the expert knowledge to know whether a witness is
creditable.
Mr. Markel: We, the Grievance Board question the assessor' s
on decision and usually do ask for comparables, recent sales,
any special situation with the property, that is automatic.
Mr. Paul Henry: I agree with what you are saying and what the
assessor's position is in terms of that there isn't anything on
the table here to substantiate this and again I wasn't really
prepared to have this information. I am currently going into a
phase that I am going to be working up all of these cases. I
just filed a bunch of grievances the other day and one of my
phases to start working up these cases for the appeals is kind
of a unpredictable day for me in terms of being in front of
you. I hope to have the opportunity to provide the comps that
are necessary but I do think that this Board has the discretion
to make its own judgements and utilize whatever information and
knowledge it might have to come to equitable assessments for
these people. If it be judging values, then so be it.
Mr. Markel: I might also add that in my mind there is no
prejudice because you are appearing for these complaints .
Mr. Paul Henry: Thank you.
Mr. Sullivan: You are saying $160,00.00 and your figure is
based on what?
Mr. Henry: My figure is based on construction cost and land
costs of this year.
60) 1000-2-2-34
Marian B. Pell
210 Atlantic Avenue
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Henry: I am expecting an appraisal to be dropped off. Mr.
Dick Winters is working up that property. I want to pass this
one and wait for the appraisal which is pending.
Mr. Markel: Mr. Chairman, if you have no objection we could
listen to the complaint and if he can get the thing into us
before we finish today, we can attach it to this.
Mr. Sullivan: He believes his assessment should be 4450. The
property sold for $60,000.00 in 1978. Building permit for
2500 . 00 for a dock in 1979 . Building permit in 1990 for the
411
102 •
construction of a deck and to renovate the existing residence
for $100,000.00 . That is a total of $160,000 .
Mr. Markel: This is waterfront property I assume .
Mr. Henry: It is waterfront but it is very crowded there. It
has very limited resale potential because of the proximity to
the commercial usage next door.
Mr. Sullivan: Any comments?
Mr. Robert Scott: We take exception to the fact that this is
not a desirable piece of property. This is deep water draft
with a forty foot waterfront with a fixed dock, not a floating
dock. It also has a $100,000.00 to the improvements that is
already existing. It is a substantial improvement . The
$60,000.00 dollars that was stated as the purchase price of the
lot was as of 1978 and we submit that the value of $264,000. 00
which is what the $8900 divided by the RAR indicates a market
value of $264,094 dollars is entirely within keeping, I would
submit that.
Mr. Tom Henry: I have one other question. This is the case
where we are awaiting an appraisal.
Mr. Paul Henry: I have an appraisal right next door.
Mr. Tom Henry: Since we are getting the information later, the
appraisers generally have comparables on it. In your
presentation, you indicated that this was a unique piece of
property that there would be no comparables to.
Mr. Paul Henry: I don't believe I said or indicated that. What
I said was that I believe it is not a desirable property and not
very marketable being its proximity to the fish market. I don't
know if you are familiar with it, the appraisals show pictures
but it is very crowded in there and someone who is looking for
an expensive waterfront home is not going to buy next to a fish
market like that unless they are looking for a very particular
usage. The market is very limited as to who would buy this
house. I think Dick Winters is a better expert than me to share
this with you. I sure if you have any questions, you could ask
Mr. Winters .
Mr. Tom Henry: You are saying you don't want to answer.
Mr. Paul Henry: No, ask me. I just don't know if you can take
my word for it.
Mr. Tom Henry: How would we interprete it since it is a unique
property?
Mr. Paul Henry: Well, how would you interpret it? I guess you
would have to interprete it the way an expert appraiser would
• 103 •
interprete it. He has done his best job to comp it out.
Every property is unique to a certain extent and that is the
problem. Not every house is in a development of the exact same
houses with recent sales so the appraisers are certified and
hopefully skillful in estimated these criteria.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I was a real estate broker in the
Village of Greenport for eighteen and one half years, up until
the time I took this position and if anybody is an expert on
waterfront in specifically the Greenport area, I think I qualify
and $264,000.00 is not an unreasonable figure and it would be a
desirable house with the renovations and the amount of work that
was done and the specific spectacular use that could be used for
a devoted boat person with a protective boat harbor.
Mr. Markel : Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a remark. He
himself says it is a unique situation and I will have to agree
with him that it is very unique and possibly would add to its
value for being so unique in this particular instance.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other further questions?
Ms . Duffy: May I just make one remark? There is a
condominium complex right next to a large processing plant.
Sterling Cove and they sell at around $235,000 or $240,000 now
so a lot of people are willing to buy next to because there is
such a shortage of waterfront especially protected deep water.
Mr. Sullivan: Thank you.
61) 1000-108-3-8. 8
Michael Loring
10692 Main Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Henry: I have an appraisal from Richard Winters on this
property and the appraised value is $375,000.00 .
Mr. Markel : This is a parcel a little larger than four and
one half acres, the land is assessed at 3200 . Is there any
impediments on the land.
Mr. Scott: It is a large piece of property and is on a long
right of way. I 'm sure down here it is $1400 for the first acre
because it is on the right of way and not on the Main Road.
Mr. Markel: O.K. , that answers my question.
Mr. Henry: I would like to point out in the appraisal that Mr.
Winters has done a comparison type home and found this home to
be taxed two or three thousand dollars higher. He lists the
homes and the comparables that he used. This guy is way out
of whack.
• 104 •
Mr. Russell : Excuse me Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say
that real tax dollars is irrelevant because of the change in the
value of school districts .
Mr. Markel: You will have to give me a little explanation on
that.
Mr. Russell: O.K. , two identical houses, one in Mattituck and
one in the school district of Southold since 60% of the tax bill
is the school district, you can see as much as $1000,00 in taxes .
Mr. Markel: We're not talking about taxes though are we?
Mr. Henry: Mr. Russell makes a good point. I am sure you are
going to find that the comps are in the same school district.
Mr. Tom Henry: Mr. Henry could you site the inconsistencies in
the comparables?
Mr. Paul Henry: In the assessed values . He has a $375,000, a
$412,000 comp and 363,000 comp. that he considers in the
same ball park with this house. I guess I agree on the point
Mr. Russell made that it is not useful to compare taxes because
of the school districts.
Mr. Scott: It would be the original value of $375,000 dollars
as a indicate of value and to use the RAR and to change it to
$12,638.00 .
Mr. Paul Henry: Sold, thank you.
Mr. Markel: What were you looking for Mr. Henry?
Mr. Paul Henry: $11,795. 00
Mr. Henry: I will with your permission leave Bill Pell 's
appraisal. The estimated selling price of the property is
$200. 00.
Mr. Weinheimer: That is on the other side of the hospital?
Mr. Henry: There are pictures of the view of the house. You
can see that this house is not for everybody.
Mr. Weinheimer: It's on Atlantic Avenue isn't it?
Mr. Markel : Is that non conforming?
Mr. Scott: We don't have the zoning map for the Village of
Greenport but I think it is residential .
Mr. Henry: The problem here is the fish market, it is like
sitting in your backyard and having the cars all day long back
• 105 •
and forth has got to be a consideration. It would be unfair not
to consider that as a undesirable situation.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that Mr. Pell,
since he had been in that business since he purchased the house
specifically was very aware of that before he even did the
renovations.
Mr. Henry: He also built the house for his own usage because he
had sentimental attachment to the area but we are not looking
for that, we are looking for what the place would sell for.
Mr. Scott: Respectfully, I don't agree with that appraisal at
all.
62) 1000-25-3-3 . 1
William C. and Gina M. Maxwell
170 Orchard Street
Orient, NY
Mr. Henry: This is the old Orient Fire House. It was just
purchased for $200,000 dollars. I have an appraisal that comes
out to $350,000 appraisal. I am will to accept the $350, 000
appraisal price.
Mr. Scott: The Orient Fire House Commissioner asked to see what
the taxes would be at the time of sale.
Mr. Paul Henry: Using the RAR of 2 . 90 the assessment was 5800 .
Mr. Scott: The present rate is 3 . 37 .
Mr. Tom Henry: Has the property been improved?
Mr. Scott: The property has been inspected and there was no
change of use on the ground floor. There was no change.
Mr. Markel: We have no comparables .
Mr. Paul Henry: This is a limited market and this building
would not be for everybody.
Mr. John Sullivan: Any comments?
Mr. Scott: This was appraised at $300,000 about June 1990 for
an estimate of what the market would get at that time.
63) 1000-35-8-1 .2
Antonios Katsimatides
145 Maple Lane
East Marion, NY 11944
• 106 •
Mr. Henry: This is a brand new home, was just built. It is
3800 square feet.
Ms. Duffy: Do they have beach rights?
Mr. Henry: They have beach rights but no mooring. Mr. Scott,
do you have any comments on the market value.
Mr. Scott: I wouldn't be able to give you a market value
because I don't even have the lot and block numbers to the
comps.
64) 1000-35-5-5 .4
John and Anna Giannaris
300 Maple Lane
East Marion, NY
Mr. Henry: This property is right across the street from the
previous subject property. We have a similar appraisal at the
same amount $350,000 dollars estimated market value of this
house. These are both newly constructed, two or three years
old. This subject property is assessed now as if it were worth
$450, 000 dollars. Last year that would have been valued at
$534,000 dollars. I think we have to have a feel with the gross
and equity here. I would like to submit the appraisal and this
sheet for this property.
Mr. Markel: Do you have any comparables?
Mr. Henry: Yes, three.
Mr. Henry: I would like to note that these are not my
comparables. These are the appraisers comparables.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, again they don't list the lot and
block numbers here but they do show on top here the comps and
the pictures and after comparing a 40 foot strip of waterfront
with a house on it to Mr. John Giannaris, his house is a
terrifically well built house and we respectfully submit that
the comps are not in keeping with the type of property it is .
It is like comparing apples and oranges. It is very hard to get
a good comp because it can't be compared to the other homes in
the area.
Mr. Paul Henry: I would like to put forth that we compared this
to a waterfront, it would normally work against us if it wasn't
such a gross inequity here and due to the lack of comps we
tried to go proximity and find what the neighborhood was doing
and I think we would all agree that waterfront property is worth
more than non waterfront property if all else is equal .
Therefore the reason that the appraiser used that comp was to
try to be as fair and conservative as he could. I think that
anybody has knowledge of the market in no way shape or form
• 107 •
would Mr. Giannaris receive $459, 000 dollars for that house
today.
65) 1000-27-3-2 . 3
Pierre Deneufville
2870 Orchard Street
Orient, NY 11957
Mr. Henry: The property was purchased for $175,000 .00 in 1991 .
Again, if this property came up last year as it should of it
would have been adjusted at a ratio of 2 .90, we are presenting
that the property has depreciated to $160, 000 dollars this year
and we are prepared to accept today's ratio of $160,000 which is
5392 . We believe it has depreciated 10% in value.
Mr. Markel: There is remark on this card, split at owners
request. Was that land that was split at owners request?
Mr. Russell: This became a new piece of property.
Mr. Scott: This is a new card created by the split. There has
been a further subdivision of a original piece of property.
This was divided into two pieces of property.
66) 1000-109-2-12 .2
Margaret M. Connors
375 Crown Lane Lane
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Henry: What I am going to try if the assessor' s permit me
for several of these cases is I am going to disregard any
depreciation that I feel would be appropriate and ask that we
adjustthis particular assessment to the 1990 sale price of
$184,000.
Mr. Russell: It is not up to the assessor's to permit him, it
is up to the Chairman. We have no comment.
Mr. Henry: I would be willing for the sake of compromise and
expedience to suggest that this and several other folders be
adjusted to the previous sale price and I will disregard my
position of depreciation on these few properties and that would
result with this property of Connors $184,000 to be give an
assessment of 6225 adjusting to today's RAR. Using today' s
RAR I am willing to ignore any depreciation that I feel would
be appropriate.
Mr. Markel: One question, you said depreciation.
Mr. Henry: I mean loss in value due to the depreciating market.
I am talking about the general trend in the last couple of years
in the market.
111
108
Mr. Weinheimer: The complainant wants a reduction of 4150 and
you are recommending only to 6225?
Mr. Paul Henry: Correct.
66) 1000-41-2-1
Halsey Staples
29 Middleton Road
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Henry: This property is way out of whack, it is right in
between Cedarfields, the affordable housing and to the East of
there is Spano's gas station and I guess the homes in there
average between $120,000 and $130,000 at the most. Halsey's
assessment is 7600 and I believe that implies a value of
$225,000. I would respectfully submit an appraisal by Dick
Winters suggesting the market value at $165,000, if he could get
that in that neighborhood. I would request that the assessment
be adjusted to the $165,000 dollar value which I believe is
5561.
Mr. Weinheimer: The client is asking for a reduction of 3800
but Mr. Henry is only recommending a reduction to 5561.
Mr. Henry: May I clarify that, my grievance forms are
preformed and really just preparing ourselves for the appeal and
what might happen in between. I am the petitioner and I am
grieving on authorization by Mr. Staples and I am authorized and
feel obligated to put numbers in front of you today that make
sense.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, on that basis, if he is the agent and
he is putting forth a figure of 5561 I think that you can't
regard that 3800 .
Mr. Henry: I disagree. The numbers I am presenting today are
based on RAR' s and I didn't want to burden you with the
equalization ratio which I wholeheartedly do believe in which
would result in much lower numbers.
Mr. Weinheimer: On what basis does you client determine that
3800? Is it on your recommendation or his own?
Mr. Henry: I fill out the forms for him.
Mr. Weinheimer: Oh, you are recommending the 3800 dollars .
Mr. Henry: The reason that I low blow the assessments on these
forms is because certain times the assessments change without us
knowing it and sometimes the value changes and by the time we
get to the appeal, which could be in a year or so we just don't
know what is going to happen.
410
• 109
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments?
68) 1000-35-6-9
Jim Sage
350 Marine Place
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Henry: This was a recent sale of $198,000 on 8-1-91. I
don't have with me a copy of the contract. The sale price
included various furnishings and other non real property which
is one of the things that I would like to present to you at a
later date. The property as bought on 8-1-91 was over assessed
by about 15% and we are asking for a modest reduction from 7200
to 6066 which would reflect a value of $180, 000. 00 dollars today.
Mr. Scott: We respectfully submit that there is no
substantiation stipulation of the sale price being $198,000 and
we stipulate that the RAR was .0337 which would be 6673 and
not 6066 .
Mr. Markel: Do you have an affidavit to the fact that it was
included in the sale price?
Mr. Scott: To make a valuation judgement of $18,000 or whatever
the stipulation was that would be pretty well hard put.
Mr. Henry: It is specified in the contract the contents and its
value and I will provide you with a copy. At least it has been
represented to me that that is the case.
69) 1000-139-2-5.0
Mr. Harold W. Tribble
2655 Wickham Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Henry: This house was purchased for $300, 000 on 4-25-91.
Assessment should be adjust to last year's RAR. Property is
grossly overvalued and $300,000 . The assessment should be
10, 100 and not 12,500 . I would definitely put forth that the
property has depreciated in the last year. At the proper market
value, the property should be reduced to 8,700.
Mr. Russell : Just for the record, this is 225 feet along the
creek. The assessor's would just like to note that the sale
price was within the evaluation date and we don't see any events
of depreciation over the course of a few months. Using the
RAR of . 3 .37 it would come out to 10, 100. The sale, the
491,000 dollar sale is only a few months away from the
evaluation date and we don't see evidence of a market
depreciating that fast.
411
110
Mr. Henry: It is only four months away from the evaluation date
as applicable to the RAR.
Mr. Russell : We are using a 1991 RAR and a January 1, 1992
evaluation date.
Mr. Henry: Right, 425,000 is eight months . Let's bring it to
the closest one, not the furtherest one.
Mr. Scott: We are using the RAR for this year and there is no
determination of value decrease that he has provided in
comparables.
Ms . Duffy: It has been my experience that waterfront does not
depreciate. It depreciates slower.
70) 1000-107-2-2 . 1
Christine & Jonathan Baker
4248 Grand Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Henry: This house was just built in March 1991 at
$398,000. I 'm grieving on over valuation. The appraisal is a
year old at $398,000.
Mr. Russell: The appraisal that was submitted, we inspected the
property two months after that appraisal date and the property
was only about one-third of the way completed. Furthermore, we
found that the house is 4500 square feet of living space. There
are two houses comparable to this, one being the Norris estate
and the other the Trentalange house .
Mr. Scott: The assessment after the date of the appraisal with
only 6500, this year it was raised to 15,200. There was
considerable amount of work done after that appraisal .
Mr. Henry: I don't know what you are suggesting, that the
appraisal is incomplete?
Mr. Scott: The appraisal has the wrong date on it. We went
down there last year, the appraisal predates our inspection last
year when we went there in May of 1991, which is post the
appraisal of $398,000, the appraisal was 6500 dollars if I am
right and we can walk through sections of the house which was
totally incomplete. This year, after we went to take a look at
it on February 25th, when it was finished it was changed this
year to 15,200. He is saying in March of last year it was
$398,000 dollars when it was not finished. It was in no way
finished last year. There was a substantial improvement to it
this year.
Mr. Henry: This appraisal was not for a partially completed
house it was just done before the house was completed. In other
411
111
words, the value that was come up with the appraisal was a
estimate of what the house would be worth when it was finished.
Mr. Scott: An appraisal is done as of the particular date of
the appraisal, it cannot be an estimate of future work.
Mr. Henry: So you are suggesting that this appraisal is for a
partially finished house.
Mr. Scott: That is right.
Mr. Henry: I disagree.
Mr. Sullivan: In 8-84, split for SanAndres for $84,000, 6-87
building permit for nursery building $24,000 5-89 building
permit 18150 replaces building permit 16071 and 5-91 building
permit 19831 replaces building permit 18150.
Mr. Scott: This particular person is a contractor on his own
and he did the house to a large extend by himself and he did it
over several years and with material that was brought to the
site so the total cost cannot be figured by the estimated
construction cost that were on building permits because it
wasn't entered. This is one reason why an appraisal is better
but it is not total.
Mr. Sullivan: The building permit was for a nursery building,
am I reading this right. The other two permits were to replace
the one for the nursery building.
Mr. Russell : One of them was 5-89 .
Mr. Scott: A permit was issued and an adaption can be made
through the Building Department and if they approve the
adaptions to the original plans they can go ahead and do what
they have to do.
Mr. Tom Henry: Mr. Chairman, I would like further comments by
the assessor's stating that the appraisal is illegitimate.
Based on the assumption that the appraiser did not take into
consideration the probable completion. He was only going on the
observation appraisal .
Mr. Scott: What I am saying, I have not seen the appraisal, I
am going on what Mr. Paul Henry stated. He said the appraisal
was done as of 3-91. If the valuation date is as of 3-91, you
can't estimate what was not there. You can only estimate what
was there. In other words, he may have a valid appraisal but an
invalid valuation date because when we were actually walking
through
Mr. Tom Henry: Is it your experience that practice is the
appraisal is only on what is appraisable.
411
112
Mr. Scott: In this particular case, they put a certain date on
there.
Mr. Paul Henry: I believe it Mr. Scott had read the appraisal,
it answers the issue completely. It is assumed that when
completed per planned in specifications subject will be
physically functionally good and consistent.
Mr. Scott: You can't make a evaluation that is not yet
constructed. That is an impossibility. You can only appraise
what exists.
Mr. Sullivan: Are you satisfied with your question yet?
Mr. Tom Henry: I am still confused. I just don't know at this
point (inaudible) .
Mr. Markel : Was the appraisal signed by a licensed appraiser.
Mr. Paul Henry: I can find out who the appraiser was a resolve
this issue.
Mr. Tom Henry: From a practical point of view, it seems to me
if an appraiser is paid to make an appraisal, he is going to
appraise what he considers to be a completed home or a completed
building. It doesn't seem likely anyone would want or pay for
an appraisal of studs .
Mr. Scott: Mr. Henry, when you make an appraisal, the only
valid appraisal that you can do is to value that particular
house as it stands. Not as it would be if it was finished. It
is as it stands on that particular date. That is the only value
you can put on it.
Mr. Markel: What was the date of the issue of the C.O. ?
Mr. Russell: It doesn't say on here that the $398,000 is the
assumed price. It does say that the $398,000 is the price as of
March 1991 . If I just might add, if the house is worth $398,000
dollars and it was only 30% completed, it is worth a lot more
now.
Mr. Henry: If I may, I recognize the question and I think it is
reasonably resolvable by providing a little more documentation
to this Board. I will stand by the assumption that this
appraisal was completed and used for financing. At the top it
notes that not yet constructed will be for certain things. How
many square feet do you have on your property card?
Mr. Russell: 4145. 490 garage.
Mr. Sullivan: Did you appraise it?
• 113
Mr. Scott: We assessed it in May of 1991 and reassessed it in
February of 1992 .
Mr. Sullivan: Why did you reassess it?
Mr. Scott: Because it was a partial as of May 1991 and we were
walking through large holes in the house when it was assessed in
March for $398,000 .
Mr. Henry: I would conceive that the assessor' s brought up a
good point and I would say that it can be answered easy enough
and if you will allow me I will provide you with additional
information.
71) 1000-35-5-9 .0
Pasquale and Sandra Santaniello
1085 Wiggins Lane
Greenport, NY
Mr. Henry: Recent sale $116,000 dollars. The current RAR to
that value is 3909 . Date of sale 4-23-91 .
Mr. Markel: There was a building permit for a deck addition
for $1000 . 00 so in effect, that $116,000 could reflect to be
$117,000.
Mr. Henry: What was the date on that?
Mr. Markel: 11-9-91.
Mr. Henry: However, the $116,000 should have been applied to
the 2 .90 last year.
Mr. Markel: Do the assessor' s accept the facts as quoted by
Mr. Henry?
Mr. Scott: No sir, I don't. Mr. Chairman, the reason why I
don't is because I have a question as to finding out whether or
not this was an arms length sale because four months previously,
this particular property has also sold for $134,000. It had
gone from Pantazi to RHD Holding Company for $134,000 and
then four months later from RHD Holding Company to
Santanietlo for $116,000.
Mr. Markel: Is that RH Holding Company a Corporation.
Mr. Sullivan: Don't know.
Ms. Duffy: I could shed some light on it. Mr. Pantazi ' s
company, he is just a partner and I just happen to know they
were in terrible trouble, legally and everything.
• 114 S
Mr. Markel: So you believe that he sold it for that price
that Mr. Henry quoted, under those conditions.
Ms. Duffy: I don't know, I just know that it was foreclosed
on.
Mr. Scott: If this was a foreclosure, which is not arms length
and it was sold for $134,000 dollars then dumped for $116,000
afterwards, with $1000.00 dollars added to it later on, that
doesn't indicate a true market value of $116,000 dollars .
Mr. Markel : Why not?
Mr. Scott: Because it is not arms length.
Mr. Markel : We're not talking about arms length.
Mr. Scott: Yes sir, we are.
Mr. Markel : Is there any connection with Mr. Santaniello
and the people that bought it at foreclosure.
Mr. Scott: We don't know. The thing is that if it is a
foresale, it doesn't create a true market and a true market does
not indicate the fair market value even though it sold for that
amount. If it was sold four months previous for $134,000 that
is more indicative of the fair market value than the $116,000
dollars that it was dumped for four months later.
Mr. Markel: Not necessarily. I know if you buy a bad deal
and you realize you have a bad deal you want to get out and
salvage what you can. I am only making a point. I am saying,
if you can come up with some evidence, to support your
contention, that this is a arms length situation to some degree,
then we can consider it.
Mr. Sullivan: There is one other point here. In 9-7-83 sold
$72,000 Stewart to Albertson and another. 3-3-85 Albertson
to Pondazi for $111,000. 11-20-90 Pantazi to RHD Holding
$134,000, 3-27-91 RHD Holding to Santaniello $116,000
Mr. Markel : That is also reflecting the market at the time.
72) 1000-113-11-90
Peter Cameron
1330 Meday Avenue
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Henry: Purchased 6-25-90 for $125,000 dollars . Current
assessment is 6600, which today's RAR implies $195,000
dollars. If the property had been adjusted to the RAR at the
time of sale, the resulting assessment would have been 3639 as
indicated on my sheet.
• 115 •
Mr. Markel: The last appraisal date was 1974 and even though
there was a sale on 6-11-90, there was no appraisal made until
now. Is that correct?
Mr. Russell: We haven't looked at it since 1974 .
Mr. Markel: In 1974 the property was appraised at 6600
Mr. Paul Henry: It is almost interchangeable at this point.
Mr. Russell : We would like to submit a comparable before
decision day for this property. We have a recent sale almost
right next door.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , fine.
73) 1000-84-5-10.0
Richard E. Jr. and Laura Bozsnyak
37590 Bridge Lane
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Henry: It was purchased in December 1990 for $140,000 . It
is 1200 square feet. Today's RAR 3. 37 would reflect a value
of $172,000 for this little house and we feel that we should
take a $140,000 dollar value and apply the 2 .29 ratio and come
up with 4060 assessment.
Mr. Markel : There was a Building Permit in 1991 for $300.00
dollars . It is on 1 .080 acres.
Ms . Duffy: It is 1300 square feet.
Mr. Henry: It is a two bedroom, two bath house.
Mr. Russell: The assessor' s only see it for $140,000 and it is
two years old. I happen to know that her maiden name is
McCloud and I would like to investigate.
Mr. Markel: Was it a sale on the house and property?
Mr. Russell : Yes . McCloud had bought the property from
Krupski and built the house and sold it.
Mr. Henry: So you are questioning whether it might be worth
more than $140,000?
Mr. Russell: That is the only established price I see.
Mr. Henry: That would be the only reason you would want
research that and clarify that.
Mr. Scott: The question of the sale price is from 1990 price of
$140,000. That is what he is questioning, not today' s value.
• 116 •
Mr. Sullivan: O.K.
Mr. Markel : We are going to consider this complaint against
today's value, is that right? When we consider the complaint,
we are taking today's value of the house and property as the
consideration.
Mr. Henry: I am hoping to have the opportunity to submit
workups on all of these properties .
74) 1000-22-3-8 .2
Stephanie V. Seremetis
Pvt. Road #1
East Marion, NY
Mr. Henry: This house was purchased on 4-4-89 for $200,000 . We
would be willing to put forth a value of $200, 000 dollars today
which would equate to today's RAR to 6908 assessment with the
current assessment 8800 and implies the value of $261,000 .
Mr. Sullivan: The assessment was reduced last year fro 9600 to
8800 by the Grievance Board.
Mr. Markel: I would like to see last years Grievance Board
minutes before decision day. Although I request to see those
minutes, I am not prejudicing the right of the complaint to file
for a further reduction.
Mr. Sullivan: So amended.
Mr. Henry: Based on the $200,000 dollar value and today's
RAR.
Mr. Scott: There have been two reductions to 8800 over the
years by the Grievance Board and this year the Board of
Assessor's reviewed the property again and we agreed with the
Board of Assessment Review not to change the 8800 dollars . We
confer that the purchase price in 1989 was $205,000, but we also
stipulate that there was a building permit issued on 8-15-89 for
$30,000 worth of additional renovation which add those two
together and it becomes $205,000 plus $30,000. We feel that
there has not been sufficient evidence that stipulates that the
assessor's are incorrect in their assessment.
Mr. Paul Henry: I would just like to make a comment if I may
please. The improvements into a house do not reflect or
correlate 100% value. Very often people put money into their
house that is not able to be taken out again when you sell the
house so I think to make an assumption when somebody has a
building permit and puts $30,000 dollars into their house that
the market value increases by $30,000 dollars is an error and
needs to be proven. There is another point that I need to make
as well and that is that the burden of proof has been mentioned
• 117 •
often enough in terms of being on my shoulders . It is true that
the burden of proof is on my shoulders but anything that the
assessor says, he has the burden of proof. The assessor has the
burden of proof to prove anything that he stakes so I would
challenge him to prove that the $30,000 improvement equated
$30,000 dollars of market value.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is a case in point
where we have to prove the $30,000 . The $30,000 was stated on
the building permit and I was just reflecting the fact that it
was $30,000 as per the building permit and in addition, Mr.
Henry has said when you add $30,000 it may not increase the
value of that home by that amount. What I also may stipulate is
that there are several times when a person puts $30,000 into a
home and it substantially improves the house above that $30,000
or above the amount of the improvement beyond what the simple
arithmetic of adding A plus B but not become C but a total
greater than C. This particular building was an old school
house that was moved onto almost three acres of property on a
private right of way and one of the major things that they were
doing was putting in a heating system so it could be used on a
more effective year round basis. So the value because of the
use was extended to a greater degree.
Mr. Henry: Mr. Scott is measuring the placement cost in the
assessment and his argument for this property and I just wanted
to clarify placement cost in what something cost to reproduce
from the market value and I think they are very distinct numbers .
Mr. Markel : Did this have a heating system prior to the
replacement of the heating system? It was a school house so it
must have had some kind of heat.
Mr. Scott: Previous to 1990 there was a depreciation on the
school house of 50% which approaches of the state of not being
able to live in it in our opinion. It is considerable
depreciation of the building. So, when they purchased it, it
was in a state of considerable disrepair, disfunctional would be
a better word and if it is disfunctional and a heating system
was put in there I would be more inclined to believe it along
that line.
Mr. Markel : I can't possibly see why the heating system, if
there was one in existence prior and in this old picture it
shows a chimney and I would assume there was a heating system in
here prior and if somebody wants to up date his heating system
for economy sake or whatever, I don't think you assess on that
basis .
Mr. Scott: Mr. Markel, this building was moved from the Main
Road to this particular piece of property.
Mr. Markel: But, it was moved with the chimney in place.
• 118 •
Mr. Scott: Or placed there afterwards . I am not saying the
heating system was the only factor, that was part of it.
Ms. Duffy: If we change the depreciation from 50% to 10%,
they must have done a lot of work which would certainly improve
the value of the property.
Mr. Henry: That sale price of $200,000 was three years ago so
however you want to adjust the three years of declining market
values, I think that would be appropriate as well .
MR. Scott: Mr. Chairman, on that basis the 3 . 37 adjusts a fair
market value based on the RAR which is adjusted by the State.
The price was $205,000 and not $200,000.
75) 1000-15-3-44 . 0
Nicolaides, Nicholas & O'Keefe, Paul
71 North Sea Drive
Orient, NY
Mr. Henry: This property was bought approximately two years ago
for $205,000, the assessment is 10,000 which applies the value
of $300, 000 dollars today. It is our feeling that the
assessment should have been adjusted at the time of sale to
reflect the current RAR of 2 . 90 which would leave us with a
5945 assessment.
Mr. Sullivan: Building permit construction of dormer for
dwelling for $40,000.
Mr. Henry: In October 1990 they added two bedrooms and one
bathroom. The construction cost was $40,000.
Mr. Markel: Is North Sea Drive on the water?
Mr. Henry: I have been provided with two comps . I have a
sale for $205,000 and a sale for $153,000 .
Mr. Markel: Are they both in Orient by the Sea.
Mr. Henry: I will research that and get it to you. I think
that is his neighbor.
Mr. Scott: We agree that the purchase price was $205,000 and we
also note that there was $40,000 put into the former which
happens to be a 14 by 36 addition to the second floor. There
was also 588 square feet of deck added to it and there is a pool
and it is a well landscaped piece of property about a block away
from the beach which are factors of value as compared to other
stipulating comparison to the area of $153,000 . This is a
considerable size building and we will stipulate the fact that
it was sold in 1990 for $205,500 and there was an addition for
$40,000.
111
119 •
Mr. Sullivan: I just want to clarify this. You talked about
landscaped property.
Mr. Scott: The thing is we are not allowed to assess on the
basis of landscaping or anything else when we are doing a
uniform method of assessing in our office but when we are called
in here and in small claims, those are factors that are
considered in fair market value which is used by the people that
are grieving and we have to be able to use that as well. If
they are using it, we have to use it as well. If we assess on a
uniform method of assessment and the State interprets ours to be
a fair market value. A fair market value is then what we have
to defend. We don't have to defend on the basis as we
originally did it but on the same as an appraiser or an assessor
or anybody else to determine value.
Mr. Markel: If you assess a half acre at $300 . 00, and if
somebody else has a half acre with trees on it do you change
them an addition sum?
Mr. Scott: No sir, because that is not the uniform method of
assessment that we do up until the time of the taxable status
data.
Mr. Markel: I am just trying to figure out whether or not you
actually consider trees, shrubs, etc. in your final assessment.
Mr. Scott: No we don't. Neither do we assess on the basis of
value as we are defending every case that we are doing here. We
don't assess by market value but yet we are forced in a
grievance situation or a small claims situation to defend that
market value.
Mr. Markel: What would be your estimate on the RAR on this
property?
Mr. Scott: It would be $296,735 based on assessment that is
currently in place which is 10,000 divided by . 0337 . That is
what our assessment is and the State interprets that value, the
fair market value to be $296,735.
Mr. Markel: Why have you added an additional $50,000 to the
assessment beyond those items?
Mr. Scott: What I am not saying is that we have no comments
past the fact that the $205,000 was the established purchase
price in 1990 and also the $40,000 was added which comes to
$245,500. The assessment as it stands by the way we do it on
our uniform method of assessment is $296,000 . I am not making
any more comments other than that. I am not stating that we
will accept that but I am inferring that we may consider that
the value of $296,735 may be too high.
• 120
Mr. Markel : I not going to hold you to that but I 'm just
trying to get to that point that you just said.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
76) 1000-127-5-7
Kelling, Barbara
1250 Laurelwood Drive
Laurel, NY
Mr. Henry: Bought in 1988 for $150,000 dollars and assessed as
if it were worth $225,000 dollars today. We would ask that you
would adjust the assessment to today' s RAR at the old sale
price which again I believe is very modest which would result in
a assessment of $5055 dollars .
Mr. Russell: Please let the record show that the sale was in
1986 and not 1988 . I happen to know this area very well and
that there are a lot of comparables and I curious as to why
Mr. Henry didn't submit any comparables .
Mr. Henry: Maybe you could share with us what they are going
for?
Mr. Russell: Quite a bit in excess of $15,000 . One just went
for $230,000 .
Mr. Henry: I would tell you that the reason that I would not
submit comparables today is because I didn't have them. I
don't know why I have 1988 because the customer claims it was
1988 too.
77) 1000-141-2-15.0
Swanson, Stanley E. & Sharon M.
3325 Route 48
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Henry: Property bought at $170,000 on 4-6-89 . Assessment
is 7600 which implies a value of $225,000. At the current
RAR, it is $222,551. This house is on Route 48 in Mattituck
and it is our contention that it has lost at least $20,000 in
the last three years of value. Therefore, we request
respectfully that the assessment be lowered 5055 which would
reflect a $155,000 value.
Mr. Markel: What percentage of between the original value and
$150,000 .
Mr. Henry: Approximately 10% over the last three years.
Mr. Markel: What percentage is in the RAR, the same thing.
411
121 •
Mr. Henry: Actually, the RAR reflects a decrease of 30%. If
we applied that sale of $170,000, it would be 2 .55 . If they had
grieved when they bought the house it would have been 5729.
Mr. Markel : And you are claiming now that it should be 5055 .
Mr. Henry: Correct.
Mr. Tom Henry: What is the basis for your contention.
Mr. Paul Henry: Main Road, no improvements, declining market.
We are talking about 10% decrease. I would even put forth that
if you were doing a valuation as to where we depreciate the most
and where we depreciate the least. I would agree that the
waterfront depreciates the least and the road front depreciates
the most.
Mr. Russell : The actual price was $170,000 and if you indexed
that to 3. 37% RAR you would get an assessed value of 5625 .
The current assessment is at 7500 .
Mr. Sullivan: Based on $175,000 with the current RAR would be
5625.
78) 473889-122-6-29 . 1
7785 Main Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Henry: I have fairly extensive appraisal prepared a year
and one half ago and the value is between $820,000 and $890,000
depending on whether you are taking replacement cost or income
approach.
Mr. Markel: What property is this?
Mr. Henry: The Suffolk Times Building. The current assessment
for this property is 25,400 and using the equalization ratio of
. 0235 . Prior to decision day, I believe we will have a final
equalization ratio. It is very important for this case to
clarify this distinction and the issue is there is a tentative
equalization ratio issued by the State that is under protest
right now by the Town of Southold. Last year, the tentative
ratio was issued and protested and adjusted approximately one
percent. This year the ratio has been issued and it is under
protest again and I think it is probably going to be resolved
very soon. I understand that they are actually have hearings
right now in Albany to resolve all of these ratio' s . But,
tentatively the ratio, I think stands for all intent and
purposes. As a matter of fact, the school allocations are about
to be issued and if the tentative ratio hasn't been finalized
they will use the tentative ratio they are not going to use last
years ratio.
411 411
122
Mr. Russell : They use school allocations in the previous years
on both income and property wealth to the equalization rate.
Mr. Henry: I would like to submit some documentation on this
ratio as well but either way the tentative equalization rate for
Southold Town is .0235 and if you take the assessment of 25,400
and you divide it by . 00235 you come up with one million, eighty
thousand dollars and I have an appraisal for the Suffolk Times
that states using the income approach the building is worth
eight hundred and twenty thousand dollars and the replacement
cost on that is actually the estimated market approach,
remember this is a year and one half old.
Mr. Russell: We have a current assessed value of 25,400
dollars, using the latest equalization rate of 255 we have an
equalized value 753,709 dollars and that is far below any of the
values that Mr. Henry has quoted here today.
Mr. Henry: What is your assessment?
Mr. Russell : 25,400 .
Mr. Henry: 25,400 is the assessment but I believe Mr. Russell
made a miscalculation.
Mr. Russell : You are right I used the RAR.
Mr. Henry: The income approach os 820,000, the market approach
of 890,000 . I would be willing to average the two which is
855,000. I believe that would be a fair compromise.
Mr. Markel : It is the assessor's contention that this
property has gone up in value.
Mr. Russell: It is our contention that we are more than
reasonable with the current assessed value on the property.
Mr. Markel : Has this property gone up in market value?
Mr. Russell: I would venture to say yes on income
capitalization of the value of the property, I would have to say
yes.
Mr. Markel : You don't think the market has gone down in the
last two years .
Mr. Russell : In some respects yes . I don't believe this
particular piece has.
Mr. Markel: If he were to go out of business tomorrow, what
would be it' s market value tomorrow.
Mr. Russell: Again, I would have to see a more current value
where I can do one.
• 123 S
Ms. Duffy: Do you have the appraisal?
Mr. Henry: Yes, I do.
Mr. Russell: Again, we would like to opportunity to prove that
our estimate of assessed value is more than reasonable for that
property. I know we can come up with comparables.
Mr. Sullivan: We can discuss this further decision day.
The afternoon session of the Board of Assessment Review
reconvened on May 26th, 1992 at 1 O'Clock
Present were: John Sullivan, Chairman
William Weinheimer
Tom Henry
Tom Burdy
79) 1000-33-5-13-1
Paul Henry
236 North Road
Greenport, NY
Mr. John Sullivan: Currently assessed at 11,200
Mr. Markel : If I recall John, he originally came before our
Board and I think this is the third time he has come for a
reduction. In 1990 he went to small claims and it was reduced
and now he is coming in again.
Mr. Sullivan: In 1990, he was assessed at 19,400, small claims
awarded him 13,200 on 11-21-90 and small claims awarded him
11,200 on 12-5-91 . Now he is in for a reduction to 6200 .
Mr. Markel: Is there any supporting evidence.
Mr. Sullivan: No, I don't have anything else.
Mr. Tom Henry: What is the grievance.
Mr. Scott: Unequal .
Mr. Sullivan: Any comments.
Mr. Scott: We think the 11,200 which was what the award was
last year at small claims computes this year with the RAR to
be $332,334,00 and we think that that is a fairly consistent
value of what the value was this year because last year the
11,200 divided by last years RAR was 386,206 dollars at the
small claims.
41,
124
Mr. Henry: I would like Mr. Scott to comment on the
equalization rate.
Mr. Scott: His application of the equalization rate as
stipulated here in this book it says come in and apply the lower
of the two rates . This is a one family plus a two rally unit so
the RAR is the most proper tool in assessing the fair market
value. So the RAR should be the rate that should be used.
First of all, it is much more current and it is specifically
designed for one, two and three residential units .
Mr. Sullivan: 11,200 divided by the present RAR.
Mr. Scott: The present RAR is 332,344 .00. Last year the
small claims with the 2 .9 awarded 11,200 which represents a
value in their mind at that time of 386,206 .00 so you can see
the RAR is allowing for a decrease of the value in the market
by decreasing it from 386 to 332 and also there is no
substantiation on the part of Mr. Henry as to the value which he
stipulates at 300,000 .
Mr. Sullivan: Anything further?
Board: Nothing.
80) 1000-33-6-10 .0
Raymond Jay Akscin
415 Willow Road
Greenport, NY
Mr. John Sullivan: Asking $178,00 in 1989 and it is presently
assessed at 6700, looking for a reduction to 3350 . Under
unequal assessment based on equalization rate. No supportive
data.
Mr. Markel: Mr. Chairman, would you please announce whether
or not this is being handled by Mr. Henry?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, all of these are until further notice.
Mr. Scott: The most recent sale was for $178,000 .00 dollars
which was three years ago. The 6700 using the RAR shows that
the value we have on it is $198,800 .
Mr. Sullivan: Any further comment?
Board: Nothing further.
81) 1000-35-6-35
Geyer, Elizabeth
185 Osprey Nest Road
East Marion, NY
• 125 •
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 7400, looking for an reduction to
3700. In 1967, it was assessed at 1,000, In 1969 it went to
2900 because of a building permit, new dwelling. In 1970,
assessed at 5300, In 1977 it went to 7400 there was another
building permit for addition to dwelling. That is all it has .
Mr. Scott: This has not changed since 1977 . This is a nice
waterfront, waterview community with rights. Using the RAR it
is presently at$219,584 . There is something close to in excess
of 1600 square feet of living space plus a 23 by 32 garage so it
is a reasonable assessment.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
Mr. Henry: Is that the same owner?
Mr. Scott: Yes, since 1967 .
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments?
Board: None.
82) 1000-38-4-9. 0
Robert J. Heaney
195 Gillette Drive
East Marion, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Presently assessed at 7600 since 1978. Looking
for 3800, value of property at $140,000.00 It went from
Hertfelder to Heaney in 1988 for $170,000.
Mr. Scott: The last year was four years ago for $170,000 and
Mr. Henry is representing that he wants $140, 000 reduced to on
that basis . We can sympathize with that but we don't see any
indication of value. In this particular case if you took a look
at the assessment last year and the value that is derived by the
2 .9 and the 3 . 7, what I am saying here and I have said in the
past. I can't justify depreciation on this house because I
happen to know that when Bobby bought the house in went in and
fixed it up. So, depreciation is the condition of the house and
there is no condition of the house that warrants depreciation.
The RAR was taken into effect and last year it was 2 .9 and the
value would have been last year $262,000 I representative of
the fair market value this year with the 3.37 it is $225,519
dollars. In your term of depreciation there is a decrease in
value due to the market which is represented by the State
decreasing the value by increasing the RAR. I sympathize with
Mr. Heaney because he purchased the property in 1988, 4 years
ago for $170,000. There is no way that I can justify a value
based on what he has presented.
Mr. Markel: Have there been any sales in that area?
• 126 •
Mr. Scott: The only sale that I know is in conjunction with
waterfront property in Greenport in Gardiners Bay Estates and
that was a combined sale so it wouldn't be value. I can get
them for you. Last years RAR was $262,068.
Mr. Russell : The RAR is nothing more than a survey of the
relationship between the assessed value of the house when it is
sold and how much it is sold for. What percentage of value does
that assessment represent to the fair market value. If the
assessment is a $1,000.00 and the sales price was $100,000
dollars then you have a one percent RAR and you just take the
median average of all these sales on a given time frame. This
is done yearly.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments?
Board: None.
83) 1000-52-8-4 . 0
Charles & Barbara Digney
2265 Long Creek Drive
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Sullivan: Present assessment is 10,200. Asking for a
reduction to 5100. In 1985 they split to subdivision.
In 1986 it was assessed at $300.00 . On 3-5-86 Bayview Land
to Mohring for $95,000, went up to 2100 . In 1988 building
permit to construct a one family dwelling for $115,000 assessed
in 1989 for 10,200 . On 7-21-89 Mohring Enterprises to
Digney for $295,000 .
Ms. Duffy: The 10,200 assessment when it is divided by the
RAR shows a fair market value of $302,000 . The house was sold
in 1989 for $295,000.
Mr. Sullivan: He is looking for a value of $227,000.
Mr. Scott: It is 5100 with RAR and he is asking us to bring
it down to $151,000.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K.
Ms. Duffy: Can I make a statement. The house next door to it
sold on 3-92 for $325,000. It is the same builder.
Mr. Sullivan: No water, no garage.
Ms. Duffy: They are in Paradise by the Bay across the street
from the waterfront. No I 'm sorry wrong one.
This one is on Long Creek and went for $342,000 in 1991 .
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
411
127 •
Board: No questions.
84) 1000-54-3-26 . 3
John J. and Joan Callahan
125 Lighthouse Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 10,600 asking for $5,050. In 1986 it
was split for a minor subdivision, assessed at $1,000 . 1986 it
was Lighthouse Association to Daly for $70,000, assessed at
$2,400, 7-21-86 building permit for one family dwelling for
$80,000. Assessed for $7,800. In 1987 Wynn to Prudential
Ins. Co. of America for $300,000 . Assessed at 9300 . 3-13-90
Wynn to Prudential Insurance Company of America foreclosure
$254,000.6-18-90 Prudential to Callahan for $240,000.
Assessed on 4-1-91 for $10, 100. On 12-2-90 Construction of
Greenhouse on existing deck and finish room over the garage for
$16,000. Assessed for $10,600 on 11-15-91. On 3.34 acres.
Ms. Duffy: I would just like to point out that the form that
was filled out has the assessment incorrect. In has it at
10, 100 . I would just like to point out that it is three and
one-third acres and it was a foreclosure.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
85) 1000-54-3-26 . 4
Marko and Linda Anticev
2005 Old North Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Sullivan: This is the Lighthouse Association. Split minor
subdivision on 10-7-86, assessed at 800. 7-8-86 Lighthouse
Association to Anticev for $63,500, assessed at 2, 100.
5-31-91 construct one family dwelling for $250,000, assessed at
8,400 on 2-13-92 . This is on one acre.
Ms. Duffy: I would like to point out that they brought the
property in 86 and constructed a one family dwelling for
$250,000. That is a total of $313,000, our assessment with the
RAR gives you a value of $249,000. In 1991 they said that it
cost them that to build the house without the land.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other questions?
Board: No questions.
86) 1000-54-9-19 . 1
Joseph W. and Judith E. Irwin
155 Pine Road
Southold, NY 11971
128 •
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 6300, wants it reduced to 31,500 .
Building permit in 6-1-69 estimated at 6,000 with an assessment
of 2700. From A. Hahn 25 ' 1-12-72 N.C. .07 ac.
Mr. Scott: What they had was a transfer of development so they
had an additional . 07 acres it was a 25 ft. strip and there was
no change in the assessment. It was a 25 ft. piece of property
from A. Hahn their was a liber and page which was the deed and
it was 25 ft. on 1-12-72 . There was no change because it was
only . 07 tenth of an acre. They deeded it from a neighbor' s
piece of property to their piece of property. The assessor' s in
1972 said that there was no change in the assessment. The N.C.
means there was no charge on the deed because there was no value.
Mr. Sullivan: The assessed valuation went from 2700 to 6000 on
2-24-70. Why?
Mr. Scott: The record started in the range of 1967 to 1970 .
Probably in 1969 the assessment was 600 for the land and 2100
for the improvements for a total of 2700 . Here is where your
building permit comes in, it was probably a partial at that
time. The 70 figure was when the house was completed.
Mr. Sullivan: The building permit in June of 69 was for $6,000.
The assessed value on improvements was 5100. In 72 the land
went from 900 to 1200 .
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, the policy of this Board of Assessor's
is not to erase anything on the card. There have been erasers
on this where the value of the land was but I can't tell why
they changed it in years previous to that especially in 1972 .
Mr. Sullivan: In 90 it went from Dillenbeck to Irwin for
$140,000. Any questions?
87) 1000-121-5-3
Stephen Perricone
7470 Route 48 Sound Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Markel : Is this commercial?
Mr. Sullivan: No, The present assessed value is for 8,000 and
he wants a reduction to 4112 . The value of the property
$175,000. He is grieving on unequal assessment.
Mr. Markel: Do you have a comparison.
Mr. Sullivan: No comparison that I can see here. Assessed
valuation has been in since 1968. In 1978 North Fork Manor Inc.
to Kousoures . In 1979 sale for $100,000 subject to $76,000
mortgage Kousoures to Perricone. 1981 sold $13,000 plus
411
• 129
mortgage of $76,000 Crenshaw interest to Perricone and
another.
Mr. Markel : On the last sale Perricone to Crenshaw int.
was he a partner previously? I always consider that a arms
length transaction.
Mr. Sullivan: $8,000 current rate 2 .55 equals $313,725 .
Mr. Markel: I think this was a close friend.
87) 1000-128-4-4
Gail A. Kar
4900 Peconic Bay Blvd.
Laurel, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current value is $5000. He believes his property
should be assessed at 73% of the full value based on one or more
of the following: Value of property from part one #7 (Per
Equalization rate) $148,000 . Complainant believes the
assessment should be reduced to $108,000. He has comparables
here and the recommended assessment per average comparable
$108,286 . Kar is $148,368 . Based on a RAR of 3 . 37
$108,286 . Listed comparables. All he is listing is the
property:
Rosin 112,760
Peters 97,923
Kennelly 103,858
Connelly Sr. 106,825
Henrietta Mormile 115,727
Arthur Mormile 109,792
Mr. Sullivan: Average per acre, . 175 is 420 . 4200, average
per square foot is 160 is 3, 177, recommended reassessment per
average comparables 3649 for a total of $108,286 .
Mr. Weinheimer: Exactly what does he want it reduced to on
terms of assessed valuation.
Mr. Sullivan: He goes from $148,000 to $108,000.
Mr. Weinheimer: He doesn't say what he wants the assessed
valuation reduced to.
Mr. Sullivan: He doesn't have it on it.
Mr. Weinheimer: How can we act on it?
Mr. Sullivan: The form is not complete.
4110
130
Mr. Henry: I would like to hear the assessor's comment on the
comparables.
Mr. Russell: Ms . Kar is trying to establish that her house in
unequal based on what her neighbors are assessed on per square
foot. The problem with the house is that she uses some that are
summer bungalows as hers was when she first purchased it. She
has put over $40,000 into the house itself. So, it went from a
summer, unheated, uninsulated summer cottage to a nice year
round residence and it has been updated with the assessed value
ever since. I don't see any property cards here but I will pull
them. The problem with the unequal I believe, to use the
unequal basis that you are being assessed at a higher percentage
of your overall value, you have to know your neighbors overall
value and Ms. Kar doesn't know that. She is establishing the
value by using the RAR but these aren't recent sales or recent
comps so she can't say that she is being assessed at a higher
percentage per value. She originally had planned this case on
the basis of an excessive assessment but, the North Fork Bank
had done an appraisal for her in February and appraised her
house at $155,000. We have an indicated market value of
$148,000. Also, this $5,000 was awarded by the Grievance Board
last year and was left unchanged. This is the same document
that she submitted to you last year and she dated it for 1992 .
Mr. Sullivan: In 1991, the assessed value was 5700 wasn't it?
We reduced it to 5000.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, it was reviewed and we felt it was a
fair change so we didn't change it.
Mr. Sullivan: Appraisal done by who?
Mr. Scott: North Fork Bank for $155,000.
Mr. Sullivan: How do you know that?
Mr. Scott: She had come in and talked to me about it and if we
are being unfair, I certainly want to find out how we can change
it. I had to explain to her that there was a difference between
unequal and excessive. She went to the unequal. I explained to
her the technical differences .
89) 1000-110-1-4
Mary S. McGahan
1400 W. Creek Avenue
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 9000 equals $267,062 divide by .0337
she thinks it should be reduced to full value of $234,000,
7886, she is going under excessive assessment. Believes it
should be reduced to full value $234,000
411
• 131
Mr. Scott: The form this year, doesn't give the people an
opportunity to state what they want it reduced to. Should have
where the assessment should be reduced to.
Mr. Sullivan: Applying 234,000 by the . 0337 reduces the
assessed value to 7886 . This is on West Creek Avenue in
Cutchogue. Down by Boatman's Harbor. There are comparables
here. Any questions?
Board: No questions .
90) 1000-127-5-8
Barbara Kelling
Laurelwood Drive
Laurel, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Present assessment is 8400, wants it reduced to
4200. Appraised at 700 on 5-24-71, 1/2/73 sold for $10,500
Weglicki to Crossley, 2-8-73 new dwelling for $33,000 .
1-5-76 went to 8200, 2-7-79 25 x 100 ' dedicated as Town Highway.
1980 it went to 8300. On 10-10-80 it went to 8400 based on the
construction solar heated greenhouse estimated cost $4000. Do
the assessor's have any comments?
Mr. Russell: This is just like most of the cases, no sales, no
comps so I will offer no comment.
Mr. Sullivan: This was an unequal assessment.
91) 1000-109-3-2 .25
Walter Dayton
1210 Moore's Lane
Greenport, NY
Mr. Markel : They were granted a reduction several years ago.
Mr. Sullivan: Currently assessed at $12,500, wants it reduced
to 6,250, $278, 190 at 2 .35. 1978 Country Club Estates to Dayton
for $23,500. 6-13-82 construct new dwelling for $90,000 . The
assessed value went to 13,200. Remeasured home adjusted changes
(Board of Assessment Review) went to 11,600. In 7-31-84
remeasured home and adjusted change to 11,600 . On the same date
it went to 12,000, went up 400. In 1987 constructed deck at an
estimated cost of $1,000. Last evaluation date was 7-31-84 and
the construction was in 1987 . That was the deck and there was
no adjustment made unless that 84 is wrong.
Mr. Markel : We adjusted it back in 1984 .
Mr. Sullivan: Any comments. This is based on unequal
assessment with no comparables .
II/ 411
132
Mr. Russell: The assessed value on the front of the card should
read 12,000, not 12,500. I think the last entry might be wrong,
it might just be a mistake. The decks they have registered on
the back and they have them dated 1988 so I think what they did
was to write the date above it for some reason. I think it was
just an honest mistake.
92) 1000-95-18.30
Zellner, Russell
975 Horseshoe Drive
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 7,000, looking for a reduction
to 3500. $155,786 at 2 . 35 equals 3500. Lot sold in 1975 for
$40,000 L. Hodor to Brustruck Corp. . Lot sold on 4-80 for
$10,000 Miletello to Oregon View. 4-83 Sold Oregon to
Staller. 5-83 Staller to Rousseau for $13,500 . 9-86 Rousseau
to Zellner for $49,500. Building permit for new dwelling on
4-87 for $90,000. 5-88 assessed value 7,000. This is based on
unequalization rate and no comparisons.
Mr. Sullivan: Any questions?
Board: None.
93) 1000-98-1 .7 . 19
Harold and Maureen Wicks
385 Pine Tree Rd. Extension
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Sullivan: Currently assessed at 11,000, asking for a
reduction to 5500 . Owners estimate of current value of property
is $244,807 at 2 . 35. On 7-26-83 building permit to construct a
new dwelling at an estimated cost of $80,000. Assessed at
$1,000 on 5-13-83. On 5-21-84 was assessed at $10,500. On
2-27-85 assessment was increased to 11,000 . Do the assessor' s
have any comments?
Assessor's : No comments at this time.
94) 1000-100-3-9
Greg and Pauletta Gurfein
2005 Reeve Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Present assessment 8700, would like reduced to
4350 equals $175,000 based on 2 . 35 . Unequalization. No
comparables . Assessed in 1984 for 3200. Assessed in 1989 for
6100. On 11-18-88 building permit to construct addition to
second floor at an estimated cost of $55,000 . Assessed on 5-90
for 8700. Any comments?
III
133 •
Board: No comments.
95) 1000-100-3-11 . 16
Frank Swotkewicz
190 Sebastian Cove
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Present assessment 10,000 . Would like reduction
to 5,000. Estimate of current full market value of property
$200,000 at 2 .35. Based on unequal assessment. No
comparables . 1985 Twin Fork to Swotkewiczfor $76,000 .
10-86 building permit for new dwelling at estimated cost of
$120,000. 1987 assessed value 10,000 .
96) 1000-100-2-11. 16
John & Zora Sormeley
1490 Highland Road
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 7800. Would like a reduction
to 3900. Unequal assessment. Owners estimate of current market
value $150,000. Any comments?
Board: No comments.
97) 1000-103-11-16 . 0
Evelyn Burns
2000 Pequash Avenue
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 5300 . Would like a reduction
to 2650. Current market value $117,953 . No comparables.
Mr. Scott: The current assessment rate is 5100, not 5300.
98) 1000-106-6-33
Steven Sweeney
190 ( 1545) North Drive
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment is 7200 . Would like it
reduced to 3600. Current full market value $125,000 at 2 . 35.
No comparables. Any comments from assessor' s?
Assessor' s : No comments .
99) 1000-107-2-3 . 1
Susan and Terrance Sweeney
130 Greton Ct.
Mattituck, NY
• 134 •
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment is 7500. Would like reduced
to 3750. Based on unequal assessment. No comparables .
Mr. Scott: Recent building permit in 1990 for the construction
of a breezeway and garage addition at the estimated cost of
$6,000.
100) 1000-117-6-16 .3
Sharon and Edward Schmidt
180 Grathwohl Road
New Suffolk, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment is 14,700. Would like
reduction to 7350 . Current market value $300,000 .
Mr. Scott: Building permit issued in 1988 for garage at a
estimated at $25,000. Partial assessment in 1988 for 12,200,
assessed in 1989 for 13,800 and again in 1990 for 14,700.
101) 1000-107-2-3.4
Gus and Elias Lambrianidis
750 Greton Ct.
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Currently assessed at 6,400. Asking for 33,200.
$142,433 RAR based on 3 . 37 . Unequal assessment.
Mr. Scott: Recent sale on 11-29-89 for $160,000 . No
comparables .
Mr. Markel : Are you for or against this?
Mr. Scott: $160,000 x 3.37 = 5392 .
Mr. Markel : This wouldn't be too far out of line.
102) 1000-109-5-25
Richard VanCaeseele
4 Praity Lane
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Currently assessed at 11,300. Would like reduced
to 5650. Estimated current market value $250,000. The
assessment on the property card is 13,200 .
Mr. Scott: That is correct. 13,200 shows the RAR indicating
$391,691 as the full reasonable assessment and the assessor's
would like to stand by the 13,200 assessment.
103) 1000-103-14-2
• 135 •
Paul Kendarich
3600 Pequash Avneue
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 8400. Would like a reduction
to 4200. Assessment on the property card is 8000. Current
estimated property value is $160,000 .
Mr. Scott: The assessors have reviewed this property twice. It
was reduced $200 in February of 84 and reduced another $200 in
July of 91. Then the assessor's reduced it again in Feb. 92 .
104) 1000-108-3-5 . 12
Roger Schait
1480 Elijah Lane
Mattituck, NY
Mr. John Sullivan: Current assessment 9200. Would like reduced
to 4600. Estimate market value $174,500 .
Mr. Scott: There are no sales listed, no comps and a building
permit was issued in 1990 for a deck 18 x 64 for $3,000. It is
1152 square foot of deck which at .254 a square foot is
$288.00. We don't go according to what the people say the
estimated cost of construction is because a lot of times it is
donated material, it is people doing there own work.
105) 1000-113-2-6 .0
Thomas C. and Eileen J. King
955 Rosewood Drive
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 6900 to 3450 equals $153,561 . Unequal assessment.
No comparables.
Mr. Scott: It was sold in 1990 for $195,000, taking 3. 37 on the
basis of the sale price it would be $6,572 . It shows 6900 on
the card so it is really close.
106) 1000-115-5-13
Clifford and Eleanor Jones
Cardinal Drive
Mattituck, NY
Mr. John Sullivan: 7500 to 3750 equals $166,914 . Hasn't been
reassessed since 1975 .
Mr. Scott: Basically, there hasn't been a change since 1975 and
we have no comment.
107) 1000-125-1-2 . 10
Roscoe Palmer
410
S 136
Aldrich Lane
Laurel, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 8400 to 4200 equals $175,000 . Hasn't been
reassessed since 1987 .
Mr. Scott: No comment. No sales, no comps.
108) 1000-125-1-2 . 12
George Aydinian
1350 Aldrich Lane
Laurel, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 7500 to 3750 represents $222,551 if you use the
RAR. There was a sale in 1987 for $215,000 .
Mr. Scott: The sale is 1987, which is five years ago.
109) 1000-125-1-2 .24
Mitch Markowski
2500 Aldrich Lane
Laurel, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 9700 to 4850 equals $200,000 .
Mr. Scott: There are a series of building permits from 1986 to
1989 . The assessors had been there but also it is consistent on
Aldridge Lane that there is a lot of new building and all the
assessments on there have been uniform.
110) 1000-126=8-6
Michael and Nancy Sweeney
1375 Bray Avenue
Laurel, NY
Mr. John Sullivan: 5500 to 2750.
Mr. Scott: The structure is about 14,040 square feet and a
total of assessment representing a market value of $163,204 .
Those are the only comments we have to offer. On .288 acre.
111) 1000-1327-4-19 .0
Charles and Cheryl Anasagasti
1840 Delmar Drive
Laurel, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 5400 to 2700 . $120, 178.
Mr. Russell: No comments.
411 411
137
112) 1000-5-4-19
Sylvia Hagler
47 Front Street
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 4800 to 2820. Current market value $120,000 .
Mr. Scott: This is commercial property. This is Oliver' s
pizza. There was a late sale in 1986 for $150,000 . There have
been two series of renovations since then. They just completed
one this last summer.
Mr. Burdy: Was that a sale or an auction?
Mr. Scott: That was a sale of the Wheeler' s to the Hagler' s.
Mr. Sullivan: Recent renovations?
Mr. Scott: Since they purchased it there was an interior
renovation.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else?
Board: No.
113) 1000-5-3-18
George Aydinian
140 Main Street
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 10,800 to 4, 112 . Current market value $175,000.
Bought in 1985 for $250,000.
Mr. Scott: The only thing I can say on this one is that this
used to be Van's Hardware Store in Greenport and you have to
understand that business property is with the equipment. What
they do, is they assign a price to the value of the land and the
building and they also assign a price to the inventory and good
will and things like that. This is an assigned price, it is not
arms length. I don't think you can take the value of the price
they used in 1985 of $250,000, which was previous in of it by
itself, it was previous to the height of the market.
Mr. Markel: Usually when a business is sold, inventory is
sold by inventory and price. Any equipment they might have in
the place other the actual inventory is usually handled by
depreciation factor etc. on fixed assets and that particular
property contains rental equipment as well as business . Do you
have a depreciated value.
Mr. Scott: There is a depreciation of 45%.
411 411
138
Mr. Tom Henry: On you statement before you were implying that
they were underestimated?
Mr. Scott: No, I am not saying that they were underestimated
but they would assign values that were arbitrary and not exact.
I happen to know the sales price of this, and I am not say sales
price I am saying the money exchanged in one form or another was
considerably higher than this and I was told by Van what the
price was . I just question the $175,000 specifically would like
a lot more comps provided to give some sort of consideration
of value on this one.
114) Kenneth J. Lockhart and Jud McLoughlin
602 First Street
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 5900 to 2950 . $231,306 . Residential, no comps .
Mr. Scott: This was not a valid sale as far as we are concerned
because it was $413,089 . However, if you take the mortgage and
the amount of the cash, it becomes $179,800 and then in 9-90,
they had a building permit for a renovation and alteration of
the first floor of the apartment for $15,000. If we did take
the $179,800, plus the $15,000 for alterations you would find
that the combined value is $$194,800. The 5900 dollars divided
by the RAR .0337 represents a figure of $175,074 and I think
the assessor's are within the market value of what it is
presently. No further comment. Just one other thing, we did
make a $300 reduction by correction of errors by the Board of
Assessment Review last year and we did take into consideration
the rates last year and did correct them.
Mr. Sullivan: 6200 to 5900, there was a correction of error?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Markel: Did we have the correction of error before us or
is it going to be before us?
Mr. Scott: No, that was the correction of errors last year
because it was done on 7-15-91 which would have been in that
grievance period. That was done at the window.
115) 1001-4-5-16
Barbara Radich
324 Fifth Avenue
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 3400 to 1700. $75,668.
410 411
139
Mr. Scott: The 3400 dollars divided by the RAR represents a
market value of $100,890 and I feel that is complete with the
keeping of the area.
Mr. Markel : It was last assessed in 1979 . At that time you
had a 10% depreciation. That is about thirteen or fourteen
years ago. Does the 10% still stand.
Mr. Scott: 10% is not increased just because fourteen years
goes by. If the house has been improved or whatever, the
chances because the age of the house the 10% will still probably
be in effect because of the age of the house even if it is
completely remodeled. Because there are things that go wrong
with an older house.
Mr. Markel: That is what I am saying it has been quite a few
years since the house was assessed.
Mr. Scott: But, it doesn't automatically follow the increases .
Mr. Markel: The point I am making is let's just try and get
an idea. On a house that is almost a hundred years old.
Mr. Scott: I would estimate the minimum 85 years .
Mr. Markel: On a house that is 85 years old don't you think
that perhaps a 10% depreciating factor is a little low?
Mr. Scott: No sir, because they also have a rate of $4 .00 and
with 10% that becomes $3.60 so if you take a value of $5 .50
which it is suppose to be at, a two story house what they
really have is in the range of about 40% because somebody else
in the past in the assessor's office didn't follow the uniform
practices, we are not going to go on and abuse the system any
further by increasing the depreciation below the line because
they already depreciated above the line. See how they did it
over here? The standard rate for a two story house is $5 .50.
Mr. Markel: Now.
Mr. Scott: It always was but what they did in the past is they
cut corners, they did it above the line and then somebody went
and took a look at it said, this house needs more work so this
house has depreciation and they added 10% or 20% or 40% and that
is the problem we have been getting into a lot of the times
because houses have this high amount of depreciation plus they
also have a built in depreciation by some assessor in the past
short cutting the whole thing.
Ms. Duffy: Well, he just adjusted the rates.
Mr. Henry: So there is no trail set.
410 411
140
Mr. Scott: There is no trail set. At one time there were six
or seven assessor's and they were part time and they paid $800
to $3,000 dollars apiece and they were give a basic guideline
and it was fairly loose.
Mr. Henry: Tell me what your reasoning was .
Mr. Scott: O.K. , Sam was saying that because of the age of the
house it was 10% and because it is 10 or 12 years beyond the
last time it was assessed, shouldn't this 10% be increased
because there is more depreciation to the house.
Mr. Markel : He admits the house is at least 85 years old.
Mr. Scott: I told a look at it and what you have on the rates
are $4 . 00 for the two story when they should be in the range of
$5 .50 and the $2 .50 for the one story where they should be in
the range of $3.50. So, if you take $4 .50 and take 10% off of
it you are talking about $4 .05 . That two story house should be
about $5.50. That is about a 33 or 35% reduction. I can only
take the $4 .50 at one time and then subtract the 10% . I can
only do one category at a time, I can't add $4 .50 and $2 .50, I
come up with $7 .00.
Mr. Markel : Why don't you reassess the house using the proper
rates and the proper depreciation?
Mr. Scott: We have been doing that.
Mr. Markel: But in this particular case.
Ms. Duffy: We have been making adjustments as we go.
Mr. Scott: Based on transfer, there was no change. First of
all it is a transfer and it is also similar to a sale which is
illegal for us to go and take a look at.
Mr. Markel : On this date 2-28-92 where you wrote no change, I
think that would be the appropriate time. You go back over here
and put this rate up to the regular rate and the uniform
assessment in the town and then put on the depreciating factor
that is also in uniform.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, it is the policy of the Board of
Assessor's as often as possible without causing an undo hardship
on the people to change it in that manner if we can do so with a
reasonable amount of depreciation. There are times when we go
and take a look at a house that they have under assessed and
over depreciated so if we put the proper rates in there with the
proper depreciation we are have to use in the range of 65 to 70%
sometimes .
Mr. Markel : Now you are bringing in that you don't want to
hurt this person but that is not your business.
411 ill
141
116) 1000-7-3-11. 1
Elizabeth Garrity
215 Fourth Street
Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Sullivan: 6800 to 3400. $151,335.
Mr. Scott: We recognize that three years ago they purchased the
property for $206,000 and we also see that they have got a
building permit for $1500. We just want to note that 6,800
which is current assessment ratio indicates a value of a range
of $202,000.
Mr. Markel: 6800 is the present assessment.
Mr. Sullivan: The bought the house in 1989 for $206,000 and
renovated it for $1,500 in 1989 . They split 140 x 60 to
Dusenbury. What is that?
Mr. Scott: These are two partners so Alice Dusenbury and
Elizabeth Garrity both purchased the Price house. This is
Bill Price house and there was a reduction based on
apportionment because they had the split of the property and
they actually did better by the split or equal to the split so
there was no increase.
Mr. Sullivan: Nothing further?
117) 1000-21-3-23
Kestutis Zapkus and Gerald Gambone
4860 Rocky Point Road
East Marion, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 9700 to 4850. Current estimated market value
$200,000 .
Mr. Scott: No comment.
118) 1000-33-2-5
William Claudio
1105 Westwood Lane Eastern Shores
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 10,600 to 5300. Current estimated market value
$225,000 .
Mr. Scott: This was purchased at $270,000 in 1991.
Mr. Sullivan: 10,600 at the current rate makes it what?
Mr. Scott: $286,486 .00. This is a real recent sale at $270,000
and the $8,000 for the decks, air conditioning and the out
411
• 142
building and there is an office over the garage which we have
not assessed for because it wasn't known to us until the tax
status date. We feel that the $286,000 as compared to the
$270,000 plus the $8,000 is a very accurate assessment. The
previous owner used the upstairs of the garage as an office.
After he sold it he told us that he had been using it and he
told us a different story. We are not about to change the
assessment based on a rumor from a previous owner but we are
aware of it.
Ms. Duffy: We couldn't see whether or not it was being used
as living space so we left it off the record card.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else?
Board: Nothing else.
119) 1000-33-2-37
James Casey
475 Moores Lane
North Greenport, NY 11944
Mr. Sullivan: 8500 to 4250. Current estimated market value
$135,000.
Mr. Markel : Exactly where on Moore's Lane is this located.
Mr. Scott: This used to be the old storage barn, this is where
old Dan Tucker used to have his house. Reg Hudson built this
one in 24 hours. Moore's Lane North.
Mr. Scott: 4250 at the current rate $4,250 divided by .0337 is
$126, 112 .00.
Mr. Sullivan: Any other comments?
120) 1000-33-3-12
Maria Petikas
Greenhill Lane
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: 7500 to 3750. Current estimated market value
$160,000.
121) 1000-33-4-32
John and NickkiKyriazis
Sound Drive, Eastern Shores
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Sullivan: 26,400 to 13,200 . Current estimated value
$575,000. Right now, he is assessed at one million.
• 143 •
Mr. Scott: The assessment of 26,400 with the RAR represents
$783,382 . The griever has a house that is over 6400 on 1 . 1
acres with 155 feet of waterfront, soundfrontage. It is down
from Porky's you go over one block to the head of the road and
it is the third house on the right hand side. Stone gates and
iron grills in front of it. The land alone was purchased for
$180,000 in 1983. A similar house built by Moohring over in
Paradise Shores which has only 3485 square feet and 160 feet of
waterfront. I admit it is bay compared to sound was $850,089
and I think the value is self evident that the $783,000 is less
than what it should be.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have the comparable?
Mr. Markel: I would say that the sound is worth more than the
bay actually as far as location is concerned in the real estate
market.
The end of Paul Henry' s applications.
122) 1000-36-2-26 . 1
Herbert Mandel
1000 Inlet Lane Extension
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current value is $12,000. Complainant believes
it should be reduced to $3,000 .
Mr. Markel: This particular piece is a house.
Mr. Russell: Mr. chairman, Mr. Segal does so many of these
that he is Xeroxing his own forms and checks everything. That
way he is sure not to miss anything. Then he fills it is based
on how many grievances he has.
Mr. Sullivan: $3000 at what? 3.37 is equal to?
Mr. Scott: $89,020 .00 .
Mr. Sullivan: 4-25-91 Woozley to Mandel $300,000.00 .
Mr. Markel : There is a statement in here. All relative data
to be supplied upon the request of the Board of Assessment
Review.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Segal, who is Mr. Mandel 's attorney has
stated that the $300,000 was a sale between relatives and was
not arms length so he provided the Board of Assessment Review a
current appraisal which the appraisal states that the estimated
market value as of May 14, 1991 was $408,000 and not $300,000 as
the purchase price recommends. The $12,000 that we have got it
assessed for represents with the 3 . 37 $356,083.
• 144 •
Mr. Sullivan: Any further questions?
Mr. Scott: It was a not an arms length sale so the $300,000 was
between relatives and the arms length transaction would have
been at $408,000.
123) 1000-105-2-1
Thomas T. Shannon
2760 Ruth Road
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Sullivan: SegalFenchel& Peddy. On the card for
$18, 125, assessed value reduced to 4,531.
Mr. Markel: Prior to small claims, did they appear before the
grievance?
Mr. Scott: They appeared before the grievance and weren't
awarded anything. They were allotted $375.00 at small claims .
Mr. Sullivan: In 1990, they went to small claims . They were
reduced to 21,500 to 16,456, back up to 18,500 on 5-38-91 . Went
to small claims and it was reduced to 18, 125 December 1991 .
Mr. Markel: That 1825 is now less than what the assessor' s
have it for?
Mr. Weinheimer: That is the assessed value at the present
time.
Mr. Sullivan: Any comments?
Mr. Scott: We took it to small claims last year and the
assessment had been left at 18,500 when it was brought before
the Board of Assessment Review, they took it to small claims and
at small claims last year, the hearing officer made a judgement
based on the 2 .9 percent which was the RAR at that time but he
stated that he believed the griever was right and that it was
worth about $625,000. The $18, 125 this year represents a market
value of $537,833. This is 2 .4 acres of sound waterfront with
150 feet of frontage. There are comparable sales especially in
the Orient area that were in the range of $890,000 last year for
a comparable size house. This has 4500 square feet of residence
alone, not included decks or anything else. We agreed to go by
the hearing officer last year and we did not change it this year.
Mr. Sullivan: You are using comparables where?
Mr. Scott: We used last year a comparable that was sold in
Orient.
Mr. Markel: Is he just grieving on the appraisal that Celic
did or does he read into it the RAR?
411
• 145
Mr. Sullivan: He is talking about the RAR being down to
2.35. He believes his property should be assessed at 2 . 35% of
whole value based on one or more of the following. The latest
State equalization rate for the city, town or village in which
the property is located is 2 . 35% . Value of property from part
one #7 is $275,000, I guess based on that appraisal . When you
take $275,000 and divide it by the equalization rate is 9267 .
124) 1000-79-3-11
Jane Leech
70 Ships Drive
Southold, NY 11971
Mr. Sullivan: Municipal Information Service. 7300 to 5475.
That brings it down to $216,000 at 3.37 brings it to $231.00.
In 1989 it was purchased Fahy to Leech for $240,000.
Ms. Duffy: They are asking for it to be reduced to $213,000.
We think the assessment is fair.
125) 1000-103-5-2 .0
George Zachariadis, Ted Zachariadis,
Kostas Zachariadis
1695 Little Neck Road
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: The assessment is 9200 and the applicant thinks
it should be reduced to 2,760. $2760 at the equalization rate
of 2 . 35% equals $117,446 . In 1979 it was sold to Zachariadis
for $65,000 . In 1979 on Grievance Day it was changed from 9300
to 9200.
Mr. Russell: No comps. There was a decrease and it hasn't
been changed yet.
126) 1000-106-11-23
William C. Thompson
655 South Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment is 12,200. He wants a
reduction to 6462 .50 . We have an appraisal of $275,000.00 by
Celic on 12-11-91.
Mr. Russell : The only thing I can comment on is to question the
appraisal itself. In has a house at is 1800 square feet for
$65,000.00 . There is two houses on two acres in Mattituck Creek
in Mattituck, it is a deep draft area. One house that Mr.
Celic used as a comparable was a dilapidated house that the
person paid $190,000 for for the lot alone, torn the house down
and are in the process of constructing a new house. I don't
know where he got these figures. It is right over the bridge on
• AW
146
Peconic Bay Blvd. there is a little private road and they tore
the house down and they are putting up a big A frame house up.
That was the sale that they bought the house tore the house down
so that is not very comparable. Also, if you notice the other
sale comparables, we have Long Creek Drive in Southold, Cedar
Drive west of Southold and that is not a very comparable area.
Mason Drive in Cutchogue which isn't even close to the sound.
Mr. Weinheimer: When you say it is not a comparable area,
that has no reflection on what you assess it for.
Mr. Russell : What I am saying is that if he going to establish
a value for the subject property by using the sales approach
that he should use houses that are comparable in at least size
and location and this is nothing of the sort.
Mr. Sullivan: Anything else?
Mr. Markel: He is just grieving on the fact that he has an
appraisal from Celic or does he read into the RAR?
Mr. Sullivan: He is talking about the RAR being down to 2 . 35,
the complainant believes his property to be assessed at 2 . 35% of
full value based on one or more of the following: The latest
State equalization rate for the city, town or village in which
the property is located 2 .35%. Value of property from part one
number seven is $275,000 based on that appraisal . You take
$275,000 and divide it by the equalization rate you come down to
9267 using the RAR.
127) 1000-118-2-3
Pudge Corporation
Bridge Lane
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed value is 25,500. They believe it should
be reduced to 6300 . Estimated value of property $170, 100 at
2 .55. Building permit for an addition estimated cost $3400 . In
1972 sold lots for $270,000 . Building permit for estimated
$3200 on 10-11-72 . Any questions .
Mr. Russell: None.
128) 1000-44-2-3 . 0
Anthony Pirrera
375 North Road
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 18,200 . Would like it reduced to
5,460. Current full market value of property $232,340 .
410
• 149
Mr. Markel: What would an agreeable figure be on your part?
Mr. Russell: I have no idea again, it is a unique situation and
at one point it was an old cottage that they had put a ton of
money into it.
Afternoon meeting: 5-27-92
Present: John Sullivan
Tom Henry
Sam Markel
Wm. Weinheimer
Absent: Tom Burdy
134) 1000-3-15. 6
Angie Ioannidis
1030 Reeve Road
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 6,500 requesting a reduction to
4212 . Estmated current full market value $125,000 . Any
comments? Assessors?
Assessors: No comments.
135) 1000-103-13-29
Alfred C. Halikias and wife
Holden Avenue
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 8, 100 this is represented by
Demetrois R. Halikias Esq. . Assessed value of property
$240,000. He is going on excessive assessment. He wants it
reduced to $190,000 . Stype Brothers reality letter of opinion
with regard to above referenced property. Certification by the
appraiser $190,000.
Mr. Markel: I have one question for the assessor's the land
is valued at $1200 at .65 acres which is a little more than a
half acre. I noticed that another card for a half acre was
$1300, why is there a decrepancy?
Mr. Russell: Most of the land, a majority of the major
subdivisions had been assessed some years ago and it was done on
a basis of a running foot per along the road because that had
been the function of value of the property at the time it was
done and they changed the rate per running foot based on the
location indicating the differences in the market variables .
Mr. Markel: There are lessor values for more property.
110
150 •
Mr. Sullivan: Any comment?
Mr. Russell: We just ask the Grievance Board to notice that the
valuation date on the opinion day is May 16, which is a good
four and one half to five months past the evaluation date of
January 1 . Also, when he does look for three comparables,
two of the comparables are sales after the evaluation date
only one of them being before the evaluation date.
136) 1000-100-1-13
Paul Contoveros
245 Wavecrest Lane
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Again, represented by D'Amato, Forchelli,
Libert Schwartz, Mineo and Carlino. The assessed value is
6,000 and he wants it reduced to 4212 . $125,000 at 3. 37 .
Purchased in 1986 for $159,000. Any comments?
Board: No comments .
137) 1000-115-6-3.0
Frederick and Dolores Boeje
18600 Main Road
Southold, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Currently assessed at 5,300. Would like reduced
to 1,590. Equalization rate of 2 .35, that is $67,659 .
Purchased in 1987 for $172,000. On 12-28-88, they took this
before small claims and it was reduced from 6600 to 5125 . On
5-8-91, it was reassessed up to 5300 .
Mr. Russell: I would like to explain this situation. I had
talked to the Boeje's on three occasions and then I talked to
a representative of theirs on one occasion to explain why the
assessment was increased to 5200. All that was, was that we had
left the small claims decision of the 5125 in place but we did
have to add to the assessment because of the new deck. All we
did was assess the deck like every other assessed deck in town
on the cost of construction of .25 cents . We added that to the
reduced amount of small claims to give us the new value of 5300
so we extensively left the decision in place but we had to add a
new inventory.
Mr. Markel: Was a building permit issued for that deck?
Mr. Russell: No, that was part of the original survey. It
wasn't completed when it was originally reviewed. We would also
like to note that the assess value of 5300 indicates a value of
$157,200 is considerably less than what they paid for it.
410
151 •
138) 1000-37-04-01
Judith DiBlasi
360 Bayview Drive
East Marion, NY.
Mr. Sullivan: Represented by Wimpfheimer & Sherman, Esqs. .
Currently assessed at 9400, would like it reduced to 3600.
Property should be assessed at 3. 6 .
Mr. Scott: 3. 6 was the original RAR before it was
challenged. It was challenged and it went down to 3.37 . So,
when they called the first time, the RAR at that time was
3. 6 . Just to clarify.
Mr. Sullivan: It was purchased in 1979 for 4121,000 . Addition
in 1988 for $25,000. Deck in 1990 for $3200.
Mr. Scott: This is a very well constructed contemporary in
Gardiner's Bay Estates directly looking over the water so we
feel that the indicated price of 9400 assessment which indicates
a market value of $279,000 is proper and we have no other
comments . .
139) 1000-95-4-18 . 037
Henry M. Bogardus
410 Silver Colt Road
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 10,600, wants it reduced to 1,000.
Represented by Fred N. Perry, Esq. . Complainant believes this
property should be assessed at the present RAR. Value of
property part one he said it should be at $170,000 .
140) 1000-140-03-009-001
Mattituck Fire District
900 Pike Street
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Richard Lark, Esq. , for the Mattituck Fire
District. Is this exempt?
Mr. Russell : Yes, they just bought the house in January for a
future parking lot.
Mr. Henry: Is this a problem with the filing date?
Mr. Scott: Yes . In our mind it is the filing date.
Mr. Markel : I am slightly familiar with the situation and
aside from the fact that an exemption was not filed by the date
that by law it is suppose to be, there is doubt in my mind as to
whether the intent is actually the usage at the present time.
152 •
Mr. Wm. Weinheimer: You mean it was intended to be tax
exempt but in fact it is not?
Mr. Markel: I think they are letting somebody use the house
whether or not for direct cash payoff of in lieu of and in that
situation it should not be tax exempt .
Mr. Sullivan: What was the filing date for this?
Mr. Russell : We don't have the copy but I can go get it for
you. I believe it was the 14th of May or there about's for
the exemption application.
Mr. Markel: I might add that they is similar to the
independent home in Southold and in my mind again I am not
trying to sway the Board but I feel that that was not filed in
the time limit although the cause may be great however it does
not meet the criteria exemption. That is the Campbell house in
Southold.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Lark represented the Mattituck Fire Department
last year when they purchased the first time and they did
receive an exemption last year based on the first one but they
also knew that they had to get the exemption in by March 1st
this year.
Mr. Henry: Who's responsibility is it?
Mr. Scott: We post notices in all the post offices and in the
newspapers.
Mr. Russell : We feel it is their responsibility.
Mr. Sullivan: For our record, can I get a copy of that notice?
Mr. Russell : Yes.
Mr. Markel: We can't do something for one and not the other.
Mr. Sullivan: I agree. Can we get a copy of the fact sheet for
our records also.
Mr. Scott: O.K. .
141) 1000-113-6-14 .4
Joel Kronin & Chizuko Kroin
890 Millers Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 7400, wants reduction to
1850. 1850 divided by 3 . 6 equal.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, those are the things you requested.
r 153 •
Mr. Sullivan: Read law for the last day for filing. Did you
send this out?
Mr. Scott: This one was sent out to the newspapers and also put
in every single post office in Southold Town and Fishers
Island. Also there are people on Fishers Island that are exempt.
Mr. Weinheimer: There are a lot of older people out here with
very low income and not very good about reading notices in the
paper how would you notify them if they miss it in the paper?
Mr. Russell : What we do, is people coming in to pay their tax
bill with only $6,000 dollars of income not knowing at all about
the age exemption so what we try to do is the best way we can
approach it is to go to the senior's groups and talk to Ed
Sigmann and other like that and let them know. I have been
and have brought a stack of applications and tell them to give
them out to everybody and hopefully saturate the area.
Mr. Scott: We also told the head of the tax pac so he could
notify everyone.
Mr. Weinheimer: You do mail out the form ahead of time?
Mr. Scott: Absolutely.
142) 1000-122-3-4
Maureen M. Mooney
11600 Main Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Filed by Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C.
Currently assessed at 3600 wants reduced to 1000. $27,000 .
No small claims, no Board of Assessment Review.
Mr. Scott: There is a fairly recent sale of $390,000 3/26/90 the
Riverhead Land Development to Daniel Mooney $46,000 cash plus
a mortgage of $44,300 that represents a total of $90,300 . In
addition there was a building permit in 12-91 for $5,000 so if
you took the 93,500 and use the RAR you would come up with a
figure $3212 and the Board of Assessors are putting that before
the Board of Assessment Review.
Mr. Markel: You just quoted it would be $3212, the other day
you said you round it out to the nearest 100 . Do you leave it
at 3,200?
Mr. Scott: No, 3,212 . We do it on a non court decision type
situation and always round it to the nearest hundred but when we
do it on decision, we do it to the nearest dollar.
143) 1000-117-5-34
410
154
Annetta G. Nordlinger
Orchard Street
New Suffolk, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 6,000 . Asking for a reduction
to 4500. In 1991 it went before the Grievance Board and they
reduced it to 4500 . In 10-91 it was reviewed and it was
reassessed to 6,000.
Mr. Scott: It was the opinion of the Board of Assessor's that
the garage which was built in 1989 26 by 25 at an estimated
cost of $2,250. We assessed it at $1.25 a square foot which is
consistent. Also, there was an extension on the back of one
house that we assessed that the 23 by 17 which is 391 square
feet and there was a basement under that section, no fireplace
so the correct rate for that section which was a brand new
addition was $3.25 a square foot. In respect to the fact that
the house had been underassessed at $2 . 00 and $1 .50, we did not
rerate that particular building. We only rerated the
section that was the new addition. There is also another
building on this piece of property which was down to $1.50 for
two stories and $1.00 for the one story which is about 66 to 70%
less than what the normal rates are. We did not change the
rates on that one. This is two structures, two residences, plus
a brand new garage. 650 square feet on one piece of property
and what we assessed it for this year was at the State' s
interpretation $178,041 and we respectfully differed with the
findings of this particular board this year and there is no
proof of value that is substantiated and we respectfully request
that we took into consideration the shape of the buildings and
we did not change the rate from the other portions and we think
we are being more than fair. They have 650 square feet of
garage. The drawing next door is for the residence, the picture
of the house with the addition is underneath this picture which
is not xeroxed.
Mr. Russell : I can get the original .
Mr. Markel: We won't need it today. There is just one
comment I might ask Bob. The other buildings are pretty old.
Mr. Scott: The one building is fairly old.
Mr. Markel : What do you mean by fairly old?
Mr. Scott: It predates the card.
Mr. Markel : This is in New Suffolk.
Mr. Scott: That is right, that is why we didn't change the
rates.
144) 1000-31-18-10
411
• 155
Daniel C. Mooney and Maureen M. Mooney
Rabbit Lane
East Marion, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 5700. Want it reduced to 4000.
Estimated value of $108,000. Nothing from small claims . One
family dwelling, nothing from the Grievance Board. Represented
by Meyer, Suozzik, English and Klein.
Mr. Scott: This has gone before the Grievance Board before,
this has gone before small claims before and they lost in both
cases. This is fifty feet on the water, this is on the open
bay, this is close to 1900 square feet of living space. They
contended at that point that the value of the house was $250,000
at that point and there are comparables on that street that
sold for a lot more what they are even assessed for, they are
under assessed at 5700.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have comparables.
Mr. Scott: I can get you comparables.
Mr. Markel: For decision day. One question, you just stated
a fact that it was brought before .us and went to small claims .
This would be advantageous if some kind of note was on the card
so that we could have the knowledge of it.
Mr. Henry: That would be irrelevant because everytime they
come through it is a fresh grievance that they are filing.
Mr. Weinheimer: You are right but it is part of the history.
Mr. Henry: Actually, if you put it on it could be prejudicial.
Mr. Sullivan. That is what I am thinking.
145) 10001-3-5-28. 1
Tullio Bertoli & Anthony Demasco d/b/a Landworks
Ludlam Place Greenport
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 15,300 represented by Meyer
Suozzi, English and Klein. Complainant believes assessment
should be reduced to 4,000. Estimated value of property
$160,000 . We're going to look at this later on. Nothing
before the Board, nothing before the court.
Mr. Scott: This is commercial property. It is multiple
dwellings with multiple apartments in it. It is in excess of
three apartments, I don't know how many they are using. At one
point there was nine. Sterling Square, formerly Oscar
Goldin. They purchase this property in 1987 for $577,000, the
assessment as it stands, well it doesn't even apply. Basically,
I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
110 410
156
Mr. Sullivan: I have two cards here, right?
Mr. Scott: No, there are more than two houses . O.K. , this is
only two houses which there are six apartments. Four in one
apartment and two in the other.
Mr. Weinheimer: Would it be required to have a profit and law
statement attached to that?
Mr. Scott: On this one you would have to. He is represented by
a lawyer, they are looking to go to small claims.
Mr. Russell: We would as assessor' s, we would fight to keep it
to small claims and move it to Certiorari for the simply reason
it is zoned commercial and small claims would be primarily for
residential . It is a corporation.
Mr. Scott: Basically, this should have been presented in the
Certiorari cases.
Mr. Henry: When you said the profit and law statement was
required.
Mr. Scott: It could be required, but not essential.
Mr. Russell: It would be in Certiorari Court but not before you.
Mr. Weinheimer: How can we make a decision if we don't know
whether he lost money or made money?
Mr. Russell : You would decide what should be required and what
wouldn't.
146) 1000-40-3-3 .5
Scott Corwin
64098 Zeckendorf Blvd.
Garden City, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Currently assessed at 8,000. Would like reduced
to 2,000 . Estimated current full market value $85, 106 .
Mr. Scott: They are taking 25% of the original value just so
they have something to play with. Mr. Henry uses 50%, Mr.
Segal uses 25% .
Mr. Markel: Automatically, that is his formula.
Mr. Scott: He is on that back right of way right next to the
Campgrounds of America. You can't see his house from the North
Road because it is about four to six hundred feet back from the
road.
Mr. Weinheimer: On the south side?
410 411
157
Mr. Scott: On the south side of the road.
Mr. Markel: Is that property zoned commercial?
Mr. Scott: His property is zoned residential only. That was a
four lot minor subdivision. There are no recent comps on this
to establish value.
147) 1000-4-3-3
John G. Brim and Maria Elena A. Brim
Private Road off East End Avenue
Fishers Island, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment is 59,500. Represented by
Stephen L. Ham, 45 Hampton Road, Southampton. Wants reduced to
25,425. 24,425 at 2 .55 equals $997,000 .
Mr. Scott: Mr. Chairman, can I help clarify this . The Whitney
Estate contacted the Board of Assessor's which at the time was
Charlie Watts and myself and around late August of 1990 they
said that they had been trying to sell it and they couldn't sell
it because of the enormity of the tax. Charlie and I took a
look at the rates that were applied over there which were in the
range of $18 a square foot and $14 a square foot and we saw that
there really was a disparity between what could have been and
what should have been. We told them that we would go over there
on a special trip to make an assessment change but it wouldn't
be in effect until the following tax year because it was after
taxable status and grievance and everything else along that
line. At least they would be able to present the figure to the
prospective purchasers in the future that there was a
considerable change in the potential tax consequences .
Charlie Watts and myself as a Board at that time reduced the
assessment from 115,000 to 59,500, placing more appropriate
rates. It is not the intention of this particular Board of
Assessor's to recommend that you change the rates on the base of
the purchase price because we feel that there is more value than
what is displayed in just the $997,000. We would recommend that
you do take a look at whatever figures that you are using by
using the RAR instead of the 2 .55 that the plaintiff asked you
to use. There has been a considerable change already.
Mr. Russell : If I could just expand on one thing, Mr.
Chairman. We just ask that you recognize that we have made a
effort to reach marketable assessment to these taxpayers and
despite the enormity of the size of the assessment, we as the
assessor's feel that the RAR would be the more appropriate of
the two despite their using the equalization rate on their
application.
Mr. Weinheimer: In other words, you didn't use the square
footage of living space did you?
411
158
Mr. Scott: Yes sir, we did but we changed it from $18 . 00 a
square foot which they have been using since 1963, to $8.50 a
square foot and $5.50 from $14 .00 and $5 .00. $10 .00 went to
$4 .50 and $5.00. There was an enormous change that we felt that
was more in keeping with what the rates were in Southold and
Fishers Island. If you can see, it would drop from 115,000 to
59,500. The other thing is the Board of Assessor' s at that
time, which was Charlie Watts and myself made a special trip
just for this particular house only.
Mr. Weinheimer: You said it was $8.50 a square foot. What do
we normally charge around here?
Mr. Scott: $5.50 but the materials and everything else to be
brought over to Fishers Island, there is cost involved in that
to bring that over. So, we usually add a dollar a square foot.
There also are considerably, this is a mason building which we
also add for that. This is also a three story structure.
Mr. Sullivan: O.K. , here we go for $5 .50 a square foot. Two
story with basement and fireplace. Is that right?
Mr. Scott: If we were going to go strictly on the basis of what
we have got there, $5.50? Which is the normal, a dollar a
square foot because of the construction, extra cost that is
$6 .50, stone construction on the outside, that is $7 .50 and the
extra floor is $8.50. That is what we went by.
Mr. Weinheimer: You applied that rate against the entire
square footage?
Mr. Scott: Not the entire, the $8 .50 you see here was the
$18.00. The other sections which were one and one half stories
were $5.50. There were some section that were one story which
were $4 .50.
Mr. Weinheimer: The final total is based on total square
footage.
Mr. Scott: Based on square footage and going in accordance with
what you have got there.
Mr. Henry: How long were those old rates in effect? From 1963
to 1990.
Mr. Russell: From a personal standpoint, I was opposed to the
reduction but I am not in a position to go and undo what the
previous assessor's have done. I thought the reductions were
too drastic.
Mr. Weinheimer: When was the high rate originally applied to
it?
Mr. Scott: 1963.
110
159
Mr. Weinheimer: It has been that high all those years?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, but the tax rate has been way down.
Mr. Henry: The rate is higher than the prevailing rates around
here. How does it compare with the rates on Fishers Island?
Mr. Scott: These rates that are there is place now are fairly
standard. The one's before were high.
148) 1000-110-1-12
Donald Betterbed
Michael Bender
Joseph LoRusso
Lawrence Williams
3350 West Creek Avenue
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Represented by Schaefer, Jr. . Currently 25,500,
Cutchogue Marina Corporation. Would like reduced to 15,938 . In
1989 it was reduced by the Grievance Board from $31, 100 to
$25,500.
Mr. Markel: Wasn't that the case where the Town was in
litigation?
Mr. Russell: It wasn't 1989, it was 1991 . This was formerly
Boatman's Harbor.
Mr. Markel : Was there formerly litigation in this particular
incidence?
Mr. Russell: That was Matt-A-Mar.
Mr. Markel: This came before us last year? What did we act
on?
What was our decision John?
Mr. Sullivan: We reduced it from 31,000 to 25,500.
Mr. Markel: Have any building permits been issued since then?
Mr. Sullivan: They want it reduced to 15,938 .
Mr. Markel : They want it reduced additionally from what we
reduced it?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, this would yield $625,000 . There is a tax
return for this corporation.
Mr. Markel: They are grieving on the Profit and Loss
statement?
160 S
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, unlawful checked and unequal . The
assessment of petitioner's property as set forth on the
application for review and as it appears on the assessment roll
is illegal, null and void since it violates S306 of the Real
Property Tax Law of the State of New York, in that all real
property in the taxing district is not assessed at the full
value thereof.
Mr. Markel: He is grieving on a business basis evidently if
he put a Profit and Loss statement in there among his other
grievances .
Mr. Henry: I think last year we had recent sale to go by. This
year it is a different set of circumstances.
Mr. Markel: There is a profit and loss statement, is that
right?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Mr. Markel: I suggest we look at it on decision day.
Mr. Russell: My only comment would be what the Grievance Board
last year, we haven't changed a thing.
Mr. Markel: We do admit that we didn't reduce it on the P and
L last year so we have to look at it again.
149) 10001-5-1-17 . 1
Tullio Bertoli & Anthony Demasco d/b/a/ Landworks
Ludlam Place
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Listed on tax rolls at 18,900, want reduced to
5,000. Estimated assessment value at $200,000 .
Mr. Scott: $577,000 represents the purchase price of both sides
of the street. The comments are the same as the other case so
we are not going to say anything.
Mr. Markel : The age of these buildings, has that ever been
considered?
Mr. Scott: There is depreciation on here, there was also
considerable amount of renovation that was done around the 1988
or 1989 done over in the 1984 period of time so that was taken
into effect. They were completely done over in 1984 . They are
all 10% depreciation.
Mr. Markel: What would you estimate the age of these
buildings?
• 161 •
Mr. Scott: Fieldstone, probably in the range of a good
hundred years, could be one hundred and fifty in some case. We
are trying to get a more standardized depreciation scheduled
that we could not only be able to agree among ourselves about
how it is brought about but also that somebody else can take a
look at it and understand it as well. It is hard to do because
there is wide variety and disparity for reasons of depreciation
and sometimes depreciation is listed as not necessarily the
right phase to use and can be misused.
Mr. Russell : Fundamentally speaking, there is two ages to a
home. There is the actual age when it was built and it is the
effective ago which is how much of a service length you get out
of what real property sits there. You can extend the age of the
house by putting more property or replacing real property into
the existing dwelling to clarify.
150) 1000-57-01-017
Barry Improte
Albacore Drive
Southold, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Municipal Information Services. Assessed at
11,900, wants a reduction to 8,925. 3. 37 equals $157,500.
11,900 equates at to $353, 115.
Mr. Markel : He wants 50% off of that.
Ms. Duffy: This house is 3,063 square feet in Southold Shores
on the canal . Deep water, I have two comps. One is a house
in Paradise By The Bay that is not on the water but just sold
for $380,000 which is a comparable home. The other one is on
Long Creek which is not navigatable out to the Bay. That just
sold for $295,000. It is a smaller house, it is beautiful but
the assessor's stand by their assessment. They paid $175,000
for the property in 1988 .
151) 1000-103-4 .0-017
John Ayoub
Little Neck Road
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 5800 . Wants reduction to 4350.
Nothing before the Board, nothing before the court. Purchased
in 1989 for $187,000
Mr. Russell : Indicated value for 5800, indicates a fair market
value of $172, 106 which is less at 3.37 .
152) 1000-103-7-3.0
George Bresler
• 162 •
Stillwater Avenue
Cutchogue, NY.
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 6,400. Wants reduced to 4,800.
Estimated current value $148,500 at 3. 37.
Mr. Russell: Indicated value would be $189,910.
Mr. Markel: Is that above or below the assessment
Mr. Russell: That is the indicated value.
Mr. Sullivan: Meyer to Bresler in 1990 for $165,000 .
Mr. Markel: It was purchased for $165,000 in 1990, do you
think the market value has deteriorated since 1990?
Mr. Russell: Before I would make a decision I would ask that
theyhave proof.
153) 1000-122-7-7 .0
James Hickey
Main Road
Southold, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 8200. Want it reduced to 6, 150 at
3. 37 gives you a value of $189,000. The value at 8200 would be
$243,323 . It was sold to Hickey in 1990 from the Riverhead
Holding Co. for $210,000 . Nothing before the Grievance Board or
the courts.
Mr. Russell: We would like to ask you to consider that the
Riverhead Holding Co to Hickey might have not been an Arms
Length sale, it might have been a financial consideration. All
I know is we had a couple transfers in a fairly quick period of
time. Three of them within the year of 1990 . I don't know if
they were quick to unload the house. I don't know, I just
thought it might be a possibility.
154) 1000-55-2-1 .2
Franklyn Born
Colette M. Born
2740 Old North Road
Southold, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 12,500, wants reduced to $250, 000,
assessed value of 8425 . $12,500 at 3.7 is $379,919 . In 1986 it
was sold to Born for $200,000. Nothing on the books since 1986,
nothing before the Grievance Board or the Courts.
Ms. Duffy: I would like to point out that they have a letter
from Bob Celic stating, the asking price was reduced several
• 163 •
times during this period and is currently listed at $289,900 and
they are asking you for $250,000. The North Fork Agency also
has it for $289,900. He does have almost two and one half acres
of property and the assessor's agree that this is a very large
house, it is almost 3400 square feet and it is a fairly new
house. Using the uniform method of assessment it does equal out
to a little on the high side but for your consideration I have
two comps here and they are both on half acres, well one is on
three quarters but they are recent sales. You might want to
make an adjustment on this one.
Mr. Henry: Normally, I would think a 10% deduction
Mr. Scott: In regards to that question you have here. What we
can only base, if were to make the supposition that you might
have to make. We can only make the supposition based on the
asking price or the predominance of the asking prices of which
are $289,900 . The purchaser next year based on a sales price
could reapply based on the sales price. I don't think we can
base an opinion of value on anything other than what he is
asking this year.
Mr. Henry: It is legitimate though considering the real estate
market conditions.
Ms. Duffy: I would like to say I have recent sales . I have
one, it is on .85 acres on Oregon Road, 2200 square feet. It is
1000 square feet less this house. It is an old home that was
renovated. They did sell it on 4-91 for $287,000. I have a
house on Maple Avenue in Southold that is 4200 square feet but
they sold it for $340 in 2-92 . From Lew Edson to Karvelis.
We don't have a lot of houses this size.
Mr. Markel: I can't say this is a very good comparison. The
type of area and that other home. You are saying it is slightly
high in the assessment.
Ms . Duffy: I don't want to make a recommendation, I think it
assesses out a little high, that's all. I think the Board can
take it into consideration.
155) Brian and Barbara Sheehan
490 Manor Hill Lane
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 9200, wants a reduction to 7414 .
$220,000 vs . 9200 with a market value of $272,997 at 3.37 .
7414 gives you a market value of $220,000 . Nothing before the
Grievance Board or the Courts .
Mr. Russell: We would like to ask you to recognize that those
letters of opinion are just that, letters of opinion. They are
dated well after the valuation date. No comparables .
• 164 •
Mr. Sullivan: What do the appraisal ' s have to be dated?
Mr. Russell : January 1.
156) 1000-33-2-8
Joseph Basile and Joan
695 Westwood Lane
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 8100. Wants reduction to 6970 .
Reduced by the Grievance Board 8-91 from 9700 to 8100 .
Mr. Markel : He is looking for an additional reduction?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes, to 6970.
Mr. Scott: The assessed value of 8100 is is $240,356 . As you
noted already he was offered $239,000, the RAR shows that the
8100 shows $240,356 . In addition, there was the Claudio' s
property up the street that sold for $270,000, that didn't have
a pool, which this one does . I think that the assessment is
fair at the 8100 especially as it was reduced from 9700 by this
Board last year. I ask that there be no changes .
Mr. Sullivan: Who was that Claudio? How much was it sold
for?
Mr. Scott: $270,000. No pool on the Claudio property but
there is on this piece of property. Claudio is #118 if you
want a reference.
157) 1000-102 2-18
Lillian M. Hamid
Main Road
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Currently 8800, wants it to 4900.
Mr. Russell : The 8800 gives you a indicated fair market value
of $261, 127 .00 at 3 . 37 . At 4900 represents $145,400 .
Mr. Sullivan: She has excessive assessment. The assessed value
of property is $345,000 .
Mr. Russell: I believe she used the equalization rate to
calculate $345,000. If you use the equalization rate your 8800
will bring you to $345,000 so I believe she divided her assessed
value by the equalization rate.
Mr. Sullivan: How about on the $220,000 . Is that based on the
equalization rate?
411
•
165
Mr. Russell: I think she is basing that on her appraisal that
she submitted.
Mr. Sullivan: The appraisal was done by Richard BivonaCRA,
SCV, RMU.
Mr. Scott: A certified real estate appraiser.
Mr. Russell: You will notice that the submitted appraisal is
for $250,000, not $220,000. This is the only proof of value she
submitted. Our indicated value with the RAR is $261,000.
Mr. Markel: So you are $11,000 more than the appraisal value.
Mr. Russell : If she submits $220,000 we don't see a foundation
for it.
Mr. Sullivan: 8800 at the 3.37 is $261 . 127 . Anything else.
Mr. Russell : We also ask you to notice that the $250,000 is
dated only two months before valuation date so we accept that.
It is our opinion that that would be very indicative of the
current value.
Mr. Markel : At $250,000 what would it equate to as assessed
valuation for tax purposes?
Mr. Russell : 8425 using the RAR.
Mr. Markel: Is that the same as she was using before?
Mr. Russell: Actually, she didn't calculate an assessed value.
Mr. Sullivan: When you use the middle one they put down the
total value. The market value and the assessed value.
158) 1000-111-15-1-4
Hermine F. Hillmer
230 Bridge Lane
Nassau Poing
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment is 14,400 asking for
comparable properties on tax roll . We' ll take a look at this
one later.
159) 1000-106-3-23
Mr. & Mrs . Nick Kopanos
Capt. Kidd Drive
Mattituck, NY
410 411
166
Mr. Sullivan: Current Assessment 3800. Wants it reduced to
$85,000 at market value. Excessive assessment.
Mr. Scott: Mr. Russell left a note saying that the comps that
are used are not sales plus they are not very comparable.
Walnut Place which is what the comp is is off of Factory Ave.
in Mattituck and it is definitely not Capt. Kidd Drive. The
3800 represents $112,759 with the RAR. Other than that we
have no comment.
Mr. Sullivan: What is it at 2 .55?
Mr. Scott: $149,019 .
Mr. Markel: What was the last sale in Capt. Kidd Drive?
Mr. Scott: I would have to check it, it is not my section so I
am not familiar with it.
160) 1001-2-5-33.4
Frederick J. McLaughlin
735 First Street
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: McLaughlin & Sczcepanik Funeral Home of
Greenport, Inc. . Assessed value of the property is $545,000.
Thinks the value should be reduced $350,000 . The assessed value
on the book is 13,900 .
Mr. Scott: The $13,900, I talked to the person Mr. McLaughlin
and that represents $412,462 .90 at 3 . 37 . We would recommend
even though it is a commercial piece of property that we take a
the late sale, and I 'm talking about 1989 of $348,500 times the
RAR of 3. 37 and recommend we change 13,900 to 11,744 .
Mr. Markel : Why?
Mr. Scott: We recognize that if he came in and tried to do it
on the basis of a income approach or something along that line
it would be much less than this. He didn't particularly want to
go to the Certiorari proceedings and everything else and he
would like some sort of relief but we aren't allowed to change
it on the basis of other than the way we uniformly assess so
that we recommend that we make this type of a change.
Mr. Sullivan: You say the RAR should be reduced to what?
Mr. Scott: $11,744 and this is a split decision by this Board.
Mr. Markel: What I can't understand is that you have
previously assessed this . This is a recent sale, so I assume
you reassessed it right?
•
167
Mr. Scott: No sir, we are not allowed to by law.
Mr. Markel : Alright, then you are using the old assessment
that was in place.
Mr. Scott: Since 1963 .
Mr. Markel: Now, all of a sudden you are saying that it
should be reduced and the reason is because you think that if he
came in with another application on a different basis, he would
be granted it? Is that your assumption? On this application
that he has presented does he mention the fact that he grieving
on a business basis?
Mr. Scott: According to the letter, I am going to retract my
offer and let you go on the basis of his letter. His letter is
saying it is $350,000 times the equalization rate which he
stipulates to be 2 .55 and I am going to offer no opinion on the
basis of that because that is different from our conversation.
Mr. Markel: That is what I am trying to bring out.
Mr. Weinheimer: So X-out your recommendation, right?
Mr. Scott: Because it is not what was stipulated in our
conversation before.
Mr. Markel: He is withdrawing his recommendation.
Mr. Sullivan: You are withdrawing your recommendation based on
the $348,500 sale at 3.37 .
Mr. Scott: I am going to leave it in the hands of the Board of
Assessment Review.
Mr. Henry: Is there a P & L statement with that?
Mr. Markel : No there isn't, that is the point I am trying to
make. How can a man grieve on that or bargain on that when he
hasn't submitted it. I think we have to look at what he has
submitted.
Mr. Sullivan: That is all we can do.
Mr. Markel : I know, but according to what Bob was
recommending.
161) 1000-139-1-1
Joseph & Constance Moisa
Westview Drive
Mattituck, NY 11952
I i
168
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 12,200, wants reduced to
7,600. 12,200 he says it is $348,000 and at the 7600 he says it
is $225,000 . Excessive assessment, no appraisal.
162) 1000-110-8-22
David W. McGahan
Douglas McGahan
235 Wicks Road
New Suffolk, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 6200 at .0337 equals $184,000 and
they want it reduced to $143,000 . We' ll figure that one out
later. Supporting statement.
Mr. Markel: Any history?
Mr. Sullivan: Brand new log cabin.
Mr. Markel: Log cabins have a current value.
163) 1001-4-3-19
Patricia M. Orfanos
529 Main Street
Greenport, Ny
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment at 6100, she says it is worth
$239,000 and she wants it reduced to $200,000. Excessive
assessment. In March 1990, 7300 reduced by the Grievance Board
in August of 1990 to 6100, December of 1990 reduced by small
claims to 4840, 1991 brought up to 6100, reduced by the
Grievance Board August 1991 to 4840, brought up to 6100 on
February of 1992 .
Mr. Scott: The Grievance Board in 1990 changed the assessment
to 6100 and the small claims hearing officer further reduced it
to 4840. The amount she was asking for at that point, was based
on the Village of Greenport's residential assessment ratio
which was no longer in effect. It was a erroneous figure that
the hearing officer couldn't figure out why it couldn't be used
because she lived in the Village of Greenport and there had been
one for the year ' 89, ' 90 but this is actually for the following
year which there was no RAR for that particular thing so we
returned it to 6100 because the assumption of the assessing
ability for the Village of Greenport was turned over to the
assessor' s on January 1, 1990. There is no RAR, no
equalization rates specifically for the Village of Greenport
when the complaint was brought before the Assessment Review here
in 1990 . She was under the impression that there was, there had
been for the year before but there wasn't at that particular
point because it was no longer in existence. The hearing
officer didn't understand that so she took the figure that had
been given her as to be the value which she accepted and did it
111
169
on the basis of 2 .21 which was no longer valid. She has then
gone back last year and again this year and claimed to the Board
of Assessment Review then and now that the value is
approximately $200,000 . The Board of Assessors this year went
back and changed the assessment to the original change that the
Southold Grievance Board changed in 8-21-90 of 6100 which if you
apply the RAR to it, it is $181,000 and we feel that it is
less than the $200,000 that she is saying that the house is
value which she states again in her letter today that she has
here. You would hope that I could get $200,000 for my house.
That is what she is saying is the value of the house. This is
what she is presenting in evidence. What the Board of
Assessor's are doing are returning it to the 7300 which is the
uniform method of assessment that we did previous to that, that
was reduced by the Grievance Board. We are reducing it to the
6100 that was originally judged to be the fair reduction to it
without the incorrect assumption on the part of the hearing
officer that wasn't explained to the Grievance Board last year.
Mr. Sullivan: 6100 at 3.37 is what?
Mr. Scott: $181,008 . 00 .
Mr. Markel : I think I asked you previously if you attended
small claims for the Town. Were you at this particular session?
Mr. Scott: I have been to everyone of these sessions .
Mr. Markel : Did you explain to the hearing officer at the
time that that was not a correct ratio to use?
Mr. Scott: Yes, and she chose to ignore it. I explained to her
that she was using the wrong ratio and she didn't understand why
it couldn't be still used because it was in the Village of
Greenport and there had been one for the year previous. But,
since the duties of the assessing for the Village of Greenport
had been turned over to the Town of Southold, you can no longer
have a specific residential assessment ratio for Greenport so
she applied it in an incorrect manner. We could have tried to
change it by filing an article 78 but we decided to leave the
assessment where it was and change it the following year which
was what we have done.
Mr. Sullivan: What was the RAR at the time she filed?
Mr. Scott: The RAR was ratio for that particular time was
2 .55 .
Mr. Sullivan: What did she want applied?
Mr. Scott: . 0221. 4840 divided by . 0221, her value that she
said at the time was $219,000 approximately. If you take the
$220,000 times the .0255 which was the RAR for the Town of
Southold including the Village of Greenport at that time, it
• 170
would be 5610. I think myself, and the Board, would accept that
as well. We wouldn't go any further than that.
Mr. Markel : 5610 instead of 6100.
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Sullivan: I would like to pursue this conversation later.
164) 1000-22-4-7
Elefterios Pittas
2175 Stars Road
East Marion, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 7,300, would like a
reduction. There is nothing filled out. He has an appraisal
for $170,000. Property owners current estimated market value is
$180,000. Incomplete. We' ll discuss it later. Form
incomplete, we cannot act on it.
165) 1000-139-3-7
Daniel Reiter
2650 Wickham Avenue
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 5900. Page three is
incomplete. Estimated full market value $160,000. We will
check this out later. In 1976 it was on the tax roll for 7300.
In February 1990 he went to small claims and he went to small
claims and it was reduced to 6975. In December 1990 he went to
small claims at it was reduced to 5661. In May of 1991 it was
increased to 5900, review based on compsGrievance Board
decision.
Mr. Markel : We would never raise him from 5661 to 5900
because actually if you look at the Grievance Board on 8-22-91
we reduced him to 5600. I think there is a mistake on this
card.
Mr. Sullivan: I 'm only reading what the card says .
Mr. Markel: As I analyze it John, the small claims reduced it
to 5661 on 12-18-90 and I think the next step was that the
assessor's put it back up to 5900 on 1991 and that writing next
to that line is in error.
Mr. Scott: No, it is right here 5-28-91 review based on
comps.
Mr. Markel: Then it came back in front of us again and we put
it back down to 5600. The assessor's have put it back to 5900
on 2-28-92 .
• 411
171
Mr. Sullivan: Are you saying that the 5-28-91 should be down
one more line.
Mr. Scott: Yes sir. That is not in correspondence with the
other side over there and it doesn't have to be. That is the
remark column only so it goes in order of the lines .
Mr. Markel : In any event, we reduced it.
Mr. Sullivan: You see where it says 5900 5-28-91, that belongs
down there. Now, when we reduced it to 5600 the 2-29-92 belongs
down there.
Mr. Markel : We reduced it in August.
166) 1000-104-7-1.3
Jane Sweeney
150 Mason Drive
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 12,400. Recommended by
Wickham, Wickham and Bressler. Wants it reduced to 7905.
Unequal assessment based on 2 .55 . Estimate of current full
market value $310,000. He has comparables and appraisals .
Mr. Scott: It is a letter of opinion and it is dated 5-16-92,
not 1-92 .
167) 1000-43-4-37
Mr. & Mrs . DonimickSblendido
and Angela Auricchio
185 Inlet Lane
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 5700 . This is incomplete as
far as I can see. They say in this letter that there assessment
was raised from 4100 to 5700 .
Mr. Markel : May I suggest we leave that for decision day?
Mr. Sullivan: Yes.
Mr. Scott: The only change here is the Grievance Board had
reduced it from 5600 to 4100 last year. The thing is that they
said they couldn't use that because of a problem with the Zoning
and the Building Department not allowing them to use this as a
two family house. We are not zoning enforcement officers . We
have to take a physical inventory if there is a substantial
increase and a substantial proportion of it for completion. We
have to put it down there as a estimate of value. There is an
estimate of value that this could be used as a one family
house. Not as a two family house. It is almost 3000 square
• 410
172
feet and about a block away from the water. We are assessing
this at what it was before it was reduced last year because it
could not be used as a two family because they went and did
something that was against the code. It still has to be
assessed for what it could be used for which is a one family and
not a two family which is their intended use because they are
having a argument with the Zoning Board but it should not affect
the value. 5700 was an increase of $100 because they had
completed some porches and some decks which was physical
inventory which was added. 5700 represents a completed value as
it stands right now of only $169,000 and we stand by that
assessment.
Mr. Markel: Didn't they have this in court as well as the
Zoning Board of Appeals?
Mr. Weinheimer: I remember that.
Mr. Sullivan: Going back which I did not do in the beginning.
It was assessed at 7300 March of 1990. August of 1990 it was
reduced by the Grievance Board to 4100 . March 1991 it was
increased back up to 5600 as a partial. August of 1991 the
Grievance Board reduced it back down to 4100. October 1991 then
increased back up to 5700 on a partial .
Mr. Markel : Do they have a C.O. ?
Mr. Scott: No sir, but there are a lot of other houses that
don't.
Mr. Markel : Is it saleable?
Mr. Scott: Yes sir.
Mr. Markel: At what kind of a price?
Mr. Scott: At a partial price which is what we have the
assessment at.
Mr. Markel : Wouldn't that be a for sale price.
Mr. Scott: No sir, because if somebody sells their house
incompletion, then they are going to get a partial price on an
incompletion if it is not finished.
Mr. Markel : Except, it now stands with a violation.
Mr. Scott: It stands as a violation because they are trying to
put a two family into a one family area. The walls are all open
so they can easily change it.
168) 1000-106-9-13
Stuart D. Wechsler
411 110
173
880 West Mill Road
Mattituck, NY 11952
Mr. Sullivan: Current assessment 16,700 .
Mr. Markel: That was originally split from another piece of
property.
Mr. Sullivan: It was assessed at 13,800 in 1989 . In December
1990 the small claims reduced it to 10,350 . Building permit in
1988 for $50,000 so the assessed value went up to 14,400. Sold
Rosenberg to Wechsler for $250,000 in November of 1988. In
August of 1991 the Grievance Board reduced the assessment from
14,400 to 10,350 . February 1992 assessment went up to 16,700 .
Mr. Markel: The pool was put in in November 1991 at an
estimated cost of $8,500 which included a deck and a fence.
Mr. Sullivan: Equalization rate of 2 .55 . Represented by
Wechsler, Skirnick Harwood Halebian and Feffer.
Mr. Markel : Evidently, he is part of the firm that is
representing him.
Mr. Sullivan: He says he believes that any increase over the
current assessed value would be unfair and unreasonable and if
anything a reduction would be in order. That was May 15, 1992 .
Mr. Weinheimer: What is he asking for a reduction to?
Mr. Markel: I suggest we hold off until decision day.
Mr. Scott: Since the last Grievance Board there has been a
considerable amount of work on that five story brick building in
the back of the property so that it is being used all the way up
to the top story.
Mr. Weinheimer: What kind of building is it?
Mr. Scott: It is like a jump tower or something like that for
fireman or parachuters or something like that. A considerable
amount of effort has been put into this one which is not
represented by Building Permits or anything else. There is
scaffolding right here in the picture which is one reason we
felt it was necessary for the Board of Assessor's to go back and
look at the total picture and reassess on the basis of use.
Mr. Henry: Are they living in there?
Mr. Scott: They are using it. Whether they use it as a studio
or a week end home or whatever the story is .
169) 1000-114-12-14 .001-14 . 007
174
411 110
Henry E. Appel
William Kluender
Francis J. VanManen
New Suffolk Ave. and OleJuleLane
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Sullivan: If you take a look at the last page, you will see
the property record card and it shows that this was the master
file for this particular subdivision. Previous to his splitting
the lots and us assessing them on an individual basis, one, two,
three, four, whatever the number of lots were. Since he has
gone to Certiorari for that one last year and it was still
considered to be in the Board of Assessor' s opinion valid on our
part that we change the assessment back as a whole because it
isn't a valid subdivision at this point. We took the sixteen
acres times the original $300.00 per acre and changed it back to
the 4800 so I think the complaint on this card he didn't take a
look to see what we had done and I don't think it is valid.
What we have done is what he asked us to do last year.
Mr. Markel : Has he received his subdivision?
Mr. Scott: Not at this point.
Mr. Markel : So, this is still in the same condition as when
he came before us before.
Mr. Scott: Except, it is no longer individual lots, we returned
this as a whole to one before he was getting individual
assessment for each individual lot that he had in the
subdivision. Instead of $1600 per lot, it is $4800 for the
entire sixteen acres.
Mr. Sullivan: Fifteen acres 16 .36 and then it is down to 8 .24 .
Mr. Scott: It is now the sixteen acres . Last year it was seven
lots that he came with.
Mr. Sullivan: I remember we had a big conversation on this .
Mr. Markel : I think the argument that we went on was the fact
that he was not granted a subdivision at the time. At the time
of his appearance, he did not have a subdivision.
Mr. Scott: Because of this particular case we went to the
Planning Board and we also went to the Zoning Board and any
subdivisions that are in process are not to be forwarded to the
Assessor's Office to be split into single and separate lots
until all conditions have met and then we will assess on that
basis. They gave it to us with the last two steps, the Board of
Health and the 60 days by the County and that was the custom way
of doing it in the past which is no longer the case in Southold.
410 110
175
Mr. Sullivan: Are you going to wait for this to come in from
Suffolk County.
Mr. Scott: We insist that the Planning Board not give it to us
until at such a time all approvals have been met.
Mr. Sullivan: We will have to take a look at this one.
Mr. Scott: I don't think he knows that we changed this back to
the original. This was addressed to the Board of Assessment
Review, this didn't come to us he came to the Board of
Assessment Review on this basis here.
Mr. Sullivan: We' ll discuss this more on decision day.
170) 1000-73-2-3 . 006
R.L.M. Realty of New York, Inc.
Off Oregon Road
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Represented by Siegel Fenchel & Peddy.
Current assessment 3900. Should be reduced to 975 .
Mr. Markel : Is there a building on the property?
Mr. Scott: 73-2 .6 is what they had listed and the assessment is
the same. You want this side and not the other side.
Mr. Sullivan: What does it consist of then?
Mr. Russell : It was an adjacent parcel which was inadvertently
attached to the card.
Mr. Sullivan: What does the building look like?
Mr. Scott: There is no building. It is just a vacant piece of
waterfront property on the Sound in Cutchogue off Oregon Road.
Mr. Weinheimer: What is the size?
Mr. Sullivan: 1. 10 acre.
Mr. Scott: The thing is on the other side, not to confuse
things any further. This was a couple of two females that split
and there was an argument between the two of them so they went
to court and one of them took back the property from the other
woman which had been a gift or something along that line so it
was a long legal situation.
Mr. Sullivan: Property owner's estimate of the full current
market value is $49,481.
Mr. Henry: He paid $250,000 for it?
• 111
176
Mr. Markel : Raeburn to Dempsey in 1987 for $150,000 and
Dempsey to Malekan on 7-88 for $250,000 and now it is only
worth $41,000.
Mr. Sullivan: Wait a minute, before we go too far here. Name
and address of owner: See authorization attached hereto. Do we
have everything?
Mr. Scott: Everything we have we gave to you.
Mr. Markel: We would like to see a comparison.
Mr. Russell : O.K.
Mr. Sullivan: No representative authorization. Can we get one?
Mr. Markel : There is a representative. Saul R. Fenchel -
Part Five: Certification. See authorization attached.
Mr. Sullivan: Do you have one?
Mr. Markel : It might not have come in yet, it is from a law
office and this particular law office as Bob will attest does
many of these. It is almost a common form.
Mr. Scott: I wouldn't mind a decision being made on the basis
of the land alone.
Mr. Markel : Is this particular case, I know they always send
in an authorization. Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C. and
most of the times it is Peddy who is on the complaint.
Mr. Sullivan: No signature of the owner and no authorization.
I just want to point this out for now.
Mr. Markel: I am looking over here and the assessment is 3900
is that right?
Mr. Scott: Based on the frontage which is down here.
Mr. Markel : Now I am looking at the size on this card which
is three quarters of an acre and this is a little over a acre.
This one is assessed at 3200 because it is a little smaller
piece and this is 1 . 6 which is five tenths bigger and it is
3400. There is a little bit of inconsistency there.
Mr. Scott: The basis of the assessment is based on the frontage
not the amount of property.
Mr. Russell : The function of value on the waterfront properties
in the assessor' s opinion is the amount of water frontage it has.
Mr. Wm. Weinheimer: You mean the number of feet.
110
177
Mr. Russell : Yes, the number of feet along the water. You will
find them at the same rate per running foot along the water at
the same level of $25 for unimproved and $27 for improved lot
per foot.
171) 1000-113-2-16
Barbara Senia
225 Rosewood Drive
Mattituck, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Represented by Cathleen M. Deutsch, Esq.
Currently at 5400 not 2800 . Estimated value of property is
$700 . Complaintant believes the property should be reduced to
$700.
Mr. Markel : What ratio are they using?
Mr. Sullivan: Not using a ratio.
Mr. Markel : What is the complaint?
Mr. Sullivan: Unequal.
172) 1000-109-2 . 13.2
Michael Asselte
Ralph Asselte
26705 Main Road
Cutchogue, NY
Mr. Sullivan: Assessed at 1900. Empty lot. Just about a half
acre 5 . 79 . Merged lots four and five. Purchase of the
property: Inherited.
Mr. Russell: There is a two car garage on it.
Mr. Scott: The hundred dollars for the improvements is for a
two car garage.
Mr. Sullivan: What are you looking at?
Mr. Scott: The last page.
Mr. Sullivan: Improvement for a two car garage?
Mr. Markel : There is no notice of a Building Permit being
issued.
Mr. Sullivan: I don't have any picture.
Mr. Russell: Generally, the smaller physical inventory such as
out buildings and garages, this one probably judging by the it
i 4
178
being only $100 for assessed value it is probably in a great
deal of disrepair so we generally don't take photos of those.
Mr. Sullivan: How can he put up a two car garage?
Mr. Scott: It is an existing garage.
Mr. Sullivan: Excessive assessment 1900 the two properties were
merged into one parcel on January 2, 1992 therefore we feel the
assessment should be lowered.
Mr. Weinheimer: What is the size of this plot.
Mr. Russell: 1 . 15 acres.
Mr. Sullivan: Covenants and restrictions were filed in January
of 1992 merging the two vacant lots into one. At this time a
copy was filed as I understand it takes a period of time to be
issued. My lawyer will send it when it is available. Full
value of the property is 1900. No amount for which he believes
it should be reduced to.
Mr. Russell: Just to clarify the issue Mr. Asselta had
purchased two lots from the subdivision 13.2 and 13 . 1 . In order
to get the approval to build the house he had to merge both lots
so we have the requisite number of zoning laws . What we did do
is we did merge the property and assign it a new number 13 .6 .
Our total assessed value on the property was merged. We have a
total assessed value of 1900 for the land and the barn which has
an equalized value using equalization rate of $74,509 . You will
notice that Mr. Asselta's own admission here is that it is on
the market for $85,000 asking price and his own estimate of
value is from $60,000 to $75,000 and we are within that range.
Mr. Markel: What would it be assessed at $60,000 .
Mr. Russell: 1530.
Mr. Sullivan: The complainant believes the assessment should be
reduced to blank. What does he want to reduce it to?
173) 1000-56-7-9
John E. Hassell
Dolphin Drive
Greenport, NY
Mr. Sullivan: On the books at 6700, land and house. Wants it
reduced to 5760 based on 3.6%
Mr. Markel : Is this an all year round house?
Mr. Scott: Yes.
411
179 •
Mr. Sullivan: Respectfully reserve right to adjust RAR
downward. He is saying 5760 at 3. 60 is $160,000 .
Mr. Markel: This is Southold Shores.
Mr. Scott: Yes, it is the subdivision immediately west of Mill
Creek Inn.
Mr. Weinheimer: That is considered a private road and
community.
Mr. Scott: Yes, and private beach.
Mr. Sullivan: What would be $6700 at 3 .6 would be what?
Mr. Russell : $198,813.
Mr. Weinheimer: Is that waterfront?
Mr. Scott: No, water rights.
Mr. Sullivan: Attached appraisal. Estimated marked value
$160,000 based on the appraisal .
Mr. Scott: The only comment we have to make is the appraisal is
as of May 15th instead of January 1 .
Mr. Weinheimer: Why is that less applicable because of the
date?
Mr. Scott: Because the valuation date is the first of January.
174) 1000-40-5-1. 1
Nancy Mazzaferro
130 Bennett Road
Greenport, NY
174)
411 111
Corrections to the 1992 Tentative Assessment Roll
Tentative Changed
SCTM# Name Assessment to Other
1) 1001-4-1-5 Watkins Vets Del
2) 1001-4-7-5 Gpt Ice Co 2300/12600 2300/9200
3) 1001-4-7-13 " " 1200/6800 1200/4900
4) 1000-15-8-26. 4 Feeley 1700/12100 1700/10200
5) 1000-35-5-4 Schroeder 1700/5400 1700/4400
6) 1000-37-4-13 Thornhill 2600/16200 2600/13900
7) 1000-37-7-4.1 " 2100/2100 1400/1400
8) 1000-40-5-1.30 Rodenburg 800/4267 800/3622
9) 1000-41-2-12.1 Staples 700/7800 700/3500
10) 1000-44.1-1-16 Miele Age Ex
11) 1000-48-3-42. 8 Conklin Vets Ex
12) 1000-51-3-2.15 Koch 2100/12200 1800/11900
13) 1000-55-1-5 Grigonis -3700/3700 2500/2500
14) 1000-55-6-15 . 45 Mandel Ex Del
15) 1000-56-1-2.6 Leonard 1500/11500 1500/9500
16) 1000-56-6-3 . 4 IDA 6700/59100 6700/52100
17) 1000-59-5-29. 3 Connors 600/600 300/300
18) 1000-59-9-10. 2 Widener 1200/4400 1200/3800
19) 1000-59-9-10. 3 Danek 1200/4400 1200/3700
20) 1000-59-9-10 . 4 Millman 1200/5000 1200/4500
21) 1000-59-9-10.5 Atkinson 1200/4400 1200/3800
22) 1000-59-9-10. 6 Gregg 1200/4100 1200/3500
23) 1000-62-3-34 Schelin 1300/9400 800/8200
24) 1000-64-2-12 Terp 800/6600 800/6300
25) 1000-69-4-8.1 Wesnofske 1800/11200 1800/6500
26) 1000-69-4-8.3 Wesnofske 1200/9500 1200/8200 Age
27) 1000-70-4-34 Dewey 1600/12900 1600/10700
28) 1000-70-13-20.9 Kyriakoudes 5200/21000 5200/20300
29) 1000-75-1-12 Jolliver 1000/4000 1000/3500
30) 1000-75-3-14 Foster 1000/3900 1000/3300
31) 1000-75-4-13 Seaman Vets
32) 1000-75-6-9. 5 Fristachi 1900/9600 1900/9100
33 ) 1000-78-3-51.1 MacKenzie 1600/4800 1600/4100
34) 1000-78-3-51.2 Sierra 1400/5300 1400/4500
35) 1000-78-3-52.2 Karanewski 1100/4700 1000/4400
36) 1000-78-7-20 Mooney-Getoff 5400/11400 4300/10300
37) 1000-79-3-5 Hamilton Vets
38) 1000-79-4-17 . 4 Lekich 1500/14700 1500/13500
39) 1000-79-6-3 .7 Perez 1500/4800 1500/4100
40) 1000-80-2-25 Hassibi 1500/10500 1500/10400
41) 1000-86-1-3 .3 B&J Realty 2100/2100 1900/1900
42) 1000-87-2-31 Kazemi 1800/9600 1800/9100
43) 1000-99-1-21 Alfano 800/6000 800/5900
44) 1000-100-1-22 Mazzarese 1000/6400 1000/6000
45) 1000-106-2-11 Cerny 600/5300 400/4000
46) 1000-107-8-2 Ross 900/6000 900/5600
47) 1000-108-4-7 . 43 Jacobs 1200/4500 1200/3800
48) 1000-108-4-7 . 44 Oddon 1200/4600 1200/3900
49) 1000-108-4-7 . 45 Davis 1200/4400 1200/3800
i r - • 111
50) 1000-108-4-7 . 46 Norkelun 1200/4200 1200/3700
51) 1000-110-7-18.2 Kofinas 8300/18500 8300/18125
52) 1000-111-12-1 Flynn 1700/9400 1700/8900
53) 1000-113-7-19 .14 Foster 3200/9500 1800/8100
54) 1000-115-6-20 Bialeski 1400/8100 900/7300
55) 1000-115-13-9 Fish 800/6600 600/6000
56) 1000-115-14-11.1 Parsons 900/6400 900/6100
57) 1000-117-6-32.1 Frankel 500/6700 500/5500
58) 1000-122-2-4 Jordan 700/7400 700/5550
59) 1000-122-3-17 Lyons 800/4200 700/3200
60) 1000-126-10-15 Smith 1200/5200 1200/4700
61) 1000-141-4-5 Zahra 1800/6800 1800/5000
411 410
Vacant Land
1) 1000-73-3-1 .1 Marlake Associates 120
2) 1000-84-2-4.1 120
3) 1000-141-3-30 North Fork Bank & Trust 311
4) 1000-141-4-2 " " " " 311
5) 1000-34-2-1 Jordon' s Partners & Ano 311
6) 1000-101-1-4.1 L & R Vineyards Associates 120
7) 1000-101-1-5.2 " " " 1, 152
8) 1001-3-4-31 Tidal Properties 330
9) 1001-3-4-47 " " 330
10) 1001-5-4-7 . 3 ARC Enterprises 330
11) 1001-5-4-31.1 Kontakosta, Emanuel 330
12) 1001-5-4-7 . 4 Kontakosta, Emanuel 330
13) 1000-51-3-3 .20 Chardonnay Woods Homeowners 311
14) 1000-51-3-3 .19 311
15) 1000-51-3-3 .21 Rego, Neil 311
16) 1000-73-2-3 . 6 R.L.M. Realty of N Y Inc 311
17) 1000-99-4-1 Vantage Petroleum 330
18) 1000-118-2-2 Pudge Corp 311
19) 1000-118-2-4 " " 311
20) 1000-118-2-1 " " 311
21) 1000-55-5-2.4 " 1, 330
22) 1000-113-12-15 --- Pirrera, Anthony 120
23) 1000-87-6-12.1 Airam Enterprises 311
24) 1000-15-3-17 Pirrera, Anthony 311
25) 1000-15-8-14. 4 311
26) 1000-19-1-12.3 " " 311
27) 1000-21-6-1/8 70 Marion Associates 311
28) 1000-30-3-1,2 1, " 311
29) 1000-30-3-4/13 " " " 311
30) 1000-31-1-5. 4/5.8 " 311
31) 1000-35-4-25 Pirrera, Anthony 311
32) 1000-40-1-20.1 " " 313
33 ) 1000-40-1-20.2 " 313
34) 1000-44-3-4.2 Snyder, Dorothy 311
35) 1000-44-3-4. 3 Southold Ventures 311
36) 1000-46-1-2.1 Aliano, Nicholas 330
37) 1000-49-1-25.2/25. 6 Pipes Cove 411
38) 1000-51-3-3 .11 Harmat, Cap Corp 311
39) 1000-59-9-30. 5 Aliano, Nicholas 311
40) 1000-74-4-4 Aliano, Nicholas 120
41) 1000-83-1-12/15 Pond Enterprises 311
1
• •
DECISION DAY
JUNE 5, 1992
The Board of Assessment Review Decision Meeting was called to
order at 9 : 10 a.m. present were:
John Sullivan, Chairman
Samuel Markel
William Weinheimer
Thomas Henry
Thomas Burdy
1) Robert A. Celic and wife
1000-114-9-14. 2
Denied.
2) Paul and Pat Kulsziski
1000-004-97-16
Reduced from 9700 to 8900.
3) Jeffrey D. and Susan E. Miller
1000-103-13-31
Reduced from 7500 to 5800
4) John and Barbara Prestia
1000-109-3-2 . 40
Denied.
5) Elizabeth R. Schloss
1000-87-1-1-8
Reduced from 7400 to 4400.
6) George and Norma Decker
1000-1-1-24
Reduced from 7900 to 4400
7) Island' s inn Golf and Country Club
1000-35-2-11
f i
Reduced 24,800 to 16,400
8) Angelo Milazzo and wife
1000-115-15-21
Reduced from 8,500 to 6,700
9) Patricia Egan
1000-100-3-15. 3
Reduced from 8100 to 6768
10) Shiela and Ronald Ricca
1000-74-2-2-12. 003
Reduced from 10,800 to 7,400
11) Gordon P. Beunow
1000-115-15-11
Reduced from 7,900 to 6,800
12) Joseph R. Henry
1000-5-1-13
Reduced from 3900 to 3600
13) Patricia and Steven Sprengel
1000-56-1-2. 30
Reduced from 7800 to 5100
14) John Marcin and Christine
1000-104-4-32
Reduced from 6200 to 3000
16) James L. Murphy
Reduced from 7700 to 6300
_1iNb
17) East raffDevelopment
1000-117-8-6
Reduced from 16,100 tod9.114— 7 qj ?
• •
18) Eugene H. Miska
1000-115-4-32
Reduced from 8400 to 5358
19) West Dublin Realty, Ltd
1001-4-8-14
Reduced from 9100 to 6500
20) Patricia A. Bailey
1000-97-17 ( 1. -. 2-. 3)
Reduced from 5300 to 2000
21) Patricia Heiser
Withdrew Application.
22) Penelope Candemeres
1000-56-1-2.20
Reduced From 7700 to 5224
23) Suzanne Clarke
1000-117-6-32. 2
Denied.
24) Eric and MaryAnn Alexander
1000-128-4-20
Reduced from 10,700 to 8425
25) Stephen and Carol O'Connor
1000-97-4-7 .1
Reduced 11,300 to 8425
26) Wolf Pit Associates
1000-100-5-3
Denied.
110
•
27) Therese M. Schwartz
1000-56-4-17 .1
Reduced from 11, 800 to 6167
28) Gus and Rose Sclaf ani
1000-56-1-2. 21
Reduced from 7600 to 5820
29) Independent Group Home
1000-61-3-1
Denied
30) David Saland
1000-125-1-2.25
Withdrawn
31) T. Martin
1000-117-10-20. 00
Denied.
32) L. Bauer
1000-126-8-26
Reduced from 5600 to 4718
33 ) J. Hubbard
1000-74-3-21
Denied
34) R. Gregg
1000-59-9-10.6
Reduced from 4100 to 2882
35) C. Kozora
1000-40-3-10. 3
Denied.
• •
36) K. Simpson
1000-115-15-24
Reduced from 7300 to 5561
37) I . Sawastynowicz
1000-109-2-18
Denied.
38) M. Tzavellas
1000-100-3-15. 5
Denied.
39) W. Henn
1000-66-1-1
Reduced from 5900 to 5055
40) Richard and Michelle Feeley
1001-2-1-19. 2
Reduced from 6000-4800
41) Kevin Flynn
1000-55-6-15. 41
Reduced from 8200 to 5729
42) Joseph Kollen
1000-55-6-15. 52
Reduced from 5200 to 4500
43) Richard Snow
1000-55-7-3 . 0
Denied.
44) Salvatore Rizzo
1000-59-3-16. 3
Denied.
i •
45) Jerry Gambone
1000-62-1-12
Denied.
46) Robert and Sandra Laub
1000-68-4-22. 0
Reduced from 10,500 to 9400
47) John Ryan
1000-70-4-37.1
Reduced from 9500 to 7751
48) Robert Covatti
1000-70-10-18.0
Reduced from 5500 to 4850.
49) Michael Morris
1000-71-1-24
Reduced from 9100 to 8000
50) Leonard Rosen
1000-78-2-12.0
Denied.
51) William Murray
1000-78-4-4
Reduced from 10,200 to 7414
52) Anthony D'Elia
1000-78-8-15.0
Denied.
53) Carl Holthausen
1000-79-7-1. 0
Reduced from 8800 to 7751
• •
54) Joe Schoenstein
1000-79-7-27
Reduced from 8500 to 6066
55) Stephen Perricone
1000-79-7-45
Reduced from 8300 to 6000
56) Frederick Bauser
1000-086-04-1.7
Reduced 8600 to 8000
57) Robert Henn
1000-98-3-28. 0
Denied.
58) Joanne Ship
1000-140-2-19
Reduced from 9200 to 7250
59) Wayne Langer
1000-55-6-15. 40
Reduced from 8300 to 6740
60) Marian Pell
1001-2-2-34
Denied.
61) Michael Loring
1000-108-3-8.8
Reduced from 16, 300 to 12,638
62) William Maxwell
1000-25-3-3 . 1
Reduced from 9000 to 6750
• •
63) Antonios Katsimatides
1000-35-8-1 . 2
Reduced 14,400 to 12,974
64) John Giannaris
1000-35-5-5. 4
Reduced from 15,500 to 13,952
65) Pierre Deneufville
1000-27-3-2. 3
Reduced from 7200 to 5900
66) Margaret Connors
1000-109-2-12.2
Reduced from 8300 to 6225
67) Halsey Staples
1000-41-2-1
Denied.
68) Jim Sage
1000-35-6-9
Reduced from 7200 to 6673 .
69) Harold Tribble
1000-139-2-5.0
Reduced from 12,500 to 10,100
70) Christine and Jonathan Baker
1000-107-2-2. 4
Denied.
71) Pasquale and Sandra Santaniello
1000-35-5-9. 0
Denied.
• •
72) Peter Cameron
1000-113-11-9. 0
Reduced from 6600 to 4800.
73) Richard Bozsnyak
1000-84-5-10. 0
Reduced from 5800 to 4700.
74) Stephanie V. Seremetis
1000-22-3-8. 2
Reduced from 8800 to 7751.
75) Nicholas Nicolaides
1000-15-3-44.0
Reduced from 10,000 to 8256
76) Barbara Kelling
1000-127-5-7
Denied.
77) Stanley Swanson
1000-141-2-15. 0
Reduced from 7500 to 5625.
78) Gustayson, Troy
1000-122-6-29. 1
Reduced from 25, 400 to 21,800
79) Paul Henry
1000-33-5-13-1
Denied.
80) Raymond Akscin
1000-33-6-10. 0
Denied.
110 •
81) Elizabeth Geyer
1000-35-6-35
Denied.
82) Robert Heaney
1000-38-4-9. 0
Reduced from 7600 to 6740.
83) Charles Digney
1000-52-8-4 .0
Reduced from 10,200 to 8,930
84) John and Joan Callahan
1000-54-3-26. 3
Denied.
85) Marko Anticev
1000-54-3-26 .4
Denied.
86) Joseph Irwin
1000-54-9-19.1
Denied.
87) Stephen Perricone
1000-121-5-3
Denied.
88) Gail Kar
1000-128-4-4
Reduced from 5000 to 3900
89) Mary S. McGahan
1000-110-1-4
Denied.
110
•
90) Barbara Kelling
1000-127-5-8
Denied.
91) Walter Dayton
1000-109-3-2. 25
Denied.
92) Russell Zellner
1000-95-4-18.30
Reduced 7000 to 5897
93) Harold Wicks
1000-98-1-7.19
Denied.
94) Greg Gurfein
1000-100-3-9
Reduced from 8700 to 6740
95) Frank Swotkewicz
1000-3-11. 16
Denied.
96) John Sormeley
1000-102-3-30. 0
Denied.
97) Evelyn Bux tis
1000-":03-17.-16. 0
Denied.
98) Steven ;N -e rney
r)00-105 - 1 -33
Denied.
• •
99) Susan and Terrance Sweeney
1000-107-2-3 . 1
Denied.
100) Scharon and Edward Schmidt
1000-117-6-16. 3
Denied.
101) Gus Lambrianidis
1000-107-2-3 .4
Reduced from 6400 to 5392.
102) Richard Van Caeseele
1000-109-5-25
Denied.
103 ) Paul Kendarich
1000-103-14. 2
Denied.
104) Roger Schait
1000-108-3-5.12
Reduced from 9200 to 6740
105) Thomas King
1000-113-2-6.0
Reduced from 6900 to 6572
106) Clifford Jones
1000-115-5-13
Denied.
107) Roscoe Palmer
1000-125-1-2.10
Denied.
411 4
108) George Aydinian
1000-125-1-2.12
Reduced from 7500 to 7245
109) Mitch Markowski
1000-125-1-2.24
Reduced from 9700 to 8425
110) Michael Sweeney
1000-126-8-6
Reduced from 5500 to 4212
111) Charles Anasagasti
1000-127-4-19.0
Reduced from 5400 to 4212
112) Sylvia Hagler
1000-5-4-19
Reduced from 4800 to 3060
113 ) George Aydinian
1001-5-3-18
Denied.
114) Kenneth Lockhart
1001-2-6-45 .0
Denied.
115) Barbara Radich
1001-4-5-16
Reduced from 3400 to 2864
116) Elizabeth Garrity
100" -7-3-11.1
Denie t.
117) Zapkus Kestutis and Gerald Gambone
1000-21-3-23
Denied.
118) William Claudio
1000-33-2-5
Reduced from 10,600 to 9500.
119) James Casey
1000-33-2-37
Reduced from 8500 to 6800
120) Maria Petikas
1000-33-3-12
Denied.
121) John and Nikki Kyriazis
1000-33-4-32
Denied.
122) Herbert Mandel
1000-36-2-26.1
Denied.
123) Thomas T. Shannon
1000-105-2-1
Denied.
124) Jane Leech
1000-79-3-11
Denied.
125) George Zachariadis
1000-103-5-2
Denied.
i !
126) William C. Thompson
1000-106-11-23
Reduced from 12,200 to 10,500
127) Pudge Corporation
1000-118-2-3
Denied.
128) Anthony Pirrera
1000-44-2-3
Denied.
129) Charles and Regina Mazzarese
1000-100-1-22
Denied.
130) John Leventeris
1000-3-10. 2
Denied.
131) Michael Leventeris
1000-3-10.1
Denied.
132) Frederick W. Koehler Jr.
1000-117-3-6
Denied.
133) Eugene K. Jordan
1000-122--2-4
Denied.
134) Angie Ioannidis
1000-3-15.6
Denied.
410
135) Alfred C. Halikias
1000-103-13-29
Reduced 8100 to 6403
136) Paul Contoveros
1000-1-13
Reduced 6000 to 4785
137) Frederick and Dolores Boeje
1000-115-6-3
Denied.
138) Judith DiBlasi
1000-37-04-01
Reduced 9400 to 8425
139) Henry M. Bogardus
1000-95-4-18. 037
Reduced 10,600 to 9200
140) Mattituck Fire Department
1000-140-03-9.1
Denied.
141) Joel Kroin
1000-113-6-14. 4
Denied.
142) Maureen M. Mooney
1000-122-3-4
Reduced 3600 to 3200.
143) Annetta, Nordlinger
1000-1 -5-34
Reductd 6(4,0 so 4500
• •
144) Daniel C. Mooney
1000-31-18-10
Denied.
145) T. Bertoli
1001-3-5-28.1
Denied.
146) Scott Corwin
1000-40-3-3 . 5
Denied.
147) Jim Brim
1000-4-3-3
Reduced 59, 500 to 33, 598
148) Donald Betterbed
1000-110-1-12
Reduced 25,500 to 20,500
149) Tullio Bertoli
1001-5-1-17 . 1
Reduced 18, 900 to 16, 065
150) Barry Improte
1000-57-1-17
Reduced 11,900 to 10,500
151) John Ayoub
1000-103-4-17
Denied.
152) George Bresler
1300 -103-7-3
Reducer 64u ) to 5560
•
153) James Hickey
1000-122-7-7
Reduced 8200 to 6900
154) Franklyn J. Born
1000-55-2-1. 2
Reduced 12,500 to 8425
155) Brian and Barbara Sheehan
1000-108-3-13 .10
Denied.
156) Joseph Basile
1000-33-2-8
Denied.
157) Lillian M. Hamid
1000-102-2-18
Reduced 8800 to 8400
158) Hermine F. Hillmer
1000-111-15-1. 4
Reduced from 14, 400 to 11,869
159) Nick Kopanos
1000-106-3-. 23
Reduced 3,800 to 2, 864
160) Frederick J. McLaughlin
1001-2-5-33 . 4
Reduced 13,900 to 11,744
161) Joseph Moisa
1000-139-1-1
Denied.
410 110
162) David W. McGahan
1000-110-8-22
Reduced 6200 to 5400
163) Patricia M. Orfanos
1001-4-3-19
Reduced 6100 to 4840
164) Elefterios Pittas
1000-22-4-7
Reduced 7300 to 6066
165) David Reiter
1000-139-3-7
Reduced 5900 to 5600
166) Jane Sweeney
1000-104-7-1.3
Reduced 12, 400 to 10,447
167) Dominick Sblendido
1000-43-4-37
Reduced 5700 to 4100
168) Stuart Wechsler
1000-106-9-13
Reduced 16,700 to 10,842
169) Henry Appel, William Kluender,
Franci..; VanManen
1000-11 \-12
Denied.
170) Reap:y
-J0-73- '-3 .006
Denied.
411 411
171) Barbara Senia
1000-113-2-16
Reduced 5400 to 4718
172) Michael Asselta
1000-109-2-13 . 1 & 13 . 2
Denied.
173 ) John Hassel
1000-56-7-9
Reduced 6700 to 5760
174) Nancy Mazzaferro
1000-40-5-1. 1
Denied.
End of Documents from Grievance Day 5/19/92