Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 Le-,: ` l RPTt. 730 (Rev. 1989) PETITION SMALL CLAIMS ASSESSMENT REVIEW RECEIVED IN COUNTIES OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY • (one petition per parcel) At 11.11W- '_ ---- Southold To Clerk PART I GENERAL INFORMATION SUPREME COURT, COUNTY OF Suf folk Fling I Calendar I TCyri 1. Assessing Unit of Southold 2. Dau of final completion and fling of assessment roll July 10, 1997 3. Auessed valuation on that assessment roll (a) Total S5,380.00 (b) Exempt amount if any —0— (c) Taxable assessed value (3a-3b1 S5,380.00 4. Data of filing (or making) petition A.Lclust , 1997 5. Name of owner or owners of property: Esti M. Naekel Post Office Address: 3985 Delmar Drive, Laurel, New York 11948 Telephone 1: 516-298-4641 6. Name and address of rpreeentative of owner, if representative is Wing application: M appicabls, owner must complete Designation of Representative section.) Thomas R. Hirschmann, Augello,Pezold & Firschnann P.C. 120 Main meet Telephone *: Huntinctton, New York 11743 (c16) d —!Holl 7. Description of property ss it appears on the Assessment Ron. 5486 28 Tax Maps Section Block Lot SCIM 11000-125.00-04.00-002.000 8. Location of property (street road. highway ncimber, and ctty, town or villegs) 3895 Delmar Drive, Laurel, New York 1 c 4 • • TO: J � �R Rif , Town Clerk FROM: Board of Assessment Review RE: REPORT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW - TAX YEAR l997/9'. DATE: 3 , 1v 1 , 1 dll Attached herewith please find for public filing in your office, complete file covering the public hearing(s) of the Board of Assessment Review, together with changes ordered by this Board to the assessment roll, Assessors ' acknowledgment, etc. The duties of the Board of Assessment Review for the grievance period covering the 199 /qP' assessment roll are completed. Ch man er c% r M-'•er Member Member Form BAR-4 RECTIVEin JUL 1 6 1997 Town Cleric Southold 7,',de,t 7//q sI, • III STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ) The undersigned, being duly sworn do severally depose and say that deponents are members of the Board of Assessment Review; that deponents have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; and the matters set forth are true to the best of the deponents ' knowledge. 410/o�jn before me this /S tday of JL4 , 19g7)400'dle . i A9 t784 `� ;r ► r It'd` ':''wry Public " ••--1- d '".-4' P%j-2,-/-L--/ Ch man Me er /"1,1/7 ber ` ��� C--7----)_ ; 6 6,.' (-&,,Z e_i t,.z_;,4_,) Member //41"tel-`-`e'- -- ‘?, .17/(-- ./ 5. . Member R.P.T.S.A. - 200 - 4/72 BAR-2 - Page 2 of 2 THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS HAS THE 1996 APPLICATIONS, MINUTES, & DECISIONS FOR THE 1996/97 TAX ROLL OF THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW IN THEIR OFFICE. I TO: MS J . _TE R RY , Town Clerk FROM: Board of Assessment Review RE: REPORT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW - TAX YEAR 199411 DATE: .2 , Attached herewith please find for public filing in your office, complete file covering the public hearing(s) of the Board of Assessment Review, together with changes ordered by this Board to the assessment roll, Assessors ' acknowledgment, etc. The duties of the Board of Assessment Review for the grievance period coverin the 1996//1 assessment roll are completed. )2 ar-te-z-e-41-; C rman Member Me er . , Member -,'- 40"-mber Form BAR-4 RICEIVID JUL 21996 Sfc flaithald 410 III STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ) The undersigned, being duly sworn do severally depose and say that deponents are members of the Board of Assessment Review; that deponents have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; and the matters set forth are true to the best of the deponents ' knowledge. .two n before me this 7 fdday o f �)G , 199C7 . (,11,a/VeigkIREYgi bot ar 016 Scare aT nlew'brk l�to.4879505 Qualified in ik County Comm .ni Expir ecember 8,19.26 /� �� (yt-.6_4_,..a_e_:,( «;! irman Member .'Lir. ' •vhf ,,Memb r v /Z,JA- .71 -,—_ -7 , _„,/ L- ).1_ . Member `i.o."-; ;2_.. y'mber - l R.P.T.S.A. - 200 - 4/72 BAR-2 - Page 2 of 2 1 GRIEVANCE DAY MAY 21, 1996 The Morning Session of the Board of Assessment Review began at 9 : 00 a.m. ; present were: John P. Sullivan, Chairman Phyllis Atkinson, Member William F. Englis , Jr. , Member Jonathan Wiggins, Member Jess Wolf, Member William Englis : Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the information that you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? State your name. Scott A. Russell Rob I . Scott, Jr. Darlene Duffy 1) 51-3-3 . 17 Trishia Sprengel Chardonnay Woods Southold William Englis : Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Trishia Sprengel : I do. John Sullivan: It is currently listed at $7,200, market value $217,000, and you are looking for a reduction to $185 ,000? Trishia Sprengel : Well, we paid $193,000 for the house and we put a $2,000 deck on it and that was last year and there are still lots in the development and the builder will build for that amount of money still. My husband thinks that the market value of the home has decreased but he will accept an assessment of what we paid for the house, with the deck added on, he thinks that it is $20,000 over assessed, cause that is not the market value of the house. John Sullivan: So you are looking for $185,000 market value? Trishia Sprengel : Well, he put that down, (referring to her husband) what we paid for the house was $193,000 and we added a $2,000 deck, so its $195 ,000 what we paid for the house. He put $185 ,000 down because the road has not been taken over by the town and he thinks that the value of the property has decreased, but we are not going to push for that . We are going to accept the market value of the house as we paid for it last year. S • 2 John Sullivan: The property owner estimated the current market value of the property is $185 ,000. Trishia Sprengel : Well he said that but, I don' t expect you to go below what we paid last year for the house. Bob Scott : Your seeking $195 ,000? Trishia Sprengel : Yes , we are seeking $195 ,000. Phyllis Atkinson: Do you have a copy of any proof of what you paid last year? Trishia Sprengel : Well, its on that assessment, don' t they submit a bill of sale? The price of the house is on here. John Sullivan: So you are seeking an assessment of $195,000 . In February of 1995 there was a partial of $5 ,000 assessment . In February of 1996, the assessment was $10,000 and was revised down to $7,200, which is equal to $217,000 . An inspected one family development in 1994, it sold January 13, 1995 from Regar to Sprengel for $193,000 and July of 1995 they constructed a deck in the back. Do you have anything else to say before the board? Trishia Sprengel : No I don' t. I just think that it is supposed to be assessed at market value and that is the current market value. If someone wanted to buy the house right now the builder would build the same exact house for $193 ,000 and there are lots still in the development . John Sullivan: Do the assessors have any comments? Bob Scott : Yes sir, as you said, the assessment of February 5 , 1995 , was $10,000 . There was a review at that particular point and an agreement was made to reduce it to $7,200. The agreement was that we would reduce it at the ratio which was . 34 at the time, at $212,000 . It was $7 ,200 . Trishia Sprengel : My husband did not agree. . . John Sullivan: Excuse me, excuse me. Trishia Sprengel : I 'm sorry. John Sullivan: It was . 34? Bob Scott : Yes, .34, and we would not make a MVA, market value analysis, until such time was in an agreement with the owner and that was for this year ' s roll . That ' s all I have to say, $195, 500 between the purchase price and the deck, I agree with that. There has been improvements probably through landscaping and things like that to the value of the property. It was an S I 3 agreement that we made with the owners, at the time, February 5 , 1996 to reduce it from $10,000 to $7,200. Otherwise, if there was going to be an action taken, we would not have made a review at that particular point. John Sullivan: And you understood that they had agreed and that was it for this year, That ' s your statement? Bob Scott : Yes sir. Trishia Sprengel : Do I get to rebut that? Bob Scott : Sure. Trishia Sprengel : There was no agreement made. You way over assessed the property at $10,000 and when my husband went down and spoke to you, you said that you would reduce it. He never agreed that he wouldn' t grieve it, because when we bought another new home a couple of years ago, we did the same thing. We came here and we reviewed it because the assessed value of the house equals the market value and what we paid for it. He never agreed, you don' t have his signature to any kind of an agreement to that. I don' t understand. He discussed the problem with you, its really over evaluated at $10,000 and even at $7,2000, its still $400 more a year and its going to effect if we have to sell the house, its going to effect the sale price of the home and even the affordability of the home. Its expensive and he never agreed that he was not going to grieve the taxes . There is no reason why he would agree to paying more than the market value of the home. John Sullivan: Any questions from the board? Jess Wolf : You mentioned you had another house in Southold? Trishia Sprengel : Yes, we built another house. Jess Wolf : Do you still have this house? Trishia Sprengel : No, when we bought that home we paid $157,000 and the Jess Wolf : I don' t need the details, you don't own both the homes . Trishia Sprengel : No, but that house was way over assessed also. John Sullivan: Ms . Duffy, you have something to say? Darlene Duffy: Yes , I just wanted to tell the board that it ' s been our experience that when you buy from a builder, the builder can offer a package, because he owned the land, he sub-divided I • 4 the land. He can offer a package of the loss plus the improvement for less than if you bought a lot and paid a builder to build this house. So, this is almost a 2700 square foot house, its brand new on almost an acre of property. I think the assessment of $7,200 is fair compared to other homes in Southold that are that size. When you buy from a builder, generally speaking, you can do better, from a developer. I am not so sure that if the Sprengels bought an acre of property and hired a builder to build the house or if someone bought an acre and built that house that it would sell for this price. I think Mr. Dinacola who was the developer, can offer a better price and I don' t think that the values have gone down, I think they have gone up in Chardonnay Woods . John Sullivan: How large of a house did you say she had? Trishia Sprengel: It ' s 2000 square feet . Darlene Duffy: No, it ' s 2668, the house by itself. The garage is 525 . Trishia Sprengel : Where do you get that, the basement, you are talking about the extra 600? Darlene Duffy: No. Trishia Sprengel : The house is 2000 square feet. Darlene Duffy: According to the assessors who measured the house, its 2668. We take exterior measurements, by the way. Phyllis Atkinson: Obviously you don' t have anything with you to show that its 2000 square feet, you weren' t anticipating this question. Trishia Sprengel : No, I wasn' t. Bob Scott : In an effort to expedite that particular portion of it, we can go to the building department and pull the plans out. They would have a copy of the square footage. I would rather clear it up for both sides, to be quite honest with you. Phyllis Atkinson: I think there is a big difference between a 2000 square foot house and a 2600 square house. Jonathan Wiggins : There is 1436 square feet on the first floor and 1262 feet on the second floor? Trishia Sprengel : Well, the interior space is 2000 square feet . It might be 2100 . I just know it wasn' t much more than 2000 . Can I also say something? As far as the property value increasing, the town has not taken over the road because the III III 5 builder hasn' t put in street lights or adequate fire hydrants, there are numerous things he hasn' t done, so we have to pay for snow removal, we have to pay for someone to mow the grass . I don' t think that the property values have increased there. He hasn' t sold a house in a year and there are at least three other lots that he has . So, to say that this house is worth more than what we paid for, if it was then why are there still three lots on the street that are unsold and he would build a house for the same amount of money. Bob Scott : Mr. Chairman, in response to that argument would you take a look at the flip side of it and see how many houses have been started and built this last year in a small development such as Chardonnay Woods, especially Phyllis and John because you are in the real estate section of it, to have that much development and that much action in a short period of time, show that there is an active interest in that particular community and that the values are standard and there is a need and a want to be in that particular community. The other thing is, it is a choice on the part of the people when they purchase the property to purchase in there and they have to be knowledgeable at the point of closing that it is not dedicated to the town. So it is a choice on their part to be on a road that is not dedicated to the town. Its a choice and it is a private road at that point and people can be asked not to be on that road. John Sullivan: Fine. Jonathan Wiggins : When that sub-division was granted, didn' t the developer have a contract of source with the Southold Town that he would improve these roads to the point where Southold Town wouldn' t take so long to improve it. Bob Scott : I can' t tell you that . They have a choice, the developer has a choice. . . . Trishia Sprengel : It is part of the deal when we bought the house. Bob Scott : They have to have it to a certain standard, they don' t have to have the roads dedicated to the town. That ' s not a requirement. If the association chooses to have the roads to a certain grade which is approved by the town engineer, then they can turn the roads over to the town for approval at that particular point, but if they choose not to, there is no reason why they can' t continue to be a private association on their private road. It is the matter of choice on the part of the developer and now the homeowner ' s association whether or not it is dedicated to the town. Trishia Sprengel : That is not the issue right now. The issue right now is that we are fighting with developer to do the . ! 6 improvements that he promised he would do in order for the town to take over the road. We don' t want to have to pay the extra $600 to $700 a year just for snow removal and someone to come in and mow the open areas . We have not chosen not to have the town, right now the builder is refusing to do the improvements . John Sullivan: Do you have any further questions? Scott Russell : I was just going to comment . The one thing that is important to remember is that people are not entitled to get reductions based on what they paid for a house. They are entitled to consider the market value, not purchase price. This is a developer and builder who put these packages together. This was also a man, if you remember, who was selling lots at auctions not too long before this because of economic circumstances and I think that unfortunately that sales price is more an indication of the financial circumstances of a buyer and seller than an actual market value. We also, as a township, as you all know, assess on a replacement value for those properties . I think that if you would thoughtfully blend the replacement value from a market point of view on the construction of that home to the sales price, you would come up with exactly what we are indicating which is $216,000 which is an extremely fair, I think, equation considering that we waived that purchase price pretty heavily. It is a consideration we don' t give too many people and it is not our requirement to reflect the sales price. Trishia Sprengel : Well, if the assessment is based on the market value and the market value is indicated in the sales price, you also have to consider that he is a builder. If I were going to rebuild the house I would probably do a better job. I mean you have to think about, you have to say how big it is, but how well is it built, I mean what kind of construction did he use. If I were going to sell the house right now, I wouldn' t expect to get any more that what we paid for it because it is not worth any more that what we paid for it. And that is what it says right here, that the assessed value of the property is supposed to equal the market value, you can talk about the other homes that are there, but if you want to talk about the materials and workmanship of the home, the house is built to reflect the price. If I want to go out I could spend alot more on quality materials , that is also a concern so the house is not worth more than we paid for it and I know I couldn' t get any more. Scott Russell : I would say that again, when you look at a replacement value, coupled with the sales price and blend those values, it is given them the consideration of what they paid for the house and we have done that fairly and you have to remember that all these other houses out here assessed at just replacement value. It is not fair to all those other homeowners . If they have personal circumstances with the builder that ' s probably an issue to go before the Civil Court and not before the Board of s S 7 Assessment Review. I would like to know what the appraisal said. Did you get an appraisal? Again, I would say a sales price also reflects one point of value. Market value is a range of value, there is not one fixed point of value, its a range. Trishia Sprengel : If you can go into that development and buy that house for what we paid for it, that is the market value. If there are other properties available and the builder is going to build the same house for the same amount of money I don' t see what other properties have to do with it. That ' s the market value. The last time I grieved I had the same problem and you said market value okay, what you paid for price, that is how we are going to assess the value of home. I didn' t have any problem three years ago, and I don' t know why this is an issue now. Jonathan Wiggins : We are certainly going to consider everything. John Sullivan: Any further questions? Okay Ms . Sprengel, we thank you for your time. We will not be making any decisions today. We will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you again. Trishia Sprengel : Okay. Decision - motion to reduce current assessment of $7 ,200 to $6,475 , based on the selling price. John Sullivan: Any other motion? All in favor. one, two, three, four. 2) 96-2-3 Diane Schullman Rabin 4880 Depot Lane Cutchogue William Englis : Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Diane Schullman Rabin: I do. John Sullivan: Please state your name and be seated. Diane Schullman Rabin: Diane Schullman Rabin. John Sullivan: This is 96-2-3, assessed at $17 ,200. Jess Wolf: Is this a residence or a commercial property? III • 8 Diane Schullman Rabin: It is zoned Limited Use Business . It ' s being used as commercial. John Sullivan: 4880 Depot Lane, Cutchogue, Town of Southold? Diane Schullman Rabin: Yes, just north of the book store on the same side of Depot Lane, just north of the railroad tracks . On the right also, the east side. John Sullivan: What property is there? Diane Schullman Rabin: Just before the house. Its a property with a barn that was built in the 1920 ' s and several small. . . . that ' s correct . . .right next to the tracks . (unintelligible) Diane Schullman Rabin: Well I am an owner of Jerry Schullman Produce. We are potato packers and vegetable shippers . We had been predominantly shipping off of Long Island, probably about ten or twelve years ago as agriculture diminished here we got into other areas . We are tenants in that property. Lebanon Chemicals is the owner and we have a contract if you see the papers attached. We ' re the contract vendor to buy that property. We are waiting for the papers from them to close. They are going to be sent through the mail for the closing. We have formed a separate limited liability preparation, East End Reality, to buy that property and you' ll see that there is an assignment also the last pages that are there are showing Jerry Schullman assigning that contract to East End Reality, but East End Reality is not going to be used for anything other than that. We are not starting a real estate corporation to buy or sell real estate, its just to own that property. Jess Wolf : And you are using it for? Diane Schullman Rabin: It is still to be used for potato packing. It has been used that way since it was built in the 1920 ' s and it came to our attention that we should check into the amount of taxes we were paying on the property, and when I spoke to Mr. Scott, based on the tax assessment of $17,200, they have the property valued at $620,000 . We are in contract to purchase for $150,000 . The property has no use to anybody as is exists with the buildings on it as they exist other than to us as a potato packing building. If someone else, or if we were to sell that property, I can assure you that those buildings would be knocked down and it would just have land value. The original, the main building that is there was built in approximately 1927 . That is where the potato packing is done inside that main shed which is the biggest building that goes right up to the tracks . Phyllis Atkinson: How much property is there? S 9 Diane Schullman Rabin: It is 2 . 2 acres of land, I believe. John Sullivan: It is an old barn? Diane Schullman Rabin: Yes , basically. There has been almost no improvements to it. It ' s in its original condition. The stairs to the basement are the original stairs, the attic, everything is pretty much as it was built in the 1920 ' s . Jess Wolf : Are you going to make any changes? Diane Schullman Rabin: Other than possibly fixing the roof a little and minor repairs to the exterior, no we are not planning to make any changes to the property. There is a building behind it, a concrete building directly behind the packing shed that ' s is our labor camp. We have a crew of people who live there pretty much year round. That also needs some minor repairs . Jess Wolf : Is that part of this property? Diane Schullman Rabin: Yes , it is part of the same property. There are four buildings on the property. The biggest is the potato packing shed, that is the oldest, just north of it is a building that is used on and off as a fertilizer/storage building, it has a cement floor and that I believe, I don' t have the numbers in front of me, is about 4000 square feet and then there are two buildings to the east, one has a steel roof and it is used for storage for potato bags , and then there is the labor camp just next to that, a dormitory. Jess Wolf : How many people does the dormitory hold? Diane Schullman Rabin: I say maybe seven or eight people are living there at any given point in time. It is the same people living there year round. They are predominantly to pack potatoes for us which generally starts in the beginning of August and extends into the end of February, possibly into March, depending on the crop. But we feel that based on the value for this property and based on what we are paying for it, and the taxes that it is assessed for, we think that it is grossly over valued. We think that if our costs are this high as I stated in my notes, we would not be able to keep the shed open and we have six or seven farmers that we represent. We are packing their crop of potatoes , they have no other alternative but to bring their potatoes to us . We are making a commitment to them and we think to the town also by buying this property and to keep this property going. Jonathan Wiggins : You are saying you have a contract, I have not looked at the file, you have a contract to buy for $150,000 . Diane Schullman Rabin: Yes, $150,000 and we are buying it from S 10 our landlord. They put it up for sale about a year ago and they were asking $190,000 . No one was really interested in that price. We offered them $150,000, I believe it was last March or April of 1995 when they first put it up for sale. We entered a contract with them this past March for $150,000. Jess Wolf : May I ask what you are paying in annual rent? Diane Schullman Rabin: $12,000 . Jonathan Wiggins : What payments do you receive for those staying in the dormitory? Diane Schullman Rabin: If they can afford to pay us something, they will pay us something. It depends on how much packing we do. We pay them by the packages they produce. If it is a slow week or the start of the season, we may not pack every day, we may not pack full days, if they can afford to give us something they will, if not, we don' t charge them anything. If we did not have our crew, we would have no reason to have the building. So we are not out to strangle them for money. We need them there. Phyllis Atkinson: Are you a principal in East End Reality? Diane Schullman Rabin: Yes , my name is listed on the assignment as the organizer and I am also a principal in Jerry Schullman Produce. John Sullivan: I ' ll hear the assessors comments . Scott Russell : Just to get some of this information on record. The subject is a total of about 13,612 square feet of rental value. What the rental value is I don' t know. We just had a sale this past year of a similar building in Cutchogue, which is commercial property which is a Morton building, its a newer building. The quality of the construction of the Morton building I don' t think is as good as the older wood barns, but there is certainly might be some working on the (unintelligible) to assume better shape. It was actually a smaller Morton building, it is 12,000 square feet, that sold for $410,000. The subject sale, I don' t know if its a real relevant factor in the assigning of value to this property, first of all, technically it is not an arms length sale, its already a tenant/landlord relationship. I don' t know what circumstances led to the sale, I don' t know the first thing about Lebanon Chemical Company, other than to know that they haven' t done business on the east end for a long, long time. If they were able to get a good price through a fire sale, more power to them, but it doesn' t necessarily mean that the assessment should reflect that deal on the market. With 2 acres of zone business property, it is zones limited business, which in the Town of Southold, permits a variety of uses . Not the least of which is storage and among limited retail, a restaurant can be ilk, • 11 permitted in a limited business zone. Two acres of commercial property, realistically, I have not seen, at all, even in this depressed economy, any commercial property in the town that is worth $75,000 in income. It is just not consistent with the market, and that two acres of commercial property before you factor in the value of the structures which are all there for the most part. We went down and looked at the property ourselves last week. The buildings , most of the buildings are fair and are in good working order and there is a 1200 square foot building that can be used for residential purposes. We would really need time to look at this situation and see what the appropriate value is on it towards a piece of commercial property. I don' t know if $150 ,000 can be considered, at least certainly the assessors would have a hard time viewing $150,000 as a legitimate to that value. It could be one factor considered but I don' t think it ' s a legitimate factor to the property. Phyllis Atkinson: Where is the property that is comparable to what you are referring to? Scott Russell : That is on Oregon Road. It is what was formally the Dave Al property. It ' s the morton building, a 12,000 square foot morton building, its constructed up along Oregon Road, north of the Cox Lane Industrial Park. Jonathan Wiggins : How large is that piece of land? Scott Russell : That ' s a five or six acre piece of property. I don' t know if they have full use of all six acres though, that was a sub-division that was done in the mid to late eighties . I do know that the current owner of that property that paid $410,000 was just issued a stop work order because he tried to expand the business up there. So I need time to look into see how much of that six acres he can use for commercial purposes. The size of the property doesn' t necessarily mean that all of his six acres is on commercial. I do need time to comp, sales, I just haven' t had time. She contacted us last week and we do need time to thoughtfully look at these sales and figure out how they are comparable or if they are comparable. Phyllis Atkinson: You have other sales that you are going to look at? Scott Russell: We are going to look at quite a few sales, commercial property sales . Jess Wolf : Apart from whether you evaluate this property group as other sales, the fact of the matter is that there may be a (unintelligible) closing wasn' t set until today. Diane Schuilman Rabin: Well, we were waiting for the papers to come in the mail, it was imminent. • 12 Jess Wolf : Yes , it kinds of limits us in the sense in making a decision one way or another because you don' t officially own this property. Diane Schullman Rabin: Well, if you look at the papers they are signed by the president of Lebanon Chemical assigning me as representative. Jess Wolf : Then they will be ignored. It is not an accomplished deal yet. They could back out, you could back out. Diane Schullman Rabin: I was told as contract vending that we had the right to file these papers . Jonathan Wiggins : Do you have the documentation that it states that you have the authority to. . . Diane Schullman Rabin: If you look at the back page it is signed by Katherine Bishop. Can I make a comment about that property on Oregon Road, that he was referring to? I 've seen that property. We went and looked at it, to the extent that we could. We didn' t actually go into the building, when we were talking about buying this property. There is really no comparison between that property and ours aside from the size of the land. I don' t know the date that the building was built, but its an aluminum or steel building, its much newer than this property, you would have untold value to anybody would use a as warehouse, a storage facility and this building, as it stands, has a basement with a ten foot ceiling and stairs down to it that were built as the original stairs in the 1920 ' s . There is really no use to it as it stands now for anybody other than a potato packing shed, and we don' t have a 12,000 square foot in one entire building as that property on Oregon Road. We have four different buildings, one of which is not usable other than to put potato bags in. There is really no comparison. I don' t see it as a comparison at all. We have had a hard time finding comparable property. This is used for agricultural use. It is the last remaining packing shed on the Island. There is nothing else like it . You are not going to find a comp like it . John Sullivan: When was this grievance filed for? Bob Scott : Just today. Scott Russell : As a point of clarification, is Katherine Bishop, is that the representative for Lebanon? Diane Schullman Rabin: Yes, she is the officer of Lebanon that signed this, she is also the person that signed the contract of sale. We are just waiting for the closing papers to come for the financing. Its just a matter of their signing the papers . They are in Pennsylvania. Their attorney is going to send the papers 4 13 through the mail and we are going to close at our attorneys office here, without them being present . John Sullivan: Chairman, you are requesting additional time for this . Scott Russell : Yes, also perhaps we could get some letterhead with Katherine Bishop' s name on it . I 'm sorry I don' t mean to step on your toes but, the designation is by someone by Katherine Bishop. It ' s remarkable that Katherine' s handwriting is the same as everyone else ' s on the application and I would just like to know who she was . I don' t even know who I am dealing with. Diane Schullman Rabin: If you look at a copy of the contract of sale, her signature is there as an officer of Lebanon Chemical Corporation, on the last page, my signature, and her signature and I think that for the record it should be noted that I think that we have a reason to be maligned here. Scott Russell : Oh, we are not trying to do that, we are just trying to cover all our basis. We would very greatly appreciate time to comp this out to several other commercial property consultants . John Sullivan: This is May 21, so today you had just filed this . Diane Schullman Rabin: That is correct . Phyllis Atkinson: Are you financing this property? Diane Schullman Rabin: We are paying cash for it . Phyllis Atkinson: So there is no reason to have an appraisal? Diane Schullman Rabin: Well, I will be frank with you. There was an appraisal done about a year ago, last June or July we had an appraisal done. We felt that the appraisal also was high. The appraisal came in a price of $235 ,000 and I was told by Mr. Scott that some of the comps that were put into there were not necessarily accurate. I am not sure if they used the wrong zoning description for one of the comps, we don' t feel that there is really a comp to compare this to. As Mr. Russell said, you can go out and look at other commercial property that sold recently, but you can' t compare it to the property and the buildings that are on this property. It is right on a railroad track. You are not going to put a building on a railroad track, you are not going to put some kind of fancy store on a railroad track. It is not a desirable location. At one point they were using rail cars to bring potatoes out to Long Island, it is not being done anymore. S • 14 Scott Russell: With all due respect, the restaurant right across the street from this property just sold for $200,000 on three quarters of an acre of the same zone and the is the Blue Top, and that is a $200 ,000 sale. So someone doesn' t mind putting a restaurant near a railroad track. I wouldn' t suggest that anyone would buy this property and turn it into a restaurant, it is just to give you an indication of the plenty of uses that are left . Limited business as a term is a little bit misleading. Limited business in the Town of Southold is pretty permissive business use. Phyllis Atkinson: When Scott researches the comparables if you could find what Henasy paid for his property. Bob Scott : $245 ,000, that ' s including the building, that was about three years ago. Jess Wolf : Is that taking into account the income extreme. Bob Scott : No, that was the cost of the lot plus the construction of the building. Jonathan Wiggins : You say this main building is how old, 1920 ' s? Diane Schullman Rabin: 1927 approximately. Jonathan Wiggins : Would you mind letting me see the appraisal that you have there. Diane Schullman Rabin: I don' t have it with me but I could either mail it or fax it, in its entirety. John Sullivan: How much time would you need on this? Scott Russell: Whenever you would want to reschedule it. We would do the best we can to meet whatever deadline you give us . Commercial appraisals are rather involved and quite difficult . John Sullivan: That is why I am asking you. I want to give you reasonable time but I want to make it within our comp lines too. Scott Russell : We would prefer as much time as you can give us but something in the order of a week of so would be greatly appreciated. John Sullivan: Tuesday the 28th, 1 :00 pm. Diane Schullman Rabin: This gentleman is Jerry Schullman who is founder of the business he happened to be with me today. He would like if necessary to attest who Katherine Bishop is . Would you like to swear him in or would you just like to take his verbal note if Mr. Russell has a problem with the signatures on 15 the paper. He is the person who negotiate the contract initially. Jonathan Wiggins : Well really she will be the signature on the contract of sale and she now owns the company who owns the property and it is on record and they to you at the time of closing. Phyllis Atkinson: Katherine Bishop is president of Lebanon Chemicals. She is vice president of Jerry Schuilman Produce. John Sullivan: We will adjourn this until the 28th of May, 1996. Will that be it? We would like to thank you and we will see you on the 28th. Diane Schuilman Rabin: Okay, thank you very much. This next section is the board of assessment conversing about the decision they had made regarding the Sprengel property in Chardonnay Woods . There is question as to whether or not they should open it up because not everyone is comfortable with the decision that was made. John Sullivan: There was a partial of $5 ,000 in 1995 , it went to $10 ,000 in February of 1996, which was reduced to $7 ,200 in February 5, 1996. Market value adjustment was $212,000 X . 034 = $7,208. How do you feel about opening this up again? Phyllis Atkinson: Obviously we have somebody who is not to happy so lets open it up and discuss it again, I don' t want to discuss it forever. . . .but if somebody is uncomfortable with it, lets hear it . William Englis : I make a motion to change the assessment on the Sprengel house to $6,800 , bringing the market value on that particular house to $204,819 . 20 ($205 ,000) . All in favor Everyone: I John Sullivan: Okay, reduced to $6,800 . 3) 1001-21-19. 2 Michelle Lee Feeley 837D Main Street Greenport, New York William Englis : Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? 41/ II/ 16 Michelle Lee Feeley: I do. John Sullivan: Do you want to tell us what you are after. Michelle Lee Feeley: My husband Richard and I, are claiming unequal assessment due to the fact that our home at 837D Main Street , Greenport, New York, though is newer than our neighbors , is not larger than any of them, nor is our property of land. Yet on assessment, which is based on square footage and not age, is assessed by far more in many if not all comparisons. We totally understand that the assessors legally cannot re-evaluate or re- assess a home that has not applied for a building permit for any improvements . But to be assessed $1,900 more than our last neighbor, whose house is twice the size and its property as well . As you can see, each house listed and photographed submitted on my neighbors houses. Each is larger than my home as is most properties . But only one is at my $6,000 assessment and only two with more than double the size of their home and lots are assessed higher than mine. You are telling me that my home is worth $180,000, but my neighbor, whose house is much larger as is his property of land, is only worth approximately $123,000 . Where is this fair and equal? We are requesting a substantial reduction from $6,000 assessed to $4,000 at least. Thank you. Michelle Lee Feeley. And then you' ll see from the various photographs that I 've submitted, all the homes adjacent to mine with the tax map numbers, and yes, the all are older, but every house is larger than mine. John Sullivan: What do you mean by new assessment? Michelle Lee Feeley: Okay, we recently constructed a two-car detached garage, so we got re-evaluated. Prior to the re- evaluation we were assessed at $4,800 . John Sullivan: How large is the house? Michelle Lee Feeley: Just under 2000 square feet , 1980 . John Sullivan: This was assessed at $6,000 in 1982, and was reduced to $4,800 on June 26, 1992 by the grievance board. It was increased to $6,000 on February 28, 1996 as a result of a construction of a two-car garage in April of 1995 . I ' ll ask the assessors for comments . Bob Scott : Okay, as you stated, the assessment was $4,800 as a result of a grievance board decision back in 1992 . The assessors chose to accept that assessment, we didn' t change the assessment since then, even though the upstairs had been finished. It wasn' t at the time of the decision of 1992. This was for completion upstairs . It has been completed, they are using it, we thought we knew that when we saw it, we chose to ignore adding anything to the house for completion after the grievance board III • 17 decision, we agreed with the grievance board and the Feeley' s that the value was in the range of $4,800 hours which represented the house. Even after they finished the house as compared to a non finished house at the time of the grievance board decision. What we did, they built a garage which is 24 by 25 , which is detached which is a two-story garage. It has a staircase up the back which could be converted into office use or an apartment or something else along the line, or studio, in the future. What we did also was to subtract for completion. It wasn' t being used, it wasn' t finished upstairs, it was just storage, so we were taking it as just a garage downstairs basically with the potential of expanding the upstairs in the future. We left the house exactly as it is, we recognize that the houses in the neighborhood are substantially different in their assessments but they are substantially older. They are all basically one hundred years plus year old houses with all their entrenching problems . Basically, that ' s all we are saying. This is a brand new house, five years old, around that neighborhood that ' s a brand new house, and the two-car garage with the attachable office or studio or whatever upstairs has just been done within the last year. The $1,200 represents a value in the range of $36,000 of which her husband did the work himself, he ' s a contractor, he does a great job. So his estimate for the building permit is for something like $5 ,000 . Basically, we are not disputing the reduction that was given to house itself before. All we are doing now is what the grievance board did in 1992 . Even though the second floor was finished, we just left it, we didn' t change that at all, we didn' t add one penny to that or increasing the assessment for the $1,200 is totally for the two-story garage. Jonathan Wiggins : When the assessment was reduced from $6,000 to $4,800 in 1992, was that a result of a consideration because the second floor was not finished. Bob Scott : That was one consideration, it was also the other thing. At that particular point I would imagine what you also took into affect is the neighbors at that point , with the reduction of $6,000 to $4,800. Because of the consideration of the neighbors, we didn' t change the assessment again because of the upstairs being finished. We only looked at the new construction. Jess Wolf : What you are saying is worth $1,200. Bob Scott : Which we are saying is at the $1,200. Darlene Duffy: Does the garage have any rough plumbing and heating? Bob Scott : I don' t think so . Michelle Lee Feeley: No. 4 S 18 Phyllis Atkinson: What is the zoning? Michelle Lee Feeley: Residential one. Phyllis Atkinson: It is not one through four. Michelle Lee Feeley: No, I am forbidden by the Village of Greenport to have an apartment upstairs. So there is no plumbing, there is no heating, its full of junk. Bob Scott : The thing is I think that in the Village of Greenport though they are allowed to use at some point in the future, correct me if I am wrong, that if it could be an office or something, if he chooses to use that in the future, he is not using that now, and we are taking off for that particular type of assessment . Michelle Lee Feeley: Home offices are allowed in the Village of Greenport and we basically have it as just a storage. Bob Scott : Michelle came in before and we told her that basically because we had taken into effect your decision in 1992, and there was new construction and we did take off for completion for the use as it is right now for the upstairs , that our hands were pretty well tied, that we couldn' t as the board of assessors, change the assessment. It would have to go through the board of assessment review. John Sullivan: Phyllis, do you have any further questions? Phyllis Atkinson: No further questions. John Sullivan: Jonathan? Jonathan Wiggins : Basically what you are saying is that your house is newer but smaller. Michelle Lee Feeley: As well as my property of land. John Sullivan: Bob, on the back of the property cards, on the bottom, I am coming up with $22,500 and that ' s what? Bob Scott : That ' s $1. 75 per square foot for completion for the upstairs . In other words , it is not being used for anything except storage but it was built so it could be used and converted into . . . . John Sullivan: Okay, just wanted an explanation. Any further comments Michelle? Michelle Lee Feeley: No, other than the fact that it is a smaller home, I mean it is newer . . . . 411 • 19 John Sullivan: Yes, I remember what you said and we have taken that into consideration. Michelle Lee Feeley: I am under the impression that assessment is based on the square footage of the land as well as home, that' s why I am grieving. John Sullivan: Assessors , any other comments? Bob Scott : Not by me. John Sullivan: Michelle, we thank you for your time. We will not be making any decisions today. We will be contacting you as soon as possible. Michelle Lee Feeley: Alright, great, thank you very much. 4) 109-1-8.9 Jack Foster Main Road Cutchogue, New York William Englis : Do you solemnly swear that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? Jack Foster: I do. John Sullivan: State your name and be seated. Jack Foster: Jack Foster. Jess Wolf : When I read this you are looking for a reduction for $7,470? Jack Foster: Yes, based on the appraisal amount. John Sullivan: Would you like to say anything to the board? Jack Foster: Yes , I have an appraisal and I feel that the property is worth the appraisal value of $225,000, based on alot of things; easements, I have an electrical easement on the west side of the property, by LILCO and it is clearly stated in my deed and in my restrictions and covenances, that LILCO, cablevision, New York Telephone, all have access to these lines across my property, which means they drive up my driveway and set up there. I had them there last fall, when we had the storms, they had three trucks in my yard trimming trees. That is one easement. I have a greenbelt on the front of the property of fifty feet, which all of these things sort of cut down on the size of my property in a sense and the lack of privacy in one 411 S 20 respect and the lack of use as I would like to use it. The greenbelt is fifty feet which is restricted. It is in my deed and covenances that I am not allowed to have an egress and ingress on the main road and must use a right of way which I share it with environmentalist nursery, who was the previous owners of the property. Their entrance to their property is on my property. They have restrictions in my deed which is termed at indefinite perturity or some kind of word which says they have the right to any kind of electrical easement for any purpose. They have the right to trim, maintain shrubbery on my property which I cannot take out at my own choice, I have to apply for permission on shrubbery on my own property. They have made an attractive pond in front of the house. It is very attractive but its an attractive nuisance because it attracts people coming in like it was a park. All of these things all to justify the value that we 've come up with on the house. The property is on the main road, the property is on a curve, the street not only curves , it goes up hill, the traffic at night is just like sleeping on the main road because the acceleration of the curves , the noise is alot, its not really, you know, I don' t feel its worth any more than its appraised at. Phyllis Atkinson: When did you purchase the property? Jack Foster: We have had the property for about four years . Phyllis Atkinson: Were all of these restrictions and covenances provided to you when you purchased the property? Jack Foster: Yes they were. We searched for a piece of property for a long time. We like the piece of property. I am not saying that I don' t like the piece of property. I 'm just saying that I want to be treated fairly on the piece of property, that ' s all I am after. John Sullivan: Are you talking about the property or the house? Jack Foster: Well, the hole thing. It is all part of the package of assessment. Jonathan Wiggins : How much did you pay for it? Jack Foster: I paid $280,000, but when I paid that, real estate was at the peak. Jonathan Wiggins : I just want to review; you bought the property in 1991 at $280,000, knowing all the easements . Jack Foster: I wasn' t totally aware of all the easements . I am supposed to be, it is my tale that I didn' t catch everything. The attorney that we used for the purchase of the property was the attorney that designed this sub-division when it was done, 411 111 21 for crosses establishing this lot so the restrictions I never even saw this until I got this together for my taxes, some of the restrictions . Like I said, the attorney was the same one and he did not clearly specify; that ' s not your fault, that ' s not my fault but it is part of why I got into this situation that I did. John Sullivan: Any questions? Jack Foster: There are comparable values in the appraisals and none of them are on the main road and all of them have a great deal more privacy than I have. John Sullivan: Assessors , do you have comments? Scott Russell : Yes, to go back over a little bit of history on this property. Mr. Foster ' s assessment was $9,900 last year and he filed a grievance which was denied. Before we went to small claims in February, I had given him the appraisal, we had sat down thoroughly going over the entire situation and Mr. Foster and myself had decided to settle the matter and the reduction was made to $8,000 from $9,900 , its a pretty substantial decrease. It is just about what the statutory limits would be, slightly less then the statutory limit in the small claims court. I did everything I could to meet it then. That was regardless of the fact that he had paid $280 ,000 in 1991, which is as we all know after the market plummeted which was ' 88- ' 89. Also, he had subsequential from the $280 ,000 purchase, erected a garage that by most market standards would cost about $30,000 to construct. Jack Foster: Excuse me. . . Scott Russell : That is $30,000 and we talked about this in my office and you agreed that would be the market cost for the reconstruction of that garage. Jack Foster : We never agreed to a value to the garage. Scott Russell : Oh yes we did. You told me that you did it yourself. Jack Foster: To a value of the garage, we never discussed that figure. Scott Russell : Yes, we did actually. It was a 26 X 60 garage. It is a separate structure, its a well built structure and we discussed it and he had said that I had told him that this probably had a $30,000 market value. For someone who is to go out and buy that garage. Well, then lets use a market standard, lets use $20 to $25 of construction per square foot which is a recognized standard that everyone recognizes , including most insurance companies . Marshall and Swift and Becks are two of foremost construction manual forms . The $25 per square foot, we # • 22 have a 26 X 60, that is a 1,300 square foot garage at $25 to build, that is $32, 500. Its a fairly new garage, that pretty straight stuff. I reduce the assessment from $9,900 to $8,000 . I am really trying to work with him, I really am, but we got to a situation now where we reflect $238,000 of market value despite a property to put in place was over $300,000. Between the purchase price and the market cost for the garage. Also, I just got this appraisal five minutes ago. The reduction that we did last year was based on a previous appraisal. I haven' t had time to thoroughly go over it. I have already through a quick glance have noticed several mistakes that I 'd like to point to, and I think that it is difficult for the company that did this appraisal and I would strongly request that the grievance board consider asking the appraiser to come before you to answer some of these questions . One of the mistakes that I see is that the appraiser uses as a gross adjustment for living area $10 per square foot. That is an unheard of adjustment. It is an adjustment that has no merit in any appraisal circumstances , certainly doesn' t have any merit in small claims court. $10 per square foot for living space is absurdly low. Also I notice that she had gotten a sale price on comp number three wrong. I think its important to start with the sale price if you are going to use the right sales price if you are going to use those properties as comparable values . I feel bad for Mr. Foster, in all honesty, he has probably been one of the most pleasant people I have had to deal with in five years of town government, its just its a difficult situation for me. I am here to reflect the common view of three board members that we were more than fair last year when both sides agreed to a settlement of $8,000 . If it wasn' t enough money, last year would have been the time for him to pursue it . It was right before we were scheduled to go before a judge in Suffolk County. John Sullivan: This indicates that it went to small claims court? Scott Russell : Small claims, we settled and then submitted a petition to the judge, a small claims settlement to the judge, as a settlement. I can produce that, its signed by us and Mr. Foster. Jess Wolf : And you are seeking a reduction from $8,000 to $7 ,400? Jack Foster: Yes , I feel that that appraisal is accurate. Scott is also a nice gentleman, but he is not the same person here tonight that I talked to in his office. When I did this appraisal, and I settled with him, I did not settle with the judge, I didn' t go to a judge, we made a deal, I felt at the time, I was glad to get something in a tax break, anyone would be glad to get something in a tax break. I accepted that tax break. At that time, I explained to Scott, about some of these I i 23 restrictions, some of these inconveniences on the property. I said that it is not all that it is cracked up to be. At that time, he encouraged me, he suggested to me to put in a application in lieu of what I had told him at that time for this, that is why I am here, to partially to the fact that I would like to get my actual value of appraisal and the fact that he encouraged me, in lieu of these easements, he said its very unusual that he saw a piece of property with easements on three sides , west side, south side and the east side. Scott Russell : I did not encourage Mr. Foster to file a grievance with the board. I encouraged him to come and talk to the other two assessors . I think that they will both attest the the fact that I actually lobbied, to almost to a point of lobby on Mr. Foster ' s behalf. Certainly last year there was some disagreement with the reduction that I had agreed to, within my own board. We had a disagreement. There was some opinion that I was probably to lenient and generous in the reduction last year, but I had suggested to him to bring me some concerns , these new concerns , easements etc. , to the rest of the board members . He had talked to me about it at length. I knew how he had felt about it . I told him that he should talk to Bob and Darlene about it. That is what I had strongly recommended he do. We were available on Monday nights , Saturdays , we went over when the other two were going to be available to work around, I know he works all the time. That is what I strongly recommended. I actually feel badly that he went out and spent money on another appraisal. I never would have recommended another appraisal. Jack Foster : This is the same appraisal. This is last years appraisal. This is not a new appraisal. Scott Russell : Actually it is a new appraisal because the appraisal would have been in 1993 . Jack Foster : We made a deal, of the adjustment, that he took to the judge. That was a done deal. I don' t know if it was at the same time or on another visit that I discussed with him about the. . . it was after that because I was trying to get the lines moved from LILCO and I could not break their assessment . It ' s locked in this deed and these covenances . Its like the law on my property. I can not stop them, I can not stop any utility from coming up my driveway. I built a nice driveway for them. It was all woods when I got there, but I made a clear path, and again, like I had said, he suggested we talk about it. If you are going to suggest that we talk about, it would indicate to me there was a potential possibility that something could be done about it. We did discuss this about a month ago. I couldn' t get back. I only discovered this morning on the telephone that I had to come in. I did not have time to get back to them. I was led to believe that there was some possibility of a, maybe meeting the appraisal value. I think it ' s a fair value, I don' t think its an 4 i 24 inflated value because I have a nice piece of property but I have a, the well built garage has vinyl siding on it. Its two by six rafters, its a garage. There is nothing fancy you can do to make a garage well built or not well built, its got vinyl siding and its got a strip shingle roof. It is not an elaborate, its just big because I 've got 4 cars and I just wanted elbow room in my garage. The house is vinyl siding, the trim is aluminum. When they do a vinyl house and aluminum trim, I don' t know have you ever seen the construction, the vinyl and the aluminum goes right over the shell. There is no wood behind that, there is nothing. Its a vinyl built house, its an aluminum trim house with strip shingles on it and its 1600 square feet . John Sullivan: Any more questions? Scott Russell: I would like to point some more mistakes in the appraisal . I ' d also like time to review the comparables that you have submitted and go over it hopefully and discover more. I have some real problems with the methodology that the appraiser used. John Sullivan: This just came in tonight? Scott Russell : Yes, I just saw it tonight. If it is the same appraisal from last year, I do apologize. It looks like a new appraisal to me but it might very well be the same appraisal from last year. Jack Foster: I did not go and spend money for another appraisal, because I just felt John Sullivan: Do you want an adjournment on this? Scott Russell : Two of these sales are from 1993 which are three years old, which again, appropriate standard of assessing other appraising properties . Two of the three, comp number one being a glaring error, cause that ' s usually the most given, there is only one sale within even the time frame and that is January 1995 and that is still eighteen months old. Marginally that is a sale that could conceivably could be used. When Park Avenue and Summitt Drive, comps one and comps three, are way to old to be used for appraisal purposes . Again, the $10 per square foot for gross living area, I don' t think it would be substantiated with support in any court. The appraisal looks awful. Maybe she'd be willing to come in and answer it. Jack Foster: If you want another appraisal, I will get a new appraisal as applies to inconveniencing the person to whom I bought the appraisal from. Jonathan Wiggins : I just want to know if the assessors have made allowances for all of easements that he has . S • 25 Scott Russell : We had talked about it. When Mr. Foster had brought it to my attention, I ' d say that ' s an angle that we didn' t, myself and him, didn' t consider last year when I agreed to $8,000 . I sat down with the survey which shows the easements with other two assessors and the feeling at the time was that no adjustment or no agreement or no reduction made last year, perhaps its another issue that should be considered in the pot issues we consider. But since a substantial reduction had already been made, that any allowance for the easements had already been accounted for when we reduced the assessment to indicate a value that was some $60,000 to $70,000 less that what it cost to put the house in place. Being the purchase price and the garage. John Sullivan: Mr. Scott, what is your calendar? I think we need to give the assessors more time. Scott Russell : I have to admit, I could be wrong on that. I thought it was a new appraisal . I thought the last appraisal was dated 1993 . I don' t know if it that ' s the right one or not. Either way, I would like a little bit of time to review it since this is in a preceding this year. I could probably have it done by tomorrow. John Sullivan: What is your schedule for tomorrow? Jack Foster: In regards to what, availability? John Sullivan: Yes . Jack Foster: What is my option? John Sullivan: He has to write to request time to look this over since it just came in. He will make a presentation to the board again, and you have the right to be here. Jack Foster: When would this take place? John Sullivan: He said he would be ready tomorrow. Jack Foster: Is this board here tomorrow? You' ll be here all day tomorrow? This appraisal was accepted last year, its the same one. If there is a question on it, it probably should have been brought up then. That doesn' t give me time to get a new appraisal. If he is going to pick my appraisal apart, I would like time to have the house re-appraised. John Sullivan: He has the right to review it because of the time frame. According to the law, he has the right to request the adjournment for this . We are trying to do it at your convenience. S • 26 Jack Foster : Is this a special meeting just for me? John Sullivan: We will be doing it, but we will be here but we are trying to set up a time that Jack Foster: Well, the later in the day the better, what is your last appointment? Scott Russell : You know what, I am going to waive any right I have to review the appraisal. I am going to let the evidence stand as he submitted it. I don' t want to inconvenience him any more. I certainly don' t want him to go out and buy another appraisal and I don' t want to have to drag him back to Town Hall. He gave you what evidence he had tonight and I am just going to let the issue stand at that . I have nothing more to say about this case. John Sullivan: Okay. Scott Russell : Thank you very much. John Sullivan: No further questions from any of the board members, no further questions from the assessors? Mr. Foster, we thank you very much. We will not be making any decisions today and will contact you as soon as we make a decision. 5 ) 115-14-11. 1 Michael Reese William Englis : Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the information that you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability? State your name. Michael Reese: Michael Reese John Sullivan: The property is currently assessed at $6,100 and you are looking for a reduction to $4,980 . Okay Mr. Reese. Michael Reese: First of all I just came before the board to submit this in accordance with my appraisals just to see the price, the adjustment to that based on the appraisal of 1995, May, about a year old. When I purchased the price, the appraisal was done by a representative for the veterans administration and I felt that it was very comparable to what is going on with the market today and at the time of the appraisal . I bring it before you for consideration for grievance. John Sullivan: May of 1992 , $5 ,100 . June of 1995 , it went from Parsons to you for $150,000 . S ! 27 Michael Reese: Yes sir. John Sullivan: Do the assessors have any comments? Scott Russell : Yes, we have an appraisal, I don' t know if you have the appraisal with the application. He had brought in the application this morning and then the appraisal this afternoon. It was supposed to be forwarded to you and I am actually concerned that it did not get there. Not just the contract price but also an appraisal . Well, we don' t have much to say, I will tell you that the appraisal, I sat down with him and agreed the appraisal actually supported the sales price so it seemed to be a pretty good sales price, $150,000 . The only thing I would say, what I told him today was the assessors unfortunately are compelled to follow a replacement value as a method and that is how we do all the other houses . All we would ask is that if you could somehow blend some value, some replacement value with this sales price, the house would reflect both values in the interest in fairness, but it ' s entirely up to you, that ' s all we are going to say. It ' s difficult to argue. Phyllis Atkinson: Was the cost approach used on this appraisal? Scott Russell : It should be in the top part of the left hand corner. That ' s a depreciated cost we used for replacement, not depreciated, but everything else seems to be fine, seems to be a pretty legitimate sale. Jonathan Wiggins : How old of a house is it? Michael Reese: The final construction, I believe, was 1971. So 25 , 26 years old approximately. Its all original, siding and windows and stuff so updating may add, but it hasn' t been done. Jonathan Wiggins : And you paid $150,000 for this house? Michael Reese: Yes . Bob Scott: Mr. Chairman. The assessors would like to recommend a change to $5 ,300 which would show about $160,000 and you can ask Mr. Reese, I think he would agree to what I just asked him. This would show the blend that Scott was talking about, between the actual sales price and the cost of construction. So our recommendation is $5 ,300 . John Sullivan: I take it you are agreeable to this? Michael Reese: I think it is a good number. I put it in the $150,000 to $155,000 and if I do modifications such as windows and siding, bringing it up. I actually on Donna Drive, I got a quote for $45 ,000 and a builder would build my exact house for $100,000 - $110,000 because I like the floor plan. So its right S i 28 in that $155,000 neighborhood. John Sullivan: Okay Mr. Reese. We will not make any decisions today. You will be hearing from us later, as soon as possible. I can' t give you any date. Michael Reese: Alright, thank you. John Sullivan: I hereby declare this meeting on grievance day for the Town of Southold closed at 9 :00 p.m. • S Report of meeting held Tuesday, May 28, 1996 at 1 pm relative to petition by Lebanon Chemical Corp. to reduce assessed valuation of parcel 1000-96-2-3 Above meeting called to continue initial discussions between petitioner and assessor held on Grievance Day, May 21, 1996 Present: Dianne Shulman Rabin and Howard Rabin, representing the petitioner, Chief Assessor Scott Russell and full Board of ASsessment Review -- Sullivan, Atkinson, Engliss, Wiggins and Wolf. Assessor questioned validity of three comparables submitted by griever. Griever's responded, claiming best way to judge subject value is by recent sale. After due deliberation, Board of Assessment Review approved a reduction in asessment of sdubject property as follows: 00, Improvements: $180, 000; Land : $1, 800; Total Asess*ed Valuation of Subject : $245, 000, using the equalization rate 01-'2. 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Report of meeting held Tuesday, June 11, 1996 at 9 am relative to petition by Joseph Sullivan to reduce assessed valuation of parcel 1000-116-7-7. Above meeting called at request of Chief Asessor Scott Russell so that parties could explore documentation of materials provided by petitioner by mail on Grievance Day, May 21, 1996 Present: William J. Fleming, of East Hampton, attorney representing petitioner; Chief Assessor Scott Russell; Board of Assessment Review -- Sullivan, Atkinson, Engliss, Wiggins, Wolf. Attorney Fleming submitted recent appraisal of subject completed early June as well as three comparable sales. Assessor Russell questioned aspects of appraisal as well as the comparables submitted. After due deliberation, Board of Assessment Review denied the application for a reduction of assessed valuation of the subject property.