HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 h
TO: Elizabeth Neville , Town Clerk
FROM: Board of Assessment Review
RE: REPORT—BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW— TAX YEAR 2000 bl
DATE: June 15, 2000
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' acknowledgement, etc.
The duties of the Board of Assessment Review for the grievance period covering the
2000 / 01 assessment roll are completed.
Ch ' an Member
Member
Zl�
e er
M ber
Form BAR-4 RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE 611 q/60 HOUR 9:00
Town Clerk, Town of Southold
t w � •
STATE OF NEW YORK }
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK }
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD }
The undersigned, being duly sworn do severally depose and say that deponents
are members of the Board of Assessment Review; that deponents have read the
foregoing and know the contents thereof; and the matters set forth are true to the best of
the deponent's knowledge.
Sworn before me this ay
of June, ,2-00() .
Notary Public ►=sem , Member
No.01 GL4879M
Commimian�u Dec 8,
r
\\\ Chair an Member
Member
Member
RPTSA— 200—4/72
BAR-2 —Page 3 of 3
t � • s •
O%%3FF0j
Robert I. Scott Jr., Chairman =y0� OGy� Southold Town Hall,53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Scott A. Russell,Assessory - Southold,NY 11971-0959
Darline J. Duffy,Assessor G • Fax: (631)765-1356
ATelephone: (631) 765-1937
X01 � Sao
BOARD OF ASSESSORS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
53095 MAIN ROAD
SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
GRIEVANCE DAY
MAY 16, 2000
Chairman John Sullivan declared the meeting in session at 9:15 a.m.
Present were:
Board of Assessment Review-John P. Sullivan, Chairman; Phyllis Atkinson, Member;
William F. Englis, Jr., Member; Jonathan Wiggins, Member; Jess Wolf, Member.
Assessors-Robert I. Scott, Jr., Chairman; Scott A. Russell; Darline J. Duffy.
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
DATE 6119/00 HOUR '/-'00
ke+-
Town Clerk, Town of Southold
I
JOHN SULLIVAN: My name is John Sullivan, chairman of Board of Assessment
Review. Other members of the Board, to my left, Jess Wolf, Phyllis Atkinson. To my
right, William Englis, Jonathan Wiggins. I hereby declare this Board of Assessment
Review of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, convened this
sixteenth day of May, 2000 at 9:15am. Also present from the Board of Assessor's,
Robert Scott, Chairman, Darline Duffy, and Scott Russell. I have an application here
from, first name, Gene Walker. Mr. Englis would you swear Mr. Walker in.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm
that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of
you ability?
GENE WALKER: Yes.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Please state your name and address for the record.
GENE WALKER: My name is Gene L. Walker. I live at 2530 Gillette Drive, East
Marion, New York. Thank You.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Section, block and lot is 38-2-26. Currently assessed at 7100
dollars and looking for a reduction to 6325. Mr. Walker do you have anything to say to
this Board?
GENE WALKER: I just have my figures on the last ...
JOHN SULLIVAN- Would you like to explain this report?
GENE WALKER: Yes sir, as far as tax assessment, what I was coming up with was I
was taking the valuation. I took the value of the property and I took the square footage of
the home. The local building cost is about eighty-five dollars a square foot, so I just
added that to the other added cost of my garage and came up with a replacement value of
my home of$211,500.00. Then dividing it by the figure that you have, that's where I
come up with the new assessment value. Still I'm overassessed at what I'm being
charged now.
JOHN SULLIVAN: What are you being assessed now at?
GENE WALKER: 7100.
f
JOHN SULLIVAN: I'm looking for a comparison between the $211,000.
GENE WALKER: OK. I don't have a calculator on me.
ROBERT SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, it's about $237,000.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: $237,500.
JOHN SULLIVAN: $237,500. And he's looking for $211,000?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: How many square feet is your home?
GENE WALKER: It's a one and a half story cape and it's about 1900 square feet.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Is this a new house?
GENE WALKER: It was built in '97.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: The square footage is excluding your garage?
GENE WALKER: Yes. It's a 28'x38' cape.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Mr. Walker, how much home owner's insurance do you have
on this house?
GENE WALKER: My home is valued at about $145,000.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: That's your insurance?
GENE WALKER: Yes Ma'am. The home itself is insured for about $155,000.
JESS WOLF: Is it a year round residence?
GENE WALKER: Yes, sir.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Any questions?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Number of bathrooms?
GENE WALKER: Two and a half baths.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Central air-conditioning in there?
GENE WALKER: No, sir.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Oil hot water heat?
GENE WALKER: Gas.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Gas hot water heat. Lilco gas?
GENE WALKER: No, it's bottled LP.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Did you have this house built?
GENE WALKER: Yes, sir.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: And how much were the construction costs?
GENE WALKER: About $65. a square foot. That's what it cost me three years ago.
I've done some alterations to it.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Are there any other questions from this board?
BOARD: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Board of Assessor's, any comment?
ROBERT SCOTT: Yes, sir. We went and took a look at the property. We had increased
it to 7100 from the 6100. His adjustments on the basis of$85. a square foot and the land
at $35,000 when he purchased it for $25,000 in '96 seem to be reasonable. I would not
be adverse to the amount that he is requesting.
JOHN SULLIVALN: Do you agree with the request?
ROBERT SCOTT: I would go along with the request and ask that you make the change.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Are there any other questions?
JONATHON WIGGINS: That will be all.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Do you have anything further to say?
GENE WALKER: No, sir.
JOHN SULLIVAN: We are not going to make any decision today. We don't make
decisions today. You will be advised as soon as we do make a decision. Are you
satisfied with the Assessor's?
GENE WALKER: Yes, sir. Thank you.
JOHN SULLIVAN: We are back on the record at 9:56am. I have an application from
Mr. Tettelbach.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Would you stand and raise your right hand, please. Do you
solemnly swear or affirm that the information you give herein will be given accurately or
truthfully to the best of your ability?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: I do.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Please state your name and address for the record.
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Steven Tettelbach, 1530 Crown Land Lane, Cutchogue
JOHN SULLIVAN: Tax map number is 102-7-9. Currently assessed at 8200 and is
asking for a reduction to 7385 is that right?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Yes.
JOHN SULLIVAN: There is a current market value of$274,000, looking for a reduction
to $247,000. Building permit granted to construct a two story dwelling in'98.
Adjustment for 1284 went from 3400 in'99 as a partial, 3/1/99, and 8200 in 9/29/99. I
think that's the date, is that correct Scott? The assessment for 8200 is 9/29/99.
SCOTT RUSSELL: The assessment was completed, yes September 29, 1999.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Mr. Tettelbach is there anything you would like to say to the Board?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Well, the reason I'm here today is because I procrastinated. I
would have done this before but I didn't get around to it. Basically, the appraised value
we had as of August of`99 is $247,000, and then we had gotten an assessed value on the
rolls right now is $273,000 so that's why we're asking for ...
JOHN SULLIVAN: $247,000. Was the appraised value?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Yeah.
JOHN SULLIVAN: At the time you moved in in August, who was the appraiser?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Dime Savings Bank, that is who holds the mortgage.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON- Are you the original owner, did you build the house in 1998?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: No, we purchased the land in '98 and built the house in
August.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Mr. Tettelbach how many square feet is your house?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: It's about 2170.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Exclusive of the garage, living space?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Yes.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: How many bathrooms?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Two and a half bathrooms.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Oil hot water heat?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Yes.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Do you have a sprinkler system in there?
STEVEN TETTELBACH: Yes.
JOHN SULLIVAN: In the house?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: No, outside, it adds to the value of the property. It adds to the
resale value. It's a legitimate question.
JOHN SULLIVAN- Does anyone else have any questions?
BOARD: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Comments from the Assessor's?
SCOTT RUSSELL: I've just been reviewing the appraisal I just saw a little while ago.
To be honest, Crown Land has always been a difficult place to assess because the houses
sell for a substantial amount of money and others not so much. So what we are going to
do is leave the appraisal with the Board of Assessment Review and trust that you will
make the best determination you can for the property's value.
JOHN SULLIVAN: You have no other comment?
SCOTT RUSSELL: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: The assessment is too high or too low?
SCOTT RUSSELL: No, again that would be an issue for the Grievance Board to decide.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON.- Do you agree with this appraisal?
. 0 0
SCOTT RUSSELL: I just went through it in the past few minutes.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: And it looks fine to you?
SCOTT RUSSELL: There are five comps here all together and one is on Crown Land.
Like I said, you could do an appraisal on Crown Land and come up with three different
appraisals and come up with three different values. It is a difficult place to assess.
JOHN SULLIVAM I'm very glad to hear that.
JESS WOLF: It was appraised by the bank for $247,000, and you are claiming the
market value is $374,000.
JOHN SULLIVAN: It is assessed for $273,000 and the appraisal is for $247,000.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Any other questions, any other comments?
BOARD: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: You will be hearing from us at a later date, we do not make any
decisions today.
STEVEN TETTELBACH: OK, that's fine. Thank you very much.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Mr. Terp, will you please stand up and raise your right hand. 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?
ALFRED TERP: I do.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Please state your name and address.
ALFRED TERP: Alfred Terp, 1485 Hobart Road, Southold.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Thank you.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Tax map number 64-2-12, currently assessed at 5600 looking for a
reduction to 4090.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: The market value is $187,300.
JOHN SULLIVAN: What's the market value on the...
JONATHAN WIGGINS: He's looking for $137,000.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Mr. Terp, do you have anything to say to this Board?
ALFRED TERP: You have the papers there showing where I made my comparison.
That's why I based my reduction on the comparisons that I presented with the
application.
JESS WOLF: Is this a vacant lot, Mr. Terp?
ALFRED TERP: That's correct. Which lot are we talking about?
JESS WOLF: We are talking about 64-2-12.
ALFRED TERP: No is that the house or the lot?
JESS WOLF: It's decription is '/4 acre, lot improved by a single family residence.
ALFRED TERP: That's the house and the lot.
SCOTT RUSSELL: Section 64, block 2, lot 12 is a house and lot and there is a separate
lot.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Ok, the assessed value is for the house and lot alone, I mean
just the house and the property it's on. And you feel the house on the property is worth
$137,000?
ALFRED TERP: Based on the comparison that I present, yes.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK, thank you. How long have you owned this property?
ALFRED TERP: Since 1931. My father did.
JONATHAN WIGGINS- It's been in the family for a while.
JESS WOLF: Are you saying this property has been owned since 1931?
ALFRED TERP: That's correct.
JESS WOLF: Was the house owned all that time?
ALFRED TERP: That's correct.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Mr. Terp, you were comparing your house on Hobart Avenue
with the house... on the farm?
ALFRED TERP: That's correct.
JESS WOLF: Their residence?
ALFRED TERP: That's correct.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Is the residence located on the farm?
ALFRED TERP: Down the street. That's correct, on the same plot of land.
If you look at the... it has the house situated on a one acre parcel.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: They also have an agricultural exemption.
ALFRED TERP: But not on that house and land. This is a residence and the land under
the house.
JESS WOLF: And you are to the west of them.
ALFRED TERP: I'm in Southold, this is in Cutchogue.
JESS WOLF: Oh. I thought you were...
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Mr. Terp, let me get this straight in my mind. You are
comparing your house, al/4 acre property on Hobart Ave. with Wickham's 33 acres in
Cutchogue?
ALFRED TERP: No, I'm comparing my house 1/4 acre on Hobart with Mr. Wickham's
one acre and his house on a one acre piece of property on that 33 acres. If you look at...
JESS WOLF: Your in Southold, he is in Cutchogue.
ALFRED TERP: That's correct. If you look on the card, it say's...
JOHN SULLIVAN; What is your rationale for your seeking this reduction?
ALFRED TERP: Well, the man is assessed on an acre of a thousand dollars on an acre
under his residence and I have a '/4 acre on my residence and I'm assessed at 800 dollars
and I think that's way out of line, proportionate to what Mr. Wickham is assessed, I
should be assessed as to 800, 250 dollars, based on his assessment.
JESS WOLF: Could not understand.
ALFRED TERP: Now you are talking land, sir, now you've got the house also has a
reduction on his house of 40%. His full assessment is $10,000 and 40% depreciation
brings him down to $6000
JESS WOLF: Your house has been 40% of what?
ALFRED TERP: He had a full assessment on the card of$10,000 and had 40%
depreciation so it brought his assessment down to $6000 and change.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: This is the Wickham property?
ALFRED TERP; This is the Wickham house.
JONATHAN WIGGINS.- The house has been reduced by 40% you say, because of it's
age and condition?
ALFRED TERP: I don't know what. He has a 40% reduction.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Oh, and you are seeking a similar reduction?
ALFRED TERP: A similar reduction, based on...
JONATHAN WIGGINS: You feel your house is in a similar condition?
ALFRED TERP: I would say.
JOHN SULLIVAN- You want it brought down to the depreciation, is that what your
saying, you want the same depreciation as he does?
ALFRED TERP: That's correct.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Do you have a waterview with your property?
ALFRED TERP: Mr. Wickham has waterfront. If I step on the second floor, if the trees
are not in bloom, I can see ...
JONATHAN WIGGINS: So you are also seeking the property to be proportionately
reduced in assessment as well as the house being reduced.
ALFRED TERP: That's correct, based on this...
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Currently your house has a 20% reduction? I can see where
you are going with this, not to make a pun but, it's almost like comparing apples and
oranges.
ALFRED TERP: Why do you say that?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: One is a large farm with one acre off of it and you're a '/4 acre,
it's just a different situation. Your in a different school district but their both fruit.
ALFRED TERP: Your right, their both very comparible. The one acre is waterfront
property and mine is a block away from the water. So it's not apples and oranges, it's all
apples.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Are there any other questions?
BOARD: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Mr. Russell?
SCOTT RUSSELL: Yeah, I can understand Mr. Terp's position. I just have to say, as an
Assessor, I would be reluctant or certainly leery of taking just one property and
comparing it to your own. In that light, Mr.Terp has a legitamate point. There seems to
be some history in Southold that farm houses that were attached to large working farms,
what would happen was, the one acre would be subtracted from the large operation of the
farm and then a residential value would be assigned to that and that's appropriate because
it's used for residential purposes. For some reason they seem to use about a thousand
dollars as the assessment on most of them, not all of them, some are higher then that, but
a thousand dollars would be the assessment attributed to the, one acre, residential
property. So that's where that came from. That was done long before we stepped into
office. The depreciation on Mr. Wickham's home, I can't address that, I've actually
never been there. I don't know if it's excessive or not. I would just say that I'm trying to
look at a larger picture. We have eighteen thousand properties in Southold Town and in
direct comparison with Mr. Wickham's, Mr. Terp can make a pretty... but there's a lot of
properties to be looked at and I wouldn't want to take... set a policy up and take one
house and start reassigning all the values of the Town based on what might be an
equitable assessment or a low assessment on just one property. That's all I'm gonna say,
everything else is in writing for you to consider for Mr. Terp and that's where I'm gonna
leave it.
JOHN SULLIVAN: You made a statement that you didn't know whether Mr.
Wickham's house, the depreciation was excessive or not?
SCOTT RUSSELL: Personally, I've never been there and I can't say whether what is
presented here is appropriate or not on the house. Honestly, I've never been there, I
cannot honestly say what the condition of the ...is. I've never assessed it. That was done
before I took office and the assessment, when it was done, was done by another assessor
and, personally, he has never invited me over. I honestly don't know.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Your not going to lower the 40% depreciation?
SCOTT RUSSELL: You mean, I'm not going to reduce the depreciation that would
effectively raise the assessment.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Your saying you don't know if it's too high?
SCOTT RUSSELL: I don't know if the depreciation is warranted or not.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Based on this particular instance, you're not going to go out and
lower his assessment?
SCOTT RUSSELL: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: OK, I just wanted to get this straight.
SCOTT RUSSELL: No he just uses a comparative with Mr. Terp. He is not under the
microscope with the Assessor's for any reason. It's just difficult to comment about
whether Mr...I mean Mr. Terp's basis of his argument... look your giving it to this guy, I
should have it too. I can understand that, I don't know if 40%... perhaps the house is in
disrepair and there are plenty of circumstances where 40% is assigned as a depreciation
on a house and that's legitimate. There are plenty of circumstances where it's not
legitimate, where it's just a forgotten about property. I don't know, I don't have first
hand knowledge of Mr. Wickham's home. I just tried to clarify for you where the land
value is derived from.
JESS WOLF: So your saying that more than one comparable is required before one...
SCOTT RUSSELL: As an Assessor, I would choose to consider the larger picture of the
properties throughout the whole town rather than singling out one property.
PHYLLIS: Scott, can I ask...(unable to hear.)
SCOTT RUSSELL: No, no and to be honest that's a lot of room for subjectivity so it's
difficult, you can't pick a straight line of depreciation on homes because some homes
make excellent... and some homes don't. At the same time, there's no real mechanism
for revealing those properties. It would be arbitrary to just go out and look at just one
house. It would be arbitrary for me to go to Mr. Wickham's house and simply reassess
them because I felt the depreciation was too low. Unless it was part of a systematic...
JOHN SULLIVAN: What do you decide on depreciation? You said it doesn't
particularly depend on the age of the home?
SCOTT RUSSELL: No it's the...
JOHN SULLIVAN: Because if someone lets their home go into disrepair they can get a
depreciation?
SCOTT RUSSELL: Yeah.
JOHN SULLIVAN: I mean two houses together, both the same, one is run down, the
other is not. The run down one would get a depreciation?
SCOTT RUSSELL: Sometimes, it depends. We don't go out and systematically reduce
assessments for people who don't take care of their homes, no. But you have to
understand is that I don't know how they generated 40%. I wasn't there. I didn't do it.
But, if I go out tomorrow and I'm asked to review a farmhouse that's in disrepair for
whatever reason, or I might not even give it a depreciation at all, but certainly they can go
to a small claims hearing, produce an appraisal that values or devalues that property as a
result of that depreciation and they could get a reduction, conceivably. That's not a fair
system, but that's the system ...
(Here, the tape ends and discussion begins on Mr. Terp's second parcel.)
JONATHAN: He's got an assessed value of 23,411 dollars on the property as it is and
he is seeking to have that reduced to 8361 dollars. You are using the same argument.
ALFRED TERP: Yes, basically.
PHYLLIS: Mr. Terp, you purchased this parcel in 1966?
ALFRED TERP: I think so, yes ma'am.
PHYLLIS: Scott, 1967 was the last time the town was reassessed?
SCOTT RUSSELL: It was started in '67 it was actually completed in '71,
but value back to '67 is the benchmark.
PHYLLIS: OK, so when Mr. Terp purchased it back in 1966, it got into what was
currently being reassessed which was within the town which reassessment ended in 1971
and at that time his assessment was 700 dollars and has stayed the same since then.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Mr. Terp, I thank you very much.
ALFRED TERP: You're welcome, I'm sure.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Daniel Denn, section 54-1-26.1. Have a seat. What are you looking
for?
MRS DENN: OK, We had a fire and we had another house... The taxes were assessed to
4500, possibly going up to 5000 and before we had the fire we had a nice little shack and
the taxes were 1800. We were talking with the builder, and I asked the builder, how
much will the taxes be and he said about 3500 and with that understanding we made
plans to build a bigger house and I thought that the taxes would be about 3500 cause
that's something that I can afford. Plus, we live on a private street and now the people on
the street want to put a new road in and that's additional money and right now we don't
live here. We would love to live here but we live in Queens and my daughter is going
through a divorce and hopefully in the future we will live here because it's a beautiful
place and you would be very proud of us for residents.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Let me see if I follow you first of all. When did you have the fire?
MRS. DENN: A year and a half ago.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Have you rebuilt?
MRS. DENN: The house is almost complete now.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Almost complete now. What is the assessment on this house?
MRS. DENN: I believe the assessment is $275,000 and we paid $180,000. We are
paying off the contractor at $180,000.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Is it completed?
MRS. DENN: It's almost complete. I think they are waiting for the driveway to be
complete.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Let me ask you this. It is currently assessed. Do you know what
they are currently assessed at, Scott?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: 7100.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Currently 7100? And you are looking for?
MRS DENN: Well, 3500 sir would be something that would be a little struggle but with
help of my daughter ...
JOHN SULLIVAN- 7100 to 3500 OK, would you please write in here 7100 and what
you think is...over here. Do you see what I'm pointing at...So we'll have something.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Darline, may I ask you something? Between 9/10 of'99 and
3/10 of this year, why did the land value increase to 1300?
DARLINE DUFFY: They combined two parcels together. The little cottage that they
had was originally 54-1-3. They also owned 54-1-6 and they were combined to make 54-
1-6.1.
PHYLLIS ATKINSOM Which parcels were combined?
DARLINE DUFFY: 54-1-23 and 54-1-26, they were combined and that created 54-1-
26.1
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK , and that was in '98 you ...
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: I can't find 26.1 on the tax map.
DARLINE DUFFY: It might not be on there yet. Combined two parcels on 9/99, it won't
be on the tax map yet. They were a ''/Z acre and a 1/3 of an acre so together they equal .8
acres.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: In 9 of'99 you have the total joined land together assessed at
1200 dollars.
DARLINE DUFFY: They combined the two parcels in 9 of'99. I treated it as if it was
undeveloped because the house had burned down. You know it had no cesspools in it.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Right, so that's a 600 dollar improvement, I see that, but what
I don't see is how the land got to go from 1200, the combined parcels of the land went
from 1200 to 1300.
DARLINE DUFFY: When someone builds a house we always increase the land value by
a couple hundred dollars however, 81 x 1600 gives you 1296 which is 1300 dollars.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: I'm just looking here at this card.
JOHN SULLIVAN: When somebody builds a house you increase the land value
automatically?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Your improvement is assessed at 5800 dollars and that's
$194,000 dollars. Your improvement, the new building that you built, has an assessment
a market value of $194,000 dollars and your saying that you paid the builder $185,000 to
build the house?
MRS. DENN: Yes.
JONATHAN WIGGINS- OK, thank you. I just want to put everything into perspective
here. You feel that you shouldn't be paying any more then the $185,000?
MRS. DENN: Yes sir, I feel 3500 is something that I can handle.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: When you're saying 3500, you mean your total tax being
3500.
MRS. DENN: Yes, my total tax bill being 3500 and then we also have to chip in for a
new road cause it's a dead end street and it's a private road and then we also have to pay
$500 dollars to use it, there's a beach we have to pay 500 dollars for that, I don't want to
lose this, I wanna be able to stay here, but if the tax goes down then I can afford it. And
like I said, we are good people and you would be very proud of us.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: We already do. We already are. Thank you, I just wanted to
get that clear.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Mr. Scott do you have something?
ROBERT SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify a little bit is that when there's
a piece of property and they get the approval to build there is a greater value to the
property and that's the reason there is an increase in the assessment at that point.
They've gone through the Board of Health, they've gone through the building dept.,
they've gotten all the approvals, and that's why there is a slight increase at that point for
the land portion.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: This is why sometimes, in the paper you'll see a plot is for sale
and they'll say all permits in place and the selling price is higher then vacant land that's
advertised.
ROBERT SCOTT: That could be an interpretation.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: But this also could be interpreted as pre-existing in the fact
that she had a well and cesspool on the property already because the property was
damaged by fire.
DARLINE DUFFY: Excuse me, the house was on the other parcel so I don't know if
they used the same well, there were two parcels.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: I'm just trying to look at every angle of this.
JESS WOLF: What happened to the old foundation?
MRS. DENN: What happened to the old foundation? They took it up. The demolition
man.
DARLINE: There were two separate parcels. The old house was here and the new house
is here. The new house is on the other parcel.
JESS WOLF: The old house had a basement?
DARLINE DUFFY: I don't know. Nope.
JOHN SULLIVAN: It didn't have a basement.
ROBERT SCOTT: A slab or a crawl space. Cesspools are required and that's a... but
there was no basement. The increase for the land was a hundred dollars so it's not a...
JESS WOLF: The rebuilt house cost a $185,000 dollars?
NMS. DENN: Yes sir.
JESS WOLF: Have you included the cost of the demolition of the old foundation.
MRS. DENN: The demolition, yeah, had a permit, and removed everything.
JESS WOLF: That's included in $185,000.
MRS. DENN: No it wasn't. A lot of things are separate. To remove the old well we had
to pay $500. dollars to fill it in. That was required by the Health Department, I believe.
JOHN SULLIVAN: The well or the cesspool.
MRS. DENN: I believe it was the well, sir. I believe that, that had to be open and filled
in, I guess, so no one can use it. I don't know for what reason, but that was an additional
$500 dollars.
JESS WOLF: I have a question. Your house is now insured? Do you know how much it
is insured for?
MRS. DENN: No. It didn't get insurance yet. Because we did not get the C of O yet. It
should be very, very shortly. I believe they have to do the driveway, and then we would
have to get insurance.
JONATHAN WIGGINS- What type of water do you have there? Do you have well
water there also? Do you have a well?
NMS. DENN: Yes, he put a new well in.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Do you have a new cesspool?
MRS. DENN: Yes, and I believe a new cesspool.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Any more questions?
DARLINE DUFFY: Are you looking at a copy of the new card?
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Is it dated '99 on the photo?
JOHN SULLIVAN: The last revision to it was March 1, 00.
DARLINE DUFFY: Correct. I just wanted to know if you had it. You know, I am
sympathetic to people whose houses burn down. It's a terrible thing. What I will tell you
is they originally had, really when Mrs. Denn says she had a shack, that is what she had.
She had a little cottage that wasn't insulated and it was a summer bungalow.
MRS. DENN: We insulated it. Oh yes, we did a lot of work to that cute little cottage.
We put all brand new doors on it. You know, my brother is very handy and he did a lot
of work to it.
JOHN SULLIVAN: OK, Ma'am please direct your comments up here to the board.
DARLINE DUFFY: My apologies, I didn't mean to insult you. The Assessors hadn't
been back to see any improvement since 1975.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: So no one increased her?
DARLINE DUFFY: I just wanted to say that the house was originally 800 square feet. I
don't know if there was anything on the second story. It wasn't assessed for any living
space on the second story. Do you have this card? This is the old card.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Yes.
DARLINE DUFFY: OK. It was like a chalet style house. I believe it had a view of the
Sound and they do have an access to the Sound. It is also a short walk to McCabes
beach. They built the house to replace that's 2334 square feet with a 462 square foot
garage.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Is that included in the 20... that's in addition to the square
footage.
DARLINE DUFFY: Yes, the house itself is 2334. I think the original cottage was under
assessed to begin with so that's why the taxes were so low. And I think the house now
even with the partial on it because it wasn't when I went to look at it, but with the partial
on it, it was worth $237,000. I think it's worth substantially more then that. It's a
beautiful new house in a really good area. I don't think it's...I would like to be able to
• 0
take people's circumstances into consideration when I assess a house but the law doesn't
allow me to do that.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK, so your saying that you may be raising the taxes again?
DARLINE DUFFY: Yes, the house is ...it was only 80% done when I was there.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK, so the 71 is just a partial.
DARLME DUFFY: Yes.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: And what does that come out to in as far as the taxes go?
DARLINE DUFFY: 71?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Yes.
DARLINE DUFFY: 4630.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Uh-Huh.
DARLME DUFFY: I would like to say, I know the gentleman who built this house and
he knows that taxes wouldn't have been 3500.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: That's unfortunate, that somebody misled you and told you
the taxes would be less then they actually ended up being. I don't think...you should
have come down here and asked the Assessor's how much do you think my taxes are
going to go up if I build a 2300 plus square foot house. I'm just stating that you were
misguided by your builder. You have a beautiful home. I hope you can work something
out. But we'll review it.
MRS. DENN: So could the taxes go down? Could you adjust it a little more, could you
adjust it?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: We are not doing anything today, we are going to review it and
do the best we can with it.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Any other questions? Any other comments?
BOARD: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Assessor's? Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming.
We will advise you later on.
MRS. DENN: Thank you.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Number Six, Mr. Sirey. Section, block and lot 139.-1-23 would you
swear in?
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Sir, would you stand please and raise your right hand. Do you
solemnly swear or affirm that the information you give herein will be given accurately
and truthfully to best of your ability.
CHARLES SIREY: Yes.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Please state your name and address for the record.
CHARLES SIREY: My name is Charles Sirey, My address is 435 Westview Drive,
Mattituck.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Currently assessed at...
JONATHAN WIGGINS: It comes out to $254,000.
JOHN SULLIVAN: I don't see a property card either.
ROBERT SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, this is in regards to an exemption, he is not
complaining about the assessment. He is asking about an exemption.
JESS WOLF: Star and Veteran's?
CHARLES SIREY: Yes sir.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Do you want to address the Board on this, Mr. Sirey
CHARLES SIREY: Not particularly, I think that all the papers are in there. I had some
difficulty last year since I'm a relatively new resident and my income tax form was dated
'98 which was not from New York City so since then I've been a resident I brought them
home December 31,1998 and since then I`ve been a resident.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Is this your primary residence?
CHARLES SIREY: Yes.
JESS WOLF: Did you file for Star and Veteran's exemption through the normal
channels?
CHARLES SIREY: I filed for both through the Assessor's office.
I had to do some digging to get my records together.
JESS WOLF: I understand.
CHARLES SIREY: Actually, they had a fire down in Washington where they kept these.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Why were you denied the Star exemption?
CHARLES SIREY: I believe it was because I filed late or I filed my income tax late this
year and so I used my 1998 income tax return. When I went to the office they said I
could you use my '98. I believe I forgot or I thought it was all taken care of and I
wouldn't have to go through what I went through last year. Am I confusing you, I think I
may be?
JOHN SULLIVAN: Yes, you're confusing me. You do not have any Star or Veteran's
exemption right now.
CHARLES SIREY: No.
JOHN SULLIVAN: That's to start off. You do not have it, and you filed for it.
CHARLES SIREY: Yes, I filed last year but I was denied it because I was not
considered a resident. The reason I was not considered a resident is because my income
tax return for 1998 was filed in New York City. I had all sorts of documents which I
tried to demonstrate residence but apparently the key thing is the income tax return. At
any rate this year, when I refiled, my income tax return for 1999 had not been filed yet.
It was filed late. I got an extension, my accountant got an extension for me and I filed
late. The woman who I put the material into, the woman said I should use 1998 and I
completely, it didn't occur to me that I would have the same difficulty as the year before.
At any rate I filed 1998 and now the assessors off ice has the 1999 return.
JOHN SULLIVAN: How long have you owned this property?
CHARLES SIREY: Since December 31, 1998.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Since December 31, 1998.
CHARLES SIREY: Yes, it's two years old,just under two years old.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Did you come before this Board last year?
CHARLES SIREY: Yes.
JOHN SULLIVAN: OK, any other questions?
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Why do you want the Veteran's exemption?
CHARLES SIREY: I don't really know. I think I didn't have my material from last year
I guess and this year...
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Because you did not supply the papers last year so they put it
for next year?
CHARLES SIREY: I couldn't get the information on time. There was a fire in the
record hall or something and so I had to do some digging myself.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK, we have a copy of it here. Honorable discharge,
JOHN SULLIVAN: Any other questions? Assessor's?
SCOTT RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Sirey was before the Board of Assessment Review last
year. The issue at the time was residency as he already clarified. His 1997 and 1998
income tax returns had New York City as his claimed residence and the issue is or was
that you had just moved here as of the 31St of December and it was an understandable
situation as he was in the process of becoming a resident of Southold that he didn't have
the documents to reflect that at that point. I believe, the Board of Assessement Review
actually granted Mr. Sirey ...
CHARLES SIREY: I'm not sure what I got. It was a....
SCOTT RUSSELL: You had received the exemption from the Board of Assessment
Review. You got the full exemtion that you applied for.
CHARLES SIREY: I didn't get the Veteran's.
SCOTT RUSSELL: You didn't apply for it last year. The reason the veteran's was
denied and the star was denied this year, there is a residency component for the Veteran's
as well, so from the assessors point of view if you don't meet the primary residency
status for the Star you certainly don't meet it for Veteran's exemption. The reason we
denied it was because Mr. Sirey had gotten the exemtion through the Board of
Assessment Review. We had sent out our renewals that are required by law in December
Mr. Sirey had used his 1998 statement again for this year. We had requested from him an
updated income statement, a New York State income tax statement that would reflect
1999 at this point that had never been issued before and at this point presumably should
show Southold Town as his primary residence. Our office was faxed back from area
code 212-721-7238 this New York State income tax statement return and it has
Manhattan as his school district name and school district code number which is 369
which is the Mahattan School District. From our view it looked like the residency was
still in Mahattan. That's why we denied the application. I'm going to give you a copy of
this as well as a copy of the minutes from last year Board of Assessment Review.
JESS WOLF: I have an IT 201 which is the State form it lists Westview Drive ,
Mattituck as the address.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: And it lists the school district as Mattituck.
SCOTT RUSSELL: OK, that was a second one that was submitted to us, I guess in
preparation for the grievance. It had been changed to reflect Mattituck and the school
district code for Mattituck. That was submitted as part of the grievance application. We
had gotten this directly as a request from the owner, and this was back in April simply as
a follow up to the application process to the Star, and it had Mahattan on it. So it had
been changed somewhere between April 19`h and today.
JESS WOLF: Are you saying that both the Veteran's application and the State residence
requirement are now fully met?
SCOTT RUSSELL: No. I would say that they are not met at all. Because again the issue
of residency we are trying to satisfy with the State IT 201 form and the State IT 201 form
has the school district residency as Mahattan. And the school district code.
JOHN SULLIVAN: 382?
SCOTT RUSSELL: Yes, 382. What I'm saying is that, that's why we denied it. The IT
201 attached the grievance application is different now then the one was given to us April
19`", But it's not enough to have the correct address for the Board of Assessment Review.
You have to have the correct address for filing the correct income tax.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: I understand what your saying and Mr. Sirey claimed that he
had an extension for his taxes and when the final residential income tax IT 201 was sent
in you did have Mattituck as your school district on it?
CHARLES SIREY: No, this is the final one. My accountant made an error in the initial
one.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: I'm only talking about the final. Now the school district code
number 382, what is that.
SCOTT RUSSELL: That's Mahattan.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: That is Mahattan.
SCOTT RUSSELL: No, I'm sorry 382 is Mattituck. 369 is Mahattan.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK, so that has been corrected on the final form.
SCOTT RUSSELL: May I submit this to the Board of Assessment Review?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Yes you may.
SCOTT RUSSELL: And I guess it's your determination at this point which one was filed
with the State of New York. The State is in the process now coming up with a policy that
these can be determined by State Income Tax, but they haven't yet.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: One other question, you've been using the same accountant all
through the years.
CHARLES SIREY: Yes, I have.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Any other questions, any other statements?
BOARD: No.
SCOTT RUSSELL: The assessors in the interest of trying to work this thing out would
gladly rescind any objection to deny the exemption if the accountant who prepared this
would send us a letter verifying that in fact the resident income tax return was filed with a
primary residence of Mattituck with the school district of Mattituck listed and if they
would put that in a form of a written letter to the Assessor's we would take the word of
the accountant as confirmation.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Alright.
JOHN SULLIVAN: He put down 369 on one and 382 on the other. OK. Mr. Sirey can
you get your accountant...
CHARLES SIREY: I should have no trouble with that. When do you want it?
JOHN SULLIVAN: ASAP.
CHARLES SIREY: OK. I'll call him today.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Do you have a fax number for this office?
CHARLES SIREY: For this office, yes. For the Assessor's office, yes.
JOHN SULLIVAN: OK, you give it to your accountant, and it will get in here quick.
That's all do we have anything else?
BOARD: That's it.
JOHN SULLIVAN: We won't make any decision today and you'll be hearing from us
later on.
CHARLES SIREY: OK.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Elyse Borak, Do you want to come up to the... No that's not a hot
seat. You just heard what went on and it's not that bad is it? Section, Block and Lot is
126-9-14.1. Is currrently assessed at 5900 dollars. I don't know what that works out to.
The market value is $170,000.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: OK she's got a market value of 197,000.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Would you stand please and raise your right hand. Do you
solemnly swear and affirm that the information you give herein will be given accurately
and truthfully to the best of you ability.
ELYSE BORAK: I do.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Please state your name and address for the record.
ELYSE BORAK: Elyse Borak, PO Box 1254, Mattituck NY.
I'm currently, I just made this my official residence, so you'll notice that this went to
Bayside which is my mother's house it was just sold in April. When I got this letter, I
just got a little uptight thinking that my assessment was almost doubled in one fell swoop
so I called and asked for some information and when I got the information I thought that
most of it was accurate and true so there were a couple of small things that I was
questioning and felt that if I didn't come down to talk to you I wouldn't have a chance to
have it changed and if I did and I lost you know I would still lose nothing. The addition,
the first item, was put on and I'm not questioning that, that's true, I did put the addition
on and whatever you assess that at is OK. It's just that I felt that going from 3200 to
5900, 1,2,3 fast was quite a big jump. The gentleman that I spoke to was saying
something about a side entrance to the house is probably sixty or seventy years old. That
was always there and it was nothing new that would add it. The same thing with the front
side porch, that's been on the house since before I bought it. The house was reassessed, I
believe around 1989 when I put the sunroom on and I was paying taxes I didn't question
anything. I guess I just got a little upset when I realized that it was almost doubling in
one year. So I thought that I would come to you to see if anything could be done.
JOHN SULLIVAN: The assessment is currently 5900 prior to 1990 it was 3200 and in
1985 it was 2400.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Your house is on cedar posts, no basement?
ELYSE BORAK: No there is, you go down one of these doors and there is a dirt floor
where the water heater is but there is no basement. Underneath the house is a crawl space
for the plumber. But it doesn't have a basement.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: You bought a neighboring parcel?
ELYSE BORAK: Yes, the parcel right behind my property from Mrs. Wasson so that
her property didn't swing around mine. But that is not a buildable lot. I signed a bunch
of covenants at the time.
JOHN SULLIVAN.- Why isn't it a buildable lot?
ELYSE BORAK: They told me it wasn't. I said OK because I just wanted to put my
perennial garden in there.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: And you put an addition on last summer?
ELYSE BORAK: It's not finished yet, but yes I did. If my mom moved out with me
then I needed a bedroom, one room and a little bath.
JESS WOLF: You said it's not finished?
ELYSE BORAK: No, but it's coming close. I mean it should be finished by the end of
May.
JOHN SULLIVAN: How big is that addition?
ELYSE BORAK: I think it was 1500. It's a bedroom, a bathroom and a little laundry.
JESS WOLF: Is this now a year round residence?
ELYSE BORAK: Yes I guess so but I don't use it in the winter because. I guess you
would say that I had some heat put in, but it's not a year round. I guess I could bring you
plumbing bills and LILCO bills and telephone to show you that it is not a year round
residence.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: There is heat?
ELYSE BORAK: Yeah, I guess.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: What is it electric baseboard?
ELYSE BORAK: Yeah and some air handlers. Forced air. I did put in heat for my... to
help it along.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Is there central air also?
ELYSE BORAK: Air-conditioning? Oh no.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Assessor's, comments?
ROBERT SCOTT: Yes, sir. This was a seasonal residence, she had done the
renovations. It is now a year round house. She can choose not to use it in the wintertime
but it is capable of being used year round. The assessment on the original portion of the
house was a$1.50 a sq. ft. Usually it is in the range of$3.25. We changed it to $2.75.
We were trying to say that it was updated from the $1.50 which was exceptionally low.
She had extensively renovated both the interior and the exterior. There is vinyl siding on
the entire place right now. There is an addition of 13' x 50' that was put on there which
was finished as far as an assessor is concerned, and they have finishing touches and
everything else that aren't done. It is essentially finished.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Now your saying that there is an addition of 13'x 50'?
ROBERT SCOTT: Excuse me, 15' x 30', 450 square feet. The Assessor's did have to
take a look at the main portion of the building before the addition was put on. The rate
was incorrect for the condition of the house as it is today, not as it was originally so that
the rate was changed from $1.50 to $2.75 a square foot. It's still less than the normal.
What Mrs. Borak was talking about an entry, sometime in the past an assessor, and I'm
one of the ones who was there in 1990 when I first started, I did not notice there was an
entry on the side that was there that should have been listed on the property record card
and I placed that on. It was 5' x 9,' that's two dollars a square foot and that there is a
glass enclosed porch in the front which is a total of 190 square feet that was put on at
$1.25 which is considerably less then the normal $2.00 a square foot that we usually put a
glass enclosed porch on. We were not trying to be onerous as far as the assessment is
concerned. We were trying to be reasonable. It is a very nice house. $197,000. On
Peconic Bay Blvd. is probably a reasonable value in today's market. I don't see anything
as far as...comparable value then anything else that's been shown so, I don't think there's
much here that we can discuss. Everything was put on fairly and reasonably, I think.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON- What are we talking total now with the addition?
ROBERT SCOTT: With the addition, we're talking 1296 square feet. There's an
additional 396 square feet of rear porch that was put in 1990 so that I'm not counting as
living space and there's also the 190 square feet of glass porch in the front which I'm
not counting as living space. Specifically there's only 1296 square feet of the house that
one 18' x 22' glass enclosed porch with a cathedral ceiling is quite an extensive addition.
It's very nicely done. It is a very nice house, it really is.
JOHN SULLIVAN: I just have one question. You put on an assessment of$1.25 which
is not the normal?
ROBERT SCOTT: What we were trying to do is to adjust the assessment to indicate a
reasonable amount of value on something that wasn't there before and not to exceed a
level which would go past the market value. In addition to which as far as the main
house is concerned there was heat in there at this particular inspection which was not
there in 1990 so we couldn't leave the assessment on the main portion of the house. That
801 square feet that wasn't the new addition at the same $1.50 a square foot level. It had
to go up. Just to be on the reasonable side to be uniform, more uniform then it is
presently.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Normally on a ranch you use, what, $3.25?
ROBERT SCOTT: Usually we use $3.50 a square foot. If there's heat and if there's a
basement, and there is no basement so what we did is we subtracted .25 a square foot
right off the bat for the fact that it was on a pit or whatever. But even on the new section
and the old section we didn't use that $3.25 we used $3.00 and we used $2.75 so you
could see that we are erring on the homeowner to try and be fair. But we are taking into
effect that it is a renovated summer bungalow so that's the condition of the house, the
basic structure of the house is not as good as a brand new house and that's one reason
why we're putting on the lower rate on it. She put a market value of$170,000. That
would be in the range of 5100 dollars approximately. I'm interpreting for you.
ELYSE BORAK: Around the block one sold for$159,000 and one for$165,000 so I
figured that was probably fair. I know on that form it said that if I put it up for sale or
anything like that and obviously the answer is no, my mother is, you know, and I'm
doing all these things to it. And as I said, I hope that I'm not wasting your time, but I
just... everything he said was reasonable, it's just when you get bombed, almost doubled
in one fell swoop, I just wanted to talk to somebody.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: The other house around the corner from you that sold, they're
not on the Blvd?
ELYSE BORAK: No, they're on Bray.
(Not able to understand)
JOHN SULLIVAN: Are there any other questions?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: No, but if you had comparable sales in the area you didn't
document them in your complaint.
ELYSE BORAK: No, I'm sorry, I didn't know this was the method. You know the
problem is along Peconic Bay Blvd., mine is a renovated summer home. It is still on
cedar posts which have been replaced and you know there isn't a straight wall in the
house but I love it and it's mine. Across the street, it's very... they are waterfront
property so it's kinda hard to make a distinction because it's like the haves and have-nots.
ROBERT SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, if you would allow us a few minutes I can take her
back to the Assessor's office and she can pick out the ones that she wants to and then
bring them back to you if that's alright with you.
JOHN SULLIVAM Take her back to the Assessor's office? For what?
ROBERT SCOTT: To pick out the comparables that she's told us about. I'm trying to
give her as much opportunity she can. I'm trying to be fair.
BOARD: That's fine.
JOHN SULLIVAN: This way you won't feel like you are wasting our time. You are not
wasting out time. That's what we're here for.
ELYSE BORAK: OK, I appreciate it.
ROBERT SCOTT: I told her also that she has given her case to the Board of Assessment
Review which is you and if you decide you want to make a reduction based on what she's
presented so far that's up to that Board cause you sit in review of what we have. As of
right now there's no evidence that we could produce and we tried to look for the ones,
there haven't been any sales in that particular area.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: I know transfers are very slow.
ELYSE BORK: The house next store that just sold, Easter is when they went to closing.
The other two, they are signed and they are under contract. I know that they were sold, it
just that it hasn't been recorded.
ROBERT SCOTT: What I told Mrs. Borak, we would review it, I promised the
Assessor's would take a look at it in the future, if it's indicated that it should be, there is
nothing we can sink our teeth into at this particular point. I told her that if we couldn't
reach an accommodation with her based on the sales that she showed us that she still has
the opportunity to refile next year and to present again to the Board of Assessment
Review if you don't make a determination now. I'm not speaking for you at all. I'm
giving her every possibility. Is that agreeable?
ELYSE BORAK: I guess so.
JOHN SULLIVAN: We won't have a decision today. We will let you know what our
decision will be based on what you told us, based on the facts and so on. We thank you
for coming.
ELYSE BORAK: Thank you very much.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Board of Assessment Review meeting is hereby in recess till
7:OOpm this evening. It is now 1:OOpm.
JOHN SULLIVAN: I hereby declare the Board of Assessment Review reconvened at
7:00pm, 16 May, year 2000. Would you swear Mr. Hall in.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Would you stand up and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly
swear or affirm that the information you give herein will be given accurately and
truthfully to the best of you ability?
RICHARD HALL: I do.
WILLIAM ENGLIS: Would you please state you name and address for the secretary..
RICHARD HALL: Richard Hall, 630 Clearview Avenue, Southold.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Richard Hall, section, block, lot, 70-5-62.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: That's $267,500,the assessed value.
JOHN SULLIVAN: The assessed value is currently at 8000.
JESS WOLF: What does the 8000 translate into?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: $267,500
JOHN SULLIVAN: I have a question. What are looking for?
RICHARD HALL: I was more curious, we've only had the house four years and the
taxes were I believe 4200 and we put in a little playroom for the kids upstairs and we put
in a pool in and they've gone up a thousand dollars and it just seemed like a lot. I was
just questioning that assessment. It went up 25%. It seemed excessive to me. As far as
what number I'm looking for, I don't know. Do I have to name a number? I would say
half that. I would say 4700, 4800.
JOHN SULLIVAN: You want to go from 8000 to 4700?
RICHARD HALL: I'm talking about in my taxes, I'm sorry. That I don't know, how do
I do that. I'm talking about my taxes going up a 1000 dollars. As far as assessment goes,
I don't know what that means, 8000 dollars. Maybe someone can explain that to me,
how that translates into $267,500.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: (could not understand)
RICHARD HALL: $4000 for the upstairs and $13,000 for the pool. The fence was
about $3,000 so I would say about $20,000.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: So we are talking about 7400 or 7500 that's at $250,000.
RICHARD HALL: 7000 is $ 234,000?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: YEAH.
JOHN SULLIVAN- Looking for a reduction on your assessed value to 7000 dollars.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: For an assessed value of 7000 dollars your market value would
be $234,000. Do you think your house is worth $234,000?
RICHARD HALL: Yes.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: So you are requesting a reduction of the assessed value to
$234,000.
JESS WOLF: When did you add the family room and pool.
RICHARD HALL: The pool was just two years ago from now so probably April or May
of'98.
JOHN SULLIVAN: One in '96 and one in '98.
RICHARD HALL: We bought it in '96.
DARLINE DUFFY: Is there an accessory building on it?
RICHARD HALL: There is a shed but that was there when I bought it.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: He bought it in June of'96 and then in July '96 he applied for a
building permit to construct an accessory...
DARLINE DUFFY: The shed might have been there when he bought it...
RICHARD HALL: That might have been the fence.
JESS WOLF: Where are we showing a family room on the second floor.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: No but he is honest enough to come in and tell us.
RICHARD HALL: She asked me if there is heat and I said not really it's got one duct for
it but we have to put in a couple of electric heaters in the winter so the kids can use as a
playroom. It was either that or the basement and the basement was wet.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: We don't have it on our property data card when the family
room was built.
RICHARD HALL: It was two years ago, maybe three.
JESS WOLF: So we back into it... You had something done in March of'97 and
something on December 14tH
RICHARD HALL: I should have been more prepared.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: There's been some history in here because it was up to 8000
and in 3/1 of'97 it was reduced apparently. We don't know why that is, and then it went
back up again.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Darline can you shed some light?
DARLINE DUFFY: I lowered the assessment for Mr. Hall, I think he came in and we
talked about it. That was three years ago. I think I lowered it,just because.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Well, in '91 he was assessed at 8000 and in '97 he was assessed
at 7000.
DARLINE DUFFY: I think I did that, there was a lull in the market, he got a very good
buy. It was a stress sale and we looked at some sales in his neighborhood and I agreed
and I lowered his assessment a little bit.
JONATHAN WIGGINS- How did it get back up to 8000, was that the swimming pool?
DARLINE DUFFY: It was the pool, the shed, which apparently was never assessed so I
couldn't tell you when that... Mr. Hall said it was there when he bought it so...
whatever. When I went to look at the pool the building was there and what I thought was
finished over the garage, so that's where the playroom is. You can see the garage was
crossed out from a $1.50 a square to $3.75 a square foot. That's 400 square feet. I had
given him over on the right hand side of this card a small claims market variable, it's was
from the year before so what I did was I just added his stuff and left that variable on there
so that's how we came up with 7000.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: This is the first time I've been aware of a small claims market
variable.
DARLINE DUFFY: Well we had to come up with some kind of tool because we use the
uniform method of assessment, so many dollars per square foot... which sometimes
works and sometimes doesn't and sometimes it gives us too high a value based on the
sales around a certain area or around a certain property. We just came up with this
little... so we could lower them and make some kind of sense out of it.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Do you do the same thing for houses that are under market sales
or just...
DARLINE DUFFY: What I did was I added his new improvements, the room over the
garage, the pool, the shed, but I left that 17%on the whole new total. So that's how I...
PHYLISS ATKINSON- I notice something around the pool you have some kind of
decking.
RICHARD HALL: Yes. Concrete.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Do you have any other sales in your neighborhood for houses
that are similar to yours?
RICHARD HALL: I mentioned to Darline that there was one just built right around the
corner. The property was bought for $76,000 I believe. The house is on almost an acre.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: How much property to you have?
RICHARD HALL: About a '/2 acre.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON- That house sold for $220,000?
RICHARD HALL: And that's who built the new house around the corner.
JOHN SULLIVAN- Darline, the market value variable that you gave, when was that?
DARLINE DUFFY: I originally put that on in '97.
JOHN SULLIVAN: What is on the back where it says 5/91? May of'91
DARLINE DUFFY: No 5/91 was when the house was originally built. There was 40%
for completion on the left hand side. There was 40% completion for '91 because the...
wasn't finished when I went to see it. But that's no longer, that's just the day when
those figures were done. Originally that total assessment on the improvements was 7800
dollars.
JOHN SULLIVAN: But then you came down to 7000 in '97?
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Yes, she dropped the assessment.
JOHN SULLIVAN: In March of'97 was when the variance...variable market allowance
was given?
DARLINE DUFFY: I brought it down to... In '911 had a partial on this side of the card,
on the front. In'91 I had a partial of 4200 on the improvement. Then in 5/911 put it up
to 7000, that was the total assessment of the improvement. I'm just looking at the
improvement but that is where the variable comes. That brought it to 7000 in '91, then I
put the variable on it in '97 to bring the improvements down to 6000.
JOHN SULLIVAN: That's what I'm asking. When did you put them on in March of
'97 that was my question.
RICHARD HALL: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can I change my number? Just from what
I'm hearing it sounds like I was given a courtesy to go down to 7000 it should probably
be up higher then that now. Maybe, can I put that up to 7500? Or am I getting too
confusing.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: Just leave it as it is. We are the ones that make the decisions.
RICHARD HALL: OK, I'm trying to be reasonable.
JOHN SULLIVAN: You can change it. That's your prerogative.
JESS WOLF: You've got to understand we as a Board do not raise the assessment, we
lower it.
RICHARD HALL: So I should just leave it then. OK, thank you.
JONATHAN WIGGINS: Darline, do you have anything further.
DARLINE DUFFY: Yeah, I did some comparables quickly, I didn't make copies of the
cards because I was running out of time and the machine jammed. I don't have any
office staff so these are all houses in his neighborhood. If you would like to see the
property record cards, I can give them to you.
JESS WOLF: These are all houses with pools.
DARLINE DUFFY: Well, the first one is Mr. Halls house, that's the subject property.
PHYLLIS ATKINSON: See now how did you get that, I didn't see that transfer come
through.
DARLINE DUFFY: The only thing is I told Mr. Hall that I'm not too sure about the
degree of finishedness his playroom is over the garage so I told him I would be happy to
go look at it. And he said OK, so in this, I counted it as living space, but I don't know.
JOHN SULLIVAN: When are you going to go look at it?
DARLINE DUFFY: I don't know, when it's convenient for him but I told him I would
go look at it if he wanted me too. These are all really close in the neighborhood, you
know within three blocks.
JOHN SULLIVAN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Hall, thank you very much. We
will let you know what our decision is when we meet you. You will be advised by mail.
I hereby declare this meeting of the Board of Assessment Review 16, May 2000
adjourned at 9:OOpm.
TO: Elizabeth Neville , Town Clerk
FROM: Board of Assessment Review
RE: REPORT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW - TAX YEAR 1999/00 .
DATE: July 8, 1999
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 1 99/00 assessment roll are completed.
C �-kG�c.ra��
Cha' man Me er
tuber,
tuber
I mber
Form BAR-4
R E�r`F'II�R�n
JUL 1 4 1999
1 own Clem suutnuld
T
BOARD �Si� REVIEW
Telephone 1
516 -765-1937
Souf1L, 971
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARINGS
GRIEVANCE DAY
MAY 18, 1999
Chairman John Sullivan declared the meeting in session at 9:15 a.m.
Present were:
Board of Assessment Review- John P. Sullivan, Chairman; Phyllis Atkinson, Member;
William F. Englis, Jr., Member; Jonathan Wiggins, Jess Wolf, Member.
Assessors- Scott A. Russell, Chairman; Darline J. Duffy; Robert I. Scott, Jr.
Jess Wolf: Sitting on the board is Jess Wolf, John Sullivan, Bill Englis, Phyliss Atkinson,
and Jonathan Wiggins.
John Sullivan: Good Morning, my name is John Sullivan, chairman of the Board of
Assessment Review. I hereby declare this meeting of the Board of Assessment Review of
the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York in session this eighteenth
day of May, 1999 at 9:15am. Board members to my right, William Englis, Phyllis
Atkinson, Jonathan Wiggins. To my left, Jess Wolf. Also present is the Board of
Assessors, Chairman Mr.Scott Russell, Mr. Robert Scott, Ms. Darline Duffy. Mr. Englis
will you swear in the Assessors.
William Englis: Raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the
information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your
ability.
Darline Duffy: Yes.
Scott Russell: Yes.
Robert Scott: Yes.
William Englis: Please state your name and address for the record.
Scott Russell: Scott A. Russell , 515 Oak Street, Cutchogue New York.
Robert Scott: Robert I. Scott, 26700 Main Road, Orient New York.
Darline Duffy: Darline Duffy, 3165 Bay Shore Road, Greenport, New York.
John Sullivan: Thank You. Who's number one? Number one is Barry Berkman,
Andrew and Debbie. Tax map number 94.-3-3.1,3.2,and 3.3. Assessed value appearing on
the assessment roll is listed here on the application of 19,050 dollars. Requesting a
reduction of 8,640 dollars. Is Mr. Berkman here?
Hubert Sullivan: No, my name is Hubert F. Sullivan. I'm with the law firm of Wickham,
Wickham, and Bressler. We represent the Berkman's in this matter.
John Sullivan: Will you swear Mr. Sullivan in please?
William Englis: Will you raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear that the
information you give here will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability.
Hubert Sullivan: I do.
William Englis: Please give your name and address for the record.
Hubert Sullivan: My name is Hubert F. Sullivan, my address is 225 Washington Ave.,
Jamesport, New York. My firm, its address is, 10315 Main Rd., Mattituck, NY.
John Sullivan: Thank you. You may be seated. Supplementary statement in support of
complaint of real property assessment Berkman et al. The property in issue consists of a
single unsubdivided 37 acre parcel approved by a one family dwelling and several farm
stretches. Prior to 1994, the property of the tax map number 94.-3-3 was assessed at
17,000. In 1993, the county of Suffolk acquired development rights to approximately 25
acres for 210,000 dollars. The property was thereafter reassessed as three separate
parcels. Even though it was not subdivided. The sum of the new assessment is 19,050
dollars. Not-withstanding, the sale of development rights. The separate assessed parcels
cannot be separately sold because they are not sub divided, thus an increase in assessment
is not warranted based on the existence of separate parcels. Do you have anything else to
say Mr. Sullivan?
Hubert Sullivan: Just a word by way of background, this complaint is the most recent in
a series of complaints, for previous years taxes which this board has refused to change
the assessment the prior years are now in suit and this proceeding is a necessary condition
precedent to bringing an action for tax certiorari relief in the Supreme Court, and that's
the
main reason we are here.
John Sullivan: This is in Supreme Court, you say?
Hubert Sullivan: Not this particular assessment. But I believe it's for 1995,1997, and
this would make 1999. I anticipate making a motion in the Supreme Court to consolidate
the whole thing. These Supreme Court actions are not on the calendar of the Supreme
Court as yet.
John Sullivan: OK . Have they been before small claims court?
Hubert Sullivan: No.
John Sullivan: Thank you. You said 1997, 1998, 1999 you plan to consolidate?
Hubert Sullivan: That is 1995, 1997, and 1999. 1 think we missed 1996.
John Sullivan: 95,97, and 99?
Hubert Sullivan: Yes, and 99 is pending before the board now.
Jess Wolf: Before this board?
John Sullivan: Before this board right now.
Hubert Sullivan: Yes that's the current application.
John Sullivan: OK, where is 98?
Hubert Sullivan: 98 was missed also. It's every other year.
Jess Wolf: Do you have any idea when this will come on the Supreme Court calendar?
Hubert Sullivan: I would assume that by this summer it would be on the Supreme Court
calendar. The Supreme Court rules require a conference before a note of issue can be
filed . We anticipate going through the conference procedure sometime within the next
two months, then we would file a note of issue and then it becomes a question of how far
behind the calendar is in Supreme Court and I'm not aware of the lag between the filing of
a note of issue and the actual time that it comes up to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Phyllis: I have a question. If a property is not subdivided how come subsequently it has
three separate tax map numbers. Where it was originally, it was just lot 3, and now its 3.1,
3.2, and 3.3?
Hubert Sullivan: I am told that half the sale to the town of development rights it is
customary to reassess the property and its called effectively subdivided by the sale of the
development rights and that's how it comes to be 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. It's that business of
raising the assessed value simply because the development rights have been sold. But I
understand it's a common practice, not only in this town but also in others. That's what
the main thing that we're challenging here. I would note that the planning board had never
subdivided this.
John Sullivan: Have you submitted a map for subdivision?
Hubert Sullivan: No, we did not submit a map for subdivision.
John Sullivan: To the planning board or any other?
Hubert Sullivan: Not to the planning board or anybody else. This is purely a product of
the assessors office.
Phyllis Atkinson: Do you receive three separate tax bills?
Hubert Sullivan: Yes, they do. I have them if you want. One of the lots has a mortgage
on it and the taxes are being paid by North Fork Bank, but the other two lots are being
paid directly by the Berkman's.
Jonathan Wiggins: You are paying a lot less tax for the property with the development
rights sold than you are proportionately to the property.
Hubert Sullivan: We are paying more taxes then we were before. It had an assessed
value of 17,000. All of a sudden it jumps by a little over 2000.
John Sullivan: Mr. Sullivan, you said you have a mortgage on one parcel.
Hubert Sullivan: Yes it was the approved parcel the dwelling, I think that is on one of
the lots.
John Sullivan: OK. Are you finished Jon?
Jonathan Wiggins: Yes.
John Sullivan: Mr. Russell, do you have any comments?
Scott Russell: Yes, I'd like to explain, back in 1993, the Berkman's had a survey done
and along with this survey, submitted to the farmland preservation committee a parcel to
be sold for developments rights. When you do that you have to file a new deed because
you are now effectively changing the ownership of the parcel. If you are going to extract
25 acres from a 37 acre piece, and convey the development rights to another entity like
the town, the fee ownership is different. On that lot, its not the same as the other two lots
because now its been cleansed of its development rights and those rights, that part of the
bundle of rights, sits with the town. That creates a new lot and you file deed, and they did
that, they filed a map, this is the survey map I have, and they filed a deed. Now upon
receiving that deed, we review the parcel as we usually do, we cut the assessment on the
farmland parcel in half, as a result of the sale of development rights. The problem was in
this particular circumstance, the Berkman's were receiving what we call agricultural
assessment or a lower assessed value based on farmland use for the entirety. We went and
reviewed the property and saw that the ten acres along the sound has not been actively
farmed, at least at the time, this was back in 1993 there was no active use on the ten acres
along the sound and what we did is we reviewed that and assessed it like any other
soundfront that's out here. Actually a little less because it is unimproved other than the
house that's up on Oregon Road that actually, when you look at the map extends the
parcel from the North Road, boxes out the house and then runs a right of way or road
back to the ten acres in the back. So what we did is we effectively cut the assessment for
the farmland in half, but had to raise the assessment for the soundfront. Its only
appropriate that soundfront property isn't extended an agricultural assessment benefit, it's
not being farmed. We confirmed with the tenant that he wasn't farming the ten acres
along the sound at the time. We've actually conferred on this a couple of times. Eric
Bressler used to represent the Berkman's, and I told Eric that 25 acres in the middle they
could qualify for an agricultural exemption and it would be no encumbrance to the owners
because they are not allowed to build on it anyway. The only time you would see a
penalty would be if they built on that. They would never be able to get a building permit
for it because they have already cleansed it from the development rights. The town bought
the development rights and reimbursed them and the town sits with that part of the fee
which is the right to build. With Mr. McBride as the tenant, they could qualify for the ag
benefits, and probably cut the existing tax bill on the farmland, the 25 acres, by another
80% if they desire. There is no risk of penalty to them. Since they don't have the legal
right anymore to convert this. But the ten acres on the sound all the rights were in tact.
When you look at the map, they have effectively created three separate parcels. A 1.3 acre
piece along Oregon Road where there are some barns and some structures. They've
retained that as a separate lot that still has its building rights intact. That's assessed as a
total 1550 dollars and it's lot 3.2 in the properties. Then the ten acre parcel or 10.397
retains a portion up to the front on Oregon Road and then the ten acres along the sound.
That has a total assessment of 14,400. You have to remember there is a house on this and
it's over ten acres and its all of the soundfront along this parcel. It is fully intact with what
they can do with it. There is no sale of development rights on that. The only piece that's
been encumbered by the development rights is the 25 acre piece which is actively being
farmed and receiving ag assessment benefits, not exemption benefits because they haven't
applied, but the assessment is 125 dollars per acre for that. They have every right to sell
one, two or all three parcels whether they have gotten a subdivision or not. There is no
prohibition for selling land if you didn't get a subdivision. You have every right to sell a
10.4 acre piece of soundfront property without subdivision from Southold Town and in
fact this was effectively created by one branch of the town government which is the farm
preservation committee, and it's a matter of law that it shows up as a separate parcel
because the ownership is no longer the same for the three. They are now checkerboarded
while the middle development rights are being split up creating the three lots. They have
every right to sell one, two or all three parcels. They do not have to sell the whole parcel
in its entirety. They have every right to sell the farmland piece, the soundfront piece by
itself, and the other small 1.3 acre piece along Oregon Road, by itself. No such thing is a
requirement for subdivision. What I suspect on Oregon Road piece applied for a setoff of
that 1.3 acre piece although the planning board might waive that since it was created from
the sale of development rights. The 10.4 acre piece along the sound was required
subdivision for sale. If someone was to go and put houses on that, then they would come
before subdivision, and this is a certiorari case that's been pending for almost five years
now. It's still in court, if I understand Mr. Sullivan, this is his pro-forma step to go before
the board today so that they can pursue other avenues in the article 7 proceeding. That
would be an issue of value.
John Sullivan: Is this in certiorari?
Scott Russell: It's in certiorari. It's been for past years in certiorari, and I suspect that
this one is headed toward certiorari should he not seek relief today from the grievance
board. Any thing decided today is going to have adverse impact on the assessment.
Jonathan Wiggins: Scott you are saying that there is a 10.4 acre piece on the sound . I
don't see it here on this tax map.
Scott Russell: Its in the middle.
Jonathan Wiggins: So what your saying is the Berkman's can sell either of these three
lots independently without going through any further subdivision?
Scott Russell: Absolutely, there is no need for subdivision to sell parcels of land in
Southold town.
Phyllis Atkinson: And then if any one ever purchases it if they wanted to subdivide , they
can.
Scott Russell: If they wanted to do something on the soundfront they would have to
come to the subdivision map.
Phyllis Atkinson: Is this an AC zoning parcel?
Scott Russell: I don't know, it is either a mixture of AC or AC and RA according to
their records, it is a mixture of both. But it is extensively the same by town zoning
standards and again there is an issue of value that hasn't been addressed yet. How much
are we indicating and how much are they saying it is worth. and under the lap of proof
today any reduction or any relief by the grievance board is going to adversely impact my
defense for the past four years. Which is still subject to review by the court under the
article 7 petition and I have no indication that it's worth less than what we've prescribed
as value.
Jonathan Wiggins: Are you saying that the 25 acre piece of land with the development
rights sold, can have its taxes further reduced by putting in an agricultural exemption.
Scott Russell: Exactly, by another 8%.
Jess Wolf: Scott, you've got us confused now, there is a line that seems to indicate
another piece of property along the front.
Scott Russell: That would be the high water mark.
Jess Wolf: 4.1 acre, no I'm sorry, 4.1 is the designation 10. something acres.
Scott Russell: Lot 4.1 actually belonged to Alan Cardinale. He has transferred that to my
understanding with the ten acres to Little Bear Realty. That's a separate piece. This is the
mirror image piece right next door to the left, more to the west.
John Sullivan: Is that on the sound?
Scott Russell: Yes, it's on the sound and on Oregon Road. If you look at the shape of
Oregon Road you'll see that the boxed out on with a house is identified as 3.1 and the lot
runs along the property line to the extent that it takes it down to the sound where the
soundfront property is.
John Sullivan: Any other questions?
Jonathan Wiggins: Yes I have a question for the assessors. Just out of curiosity,
Cardinale's piece,
what is the assessment on that.
Scott Russell: Off the top of my head, I don't know.
Jonathan Wiggins: One would think it would comparable to the piece on the other side.
Scott Russell: Although its improved, its improved much more extensively with the new
house on the sound the Berkman's house is an older farmhouse. But again there is an
issue of value
that hasn't even been addressed today and I think its paramount. What do we say its
worth and what have they submitted as proof of anything? It's really lacking any type of
proof for local review.
Phyllis Atkinson: Could you just repeat the assessed value for the 3.2 acres and for the
10 acres and for the 25 acres.
Scott Russell: The 25 acre piece has a total assessment of 3100. The 1.38 acre piece to
the easterly side of the property , southeasterly side has a total assessment of 1550 dollars.
The 10 plus acre piece that extends from Oregon Road back to the sound and inclusive of
a lot of the soundfront property and includes a house has a total assessment of 14,400
dollars.
Jess Wolf: What was the first one Scott?
Scott Russell: The first one, lot 3.3 was the 25.313 acres of farmland is assessed at
3100 dollars.
John Sullivan: Which one is the house on, 3.2?
Scott Russell: 3.3, no I'm sorry 3.1 has the house and the soundfront, altogether.
John Sullivan: 3.2 is assessed at what?
Scott Russell: 3.2 is a 1.3 acre piece with a barn and that's assessed at 1550 and the
development rights are in tact on that piece. Its along Oregon Road.
John Sullivan: Any other questions. Any other comments Mr. Sullivan?
Hubert Sullivan: No.
John Sullivan: Mr. Russell , anything further? OK Mr. Sullivan, we will advise at a later
date on this matter. There are no decisions made today. You will be advised as soon as
possible.
Thank you very much.
Bill Englis: Please stand and raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear that
the information you give here will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your
ability.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Catherine McGuinness: My name is Catherine Mcguinness, My legal address is 177
Margaret Dr.,
East meadow NY, My secondary address is 490 Windy Point Lane, Southold NY.
John Sullivan: Thank you. Number 2, Francis and Catherine Mcguinness, tax map #
78.-6-11. Apparently listed at 4800. What's this proposed?
Catherine McGuinness: Proposed the tentative new assessment evidently to 6100
dollars.
Jonathan Wiggins: Are we grieving the 4800 or the 6100.
John Sullivan: No the 6100. What are we requesting?
Catherine McGuinness: Requesting basically that part of the increase of 1300 dollars be
relieved based on the fact that we don't believe there were that many improvements made
to the property or the house.
John Sullivan: Now, we have to know what you are requesting. You have to give us
some figure here.
Catherine McGuinness: OK well I'm requesting that half of the tentative increase of
1300 dollars be relieved.
John Sullivan: It is assessed at 6100, your request in a reduction of 5500. June 8th it
was sold to Mcguinness. June 8th of 1998. Sold to Mcguinness for $183,000. Here is a
letter if you may it states that the above property was originally assessed at 6100. The
previous owner had that assessment reduced to 4800 due to the poor condition of the
house. They purchased the property in June of 1998 at a price of$183,000. Due to the
selling price the assessor believes the condition of the house was no longer an issue. We
are protesting this assumption to the best of our knowledge. The only improvements
made by the previous owner were painting the walls, replacing the windows, some but not
all, new fixtures in one bathroom. The house still needs much work and we paid the price
due to the land and the ... Hesitated due to house condition, most real estate we looked at
was in that price range. We respectively request that the board of assessment consider the
reduction in the proposed increase of 1300 to a more equitable amount. Mrs. McGuinness
do you have anything else to add to that?
Catherine McGuinness: No not really, that says it all.
John Sullivan: Anything from the assessors?
Darline Duffy: This house was assessed for 6000 since 1973. It went up 100 dollars
because they built a deck so its been at 6100 since 1983. In 1994 it was sold for
$129,000. The change was made because of the sale price. That is always an indication
of value. I thought that was a very low sale price and when I inquired about it I called a
couple of Realtors who had been inside the house and they told me the house was in very
poor condition. I told the owner at the time that I would be reviewing this sometime in
the future because when we make a change as the house was improved, when we lower
the assessment based on the condition of the house it was a low sale price. They said it
was because the house was in such poor condition. But as they improved the house I
would be looking at it. However the house was sold for $183,000. I put it back to its
original assessment which I have to say the RAR in March was 3.27% do the 6100 which
was the original assessment indicated a market value of 186,000, but since then we got the
new RAR and it is a little to high and it indicates a value of$193,000. The new RAR is
3.15%. So if I were to readjust this now with the finalized residential assessment rate it
would be 5800.
John Sullivan: Can we go back on this, after the RAR you said what.
Darline Duffy: When I made this change, we are not allowed to reassess based on sale
unless of course I made a reduction based on a sale, then I can look at it and bring it back
to its original assessment, which I did. When I went back in March, the residential
assessment rate was 3.27%. Last week we got the new residential assessment rate ratio
which is 3.15%, so at 3.27% it is a little too high. At 3.15%, the assessment probably
should be at 5800.
John Sullivan: The 5800 at the present RAR, what is the market value?
Darline Duffy: $184,000.
John Sullivan: Does anyone else have any questions?
( everyone answers no.)
Phyliss Atkinson: I do have one question, did you make any additional improvements?
Catherine McGuinness: Yes we just put a deck on it and we also replaced remaining
windows and that was it.
Phyllis Atkinson: What was your total cost?
Catherine McGuinness: With the deck it was $3800. With the windows I believe were
about $5500 because they were big.
John Sullivan: If I read you right, you are saying that 5500 is a proper assessment.
Darline Duffy: Yes.
Jonathon: Is that with or without the deck?
Darline Duffy: It's with the old deck not the new deck.
Jonathan Wiggins: But she replaced it.
Catherine McGuinness: No we did not replace it, we added on to it, and I expect it to
go up because of the new deck, but 6100 dollars plus the deck is going to be a little high,
so basically I would like to have it reduced and of course whatever the new assessment
with the new deck then we accept that.
Phyliss Atkinson: Could you tell us how big the deck is?
Catherine McGuinness: 9 x 15.
Darline Duffy: I don't think that's a substantial improvement, its a small thing so I can
go with 5500. I won't raise it after that.
Bob Scott: Including the new deck.
Darline Duffy: Including the new deck and the new window.
Then its acceptable.
John Sullivan: Would that be acceptable to you?
Catherine McGuinness: Yes.
John Sullivan: No further comments? Thank you.
John Sullivan: Paul Borowy.
Bill Englis: Would you stand and raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear
that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of
your ability?
Ms. Borowy: Yes sir.
Bill Englis: Please state your name and address.
Ms. Borowy: Beth Borowy 18800 Main Rd., Mattituck, NY 11952.
John Sullivan: Number 3 is Paul and Beth Borowy. Tax map # is 115-6-5, currently
assessed at 5800. I don't know what RAR you used or how you arrived at the 184,000.
Ms. Borowy: I called the assessors office and they gave me that number.
John Sullivan: They gave you that number? They put down that they want it reduced to
145,000. What's the assessment on that please?
Jess Wolf: 4570.
John Sullivan: You have an appraisal here from Mr. Winters.
Ms. Borowy: He was our mortgage broker.
John Sullivan: The appraiser on this was Kenneth M. Herbert. Is that right?
Ms. Borowy: Yes.
John Sullivan: 5800 they want it reduced to... Dec. 1, 1997 it was sold to Borowy for
$142,500. Are you handling this one Mr. Russell?
Scott Russell: Yes I am.
John Sullivan: Do you have any comments?
Scott Russell: No, actually the 142,500, I thought, was a pretty good price that they
paid, and I thought they got a lot of house for the money, but it was a bad market back
then and it was on the market for some time so I don't think they got an exceptional deal
cause its not like that was a time tested number. I think , if you recall, this has been before
the board once before and I believe it was listed at the time for $159,000. I think she got a
good deal, but I don't think this was some how a steal. Certainly, plenty of people had the
opportunity to look at it and it was the Borowy's that were fortunate to buy it. I would
say that the two houses on either side just recently sold. One is a ranch that is similar to
the subject house and in most respects except one it's actually ten years newer then the
subject. It sold for $190,000 in October. The problem is that ten years newer, when you
are talking about the difference between the mid seventies and the mid eighties is
especially,given everything else being equal, it's probably something that ought to be
considered by the board. I'm going to give you a couple of sales. There is a cape on the
other side that sold for $225,000 and its pretty spectacular cape and I'm not sure though
how comparable it is other than the fact that it's located right next to the subject. I would
say it's probably worth more than $142,000 and probably worth less than $192,000 which
is what the neighbor just sold for. It is ten years older and I would just leave it to your
discretion to decide what a fair number would be, given that margin. I will just submit the
comps to you.
Ms. Borowy: Its got more of a great room effect and its a more modern house, the house
that sold for the $190,000 as mine is a typical 1970.
Jonathon Wiggins: Is the square footage about the same?
Scott Russell: Yes actually the subject is slightly larger from our records. It's at 1782
and comp # 1, which is the yellow house is at 1655. I would agree with her in that the ten
years, the problem with Trowbridge is that she was an older person , and I believe she
passed away, and I don't think the house got a lot of the same up keep that the yellow one
did and that certainly would make a difference. Its probably not worth the same as the
yellow cape, it's worth less, but worth more than the 142,500 that she paid and I will just
leave it to your discretion to decide what the numbers should be. The yellow one is a nice
house and to be honest, it sold within two weeks so I'm not sure if$190,000 was high or
not. It went on the market and sold in no time and it was just a situation of the right buyer
at the right time. Main Road properties are a little bit more harder to sell.
Jonathon Wiggins: How many heat zones do you have?
Ms. Borowy: There are two. One is in the den and one in the rest of the house.
Phyllis Atkinson: When you purchased the house, it was assessed at 5800
Ms. Borowy: Yes, that hasn't changed.
Jess Wolf. Have you made any improvements since you bought the house?
Ms. Borowy: Not structurally, nothing more than some plumbing, some electrical work,
and a new rug.
Jess Wolf: None of which are assessable.
Phyllis Atkinson: ( Could not understand the question.)
Scott Russell: To be perfectly frank, Main Road property is tough to call, I think its more
than what they paid. They buy early in 1997 and the market has changed since then. This
house next door just sold for $190,000 and I think the house next door is nicer for a
variety of reasons. Number one, it's ten years newer and it hasn't received the up keep
that the Trowbridges house did, so I'm just leaving it up to your discretion to review what
I've submitted.
Phyllis Atkinson: Would you say the market is changing?
Scott Russell: I'm not sure. I think it's changed more then 10%, but as a medium but the
values,
I think the waterfronts have increased by 50% and I think the interior lots have increased
anywhere from 20%-30%. Main road houses have gone up in value. Have they gone up
the same as other properties, I don't know. I think they've gone up, but certainly not as
much as some of the other locations. Again the two sales were on either side of this
(Could not understand)
Phyllis Atkinson: (Could not understand the question.)
Scott Russell: As location goes, in terms of size its only 200 sq. ft. bigger. But I don't
know if the same market is there for a fifty year old cape as there is for a newer ranch.
But it is a cape that is really fantastic. It is fifty years old but it is a beautiful house, and its
got an inground pool. It's only comparable in the best respect in that it is year round and
predominately it is on the Main Road and it is right next door. Her location is
comparable, for style it's probably not.
John Sullivan: Am I reading correctly, this was reduced from 6900 to 5800 in 1996 in
small claims?
Scott Russell: That was a reduction when it was on the market. That had been listing at
the time for $159,000 and I think it was reduced to the asking price. The RAR at the time
was 3.48%.
John Sullivan: This says SC here, is that small claims?
Scott Russell: Yes.
John Sullivan: Are there any other comments?
( Everyone answers no.)
John,Sullivan: Thank you, there will be no decisions made today. You will be hearing
from us at a later date. We will get to you as soon as possible.
Ms. Borowy: Thank you very much for you time.
Evening Session
John Sullivan: I hereby declare the meeting of the Board of Assessment Review to
reconvene, 7pm, 18th of May, 1999.
Bill Englis: Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the
information given here will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of your ability?
Charles Sirey: I swear.
Bill Englis: Please give your name and address.
Charles Sirey: My name is Charles J. Sirey, and my address is 435 Westview Drive,
Mattituck.
John Sullivan: We have Charles Sirey, Section, block and number is 139-1-23.
Currently assessed at 7600 and you are here for a Star exemption?
Charles Sirey: Yes that's correct.
John Sullivan: Would you like to address the Board, Mr. Sirey?
Charles Sirey: I am applying for the Star exemption and we bought a house in
Mattituck. The closing date was the 31 st of Dec. and since then I have been moving in. I
changed my driver's license address on the 26th of January and at the same time I changed
my voting registration. We bought a car and the car is registered and I was under the
impression that I qualified for the exemption because of my age, I'm 69 and because of
that I'm a full time resident of this house. I've been turned down on the basis that this is
not my primary residence and I can understand how that might be arrived at because for
my income tax returns I have my 1997 and 1998. Both of those years I lived in New York
City. I also used my old driver's license, the flip side where there is a place where you
would put your new address. That is probably why I was rejected. But I since took care
of these details and got myself a new driver's license and I went and picked up my voter
registration card which did not come in the mail. I also picked up my telephone records to
show that the phone was in use in my house for 67 out of 112 days, which is about 60%
of the time. Now that doesn't prove that this is my primary residence, but it certainly is
consistent. I understand this is very difficult to prove your primary residence but I think
I've made some attempt to do so and that's about it.
John Sirey: Where was your residence before this?
Charles Sirey: My residence was 54 Riverside Drive, NYC. That is an office apartment
which is owned by my wife in which she still practices. She is a practicing psychologist
and
she goes into the city three days a week. Monday's, Tuesday's and Wednesday's to see
patients. I submit that its rather difficult to lift up a practice and move it out to Mattituck,
I don't think her patients would want to make the drive. My wife, incidentally is 64, so
I'm the one who is applying, she is not eligible.
John Sullivan: And the rest is all here that your saying, is included in here. Mr. Russell,
do you have anything to say?
Scott Russell: It is a difficult situation and I can understand Mr. Sirey's position. The
problem is we were instructed by New York State when they asked us to attend the one
week conference on the Star program that they asked us and they made it perfectly clear
that issues such as voter registration or car registration aren't necessarily determinative of
your primary residence. In fact, in Southold, we have a lot of residents of New York City
who vote out here and who register out here. I think that you'll find the insurance rates
are a lot cheaper out here then they are in New York City. I think that Mr. Sirey is in the
process of becoming a resident of Southold Town there is no question about that. My
only problem is, all I have to go on is the tax return. The most recent one was filed as a
New York City resident. When I get audited from the State, I'm going to have to explain
why I approved or disapproved exemptions and I don't know what I'm going to tell the
auditors from the comptrollers office if they tell me I've erred in giving this exemption
because they are residents of New York City. I think Mr. Sirey is on his way to becoming
a resident of Southold, unfortunately there's no real definitive earmark of residency. The
best thing to use from the assessors point of view is the state return. I did ask Mr. Sirey
where he got his social security, his 1099, which I believe goes out after the 1 st of
January, and he did say it was sent to New York City. I don't know if he has contacted
the department of social security that he is a resident of Southold. If you had your mail
going to NYC then your social security and your monthly statement, I think you said
direct deposit on that.
Charles Sirey: Direct deposit goes to the bank.
Scott Russell: The 1099 he only gets annually, and that was sent to NYC. I just don't
know what to say. Southampton was just audited a month ago and then they published the
assessors mistakes on the website. I don't know what to say if they say how did you
determine that he is a resident of Southold Town. Also on the issue of the residency of
Mrs. Sirey only one of them has to be 65, but they both do qualify for the exemption,
because you are only permitted one exemption per household anyway and I have nothing
here. The issue of her residency, the application is silent on her residency. I don't have
any implication that she is a resident of Southold town or NYC. I don't know where she
is registered to vote.
Bill Englis: What about the IRS papers that were due the 15th of April,just a little over a
month ago.
Scott Russell: They were submitted as NYC residents. But Mr. Sirey makes a good
point in saying they are based on 98 income and I was a resident of NYC in 98. I am now
a resident of Southold Town now that it's 1999 and we did by the end of the year and
after Jan 1 st, I am a resident of Southold Town. So he does make a good point when he
says he submitted , rightfully, on the NYC address because that was his 98 residency. I
think he is in the process in becoming a resident of Southold. I,just simply, as an
assessor don't know how to approve it and then be able to justify it down the road.
Jess Wolf: What about the telephone calls, which are preponderantly from Suffolk?
Scott Russell: I would say 67 out of 112 days, I would not call that a preponderance. I
don't know what his NYC phone records look like. A part-time resident of Southold isn't
enough, you have to be a full time resident. I think the phone calls would represent, at the
very least, a part time resident and possibly he is on his way to becoming a full time
resident, but you are talking about a little over half the days submitted. I would say that's
half time.
Phyllis Atkinson: OK now you attended a seminar sponsored by NY state for the
enhanced star program?
Scott Russell: Yes, and the basic. Actually to be honest with you, Mr. Sirey wouldn't
qualify for the enhanced because his income exceeds the limits, but he would qualify for
the basic if he were a resident of Southold town.
Phyllis Atkinson: And they instructed you not to accept a drivers license?
Scott Russell: No they said that those are not determinative of primary residence. Now
if you call NY state tomorrow and say what can I do to satisfy the primary resident
requirements with this application, they would say ask for more information. Well he has
given us everything we've asked for then they'll say what does his NYS return say and I'll
say New York City and they'll say, then he is a resident of NYC. But he is contending
that he is a resident of Southold Town. Well then they'll say use your best judgment. But
when they come and audit then they'll say this one was extended to a NYC resident by
their own affirmation on their own return and then they put us in a tough position.
Certainly if the board thinks he met the criteria as a resident I have no problem with the
grievance board extending the exemption to him. Or extending to him a residential status
that he is seeking so that we can administer the exemption he would qualify for.
Phyllis Atkinson: What are we talking in a dollar amount?
Scott Russell: In exemption, the Mattituck school district is worth about 143 dollars.
Had he qualified for the enhanced, it would have been 808 dollars.
Jess Wolf: Wait a minute, what was the 808?
Scott Russell: That would be the savings for the enhanced exemption, but their income
exceeds the New York State limit.
John Sullivan: The regular is 143 and the enhanced is 808?
Scott Russell: Yes. the regular goes up over three years. The enhanced version is totally
financed. It will go up about 500 dollars in about 3 or 4 years.
Scott Russell: If you want to grant him his residency status, I don't have a problem with
that.
Phyllis Atkinson: The property or the apartment on Riverside Drive, is that a residence
where an office is and is it occupied by residents.
Charles Sirey: Yes it is a co-op. My wife has owned it solely for many years.
Phyllis Atkinson: And they permit certain types office operations to be used from the
co-op.
CharlesSirey: Yes.
Phyllis Atkinson: And did you work there also?
Charles Sirey: Yes.
Phyllis Atkinson: And you are retired.
Charles Sirey: I am retired.
Scott Russell: Mr. Sirey brought in this information for the first time tonight. To be
honest, I think he has made a good effort in proving his residency. This is the first time
I`ve seen the phone records. I did talk to him earlier and say that it is one of those things
that you have to bring in what you can. I think he has made every effort to meet that
burden. Had we gotten that stuff earlier I might have viewed the application a little
differently, but at this point it is too late for me to reverse my decision. But if you did I
would certainly defend it as best I can.
John Sullivan: Jonathan do you have any questions?
Jonathan Wiggins: You purchased the house in 1998 and you started your full time
residence at that point, Dec. 31 st.
John Sullivan: Any further questions?
(everyone says no.) We make no decisions today. We will advise you just as soon as we
do and just as soon as possible.
William Englis: Will you stand please and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear
that the information you give herein will be given accurately and truthfully to the best of
your ability.
Vincent Orlando: I will.
William Englis: Please state your name and address for the secretary.
Vincent Orlando: Vincent Orlando, 305 Brook Lane, Southold.
John Sullivan: Vincent Orlando, Section, block and lot, 79-5-16.3. Currently assessed
at 12500. Looking for a reduction that is equal to 396.
Vincent Orlando: I believe that is what the house is valued at, 396.
John Sullivan: And you are looking for a reduction of 295,000.
Vincent Orlando: The last page is just the block of four houses on that block with their
assessments.
John Sullivan: How many square feet do you have?
Vincent Orlando: 3000.
Jonathan Wiggins: So you paid 105,000 dollars for the lot?
Vincent Orlando: Yes.
Jess Wolf: Off to your right is there a big quonset but and a guy who raises shellfish for
the town?
Vincent Orlando: Your right there, it is not far.
Jess Wolf. You can't get in, it's protected property?
Vincent Orlando: Yes sir.
John Sullivan: Do you have any comments?
Darline Duffy: I have a couple. Mr. Orlando and I talked before we came in. He paid
105,000 dollars for the property. His estimated cost was 200,000. He did a lot of the
work himself. I think the house is gorgeous. I think compared to his neighbors, his house
is a little bit nicer than his neighbors. I think that if you take his 300,000 with this package
that he put together, had he done it with a builder it would have cost more and I think he
could get more for this house. The house next door to him that was built by Bertani, was
sold for 265,000. I `ve been inside the house, and it's not as nice of a house. I think that
sale is too old to use as a comp. When I comp out the Valley house to Orlando, I come
out to 298,000, but I still think Mr. Orlando's house is worth 350,000. It seems to me
that for a very nice house in Southold, you can still get 350,000 for a house that's off the
water. We haven't seen that for a long time, but I think the market is very hot right now.
John Sullivan: What was the last sale that you quoted?
Darline Duffy: 265,000.
Jonathan Wiggins: How much was the Bertani house?
Darline Duffy: The Bertani house was 2148.
Jonathan Wiggins: So it was a much smaller house. It sold for 265,000 a year ago.
Darline Duffy: Correct. 350,000 equates to 11,000 dollar assessment. I wouldn't be
opposed to that. 350,000 reflects an 11,000 dollar assessment.
John Sullivan: Any other comments.
Jonathan Wiggins: What do you have the house insured for?
Vincent Orlando: It's insured for...(He can't remember.) 325,000?
Jonathan Wiggins: It's OK you can give us a copy of your insurance policy.
Vincent Orlando: Originally he gave me, they went to my house and said that I have a
5000 square foot house and they gave me an insurance policy for 395,000 ironically. I
said you can add the basement and the garage and still its not 5000 square foot, and then
he made an adjustment and he gave me either 310,000 or 320,000. I just have one quick
question. Is it relatively fair to assess someone's house at a peak market this month and
then next month it crashes? I think last year the market was lower so people were
assessed lower so I'm penalized because the market is up a little bit higher. Do you take
that into consideration because next year it could be, my house could be worth 200,000.
John Sullivan: We take it on the facts.
Phyllis Atkinson: Then you come in with recent comparable sales which reflect the
market.
. s
Vincent Orlando: OK I'm just asking.
John Sullivan: No further? Mr. Orlando, thank you for coming in. We will advise you
later, as soon as possible. No decisions today.
John Sullivan: Hereby adjourned, the meeting of the Board of Assessment Review,
Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, on the eighteenth day of May,
1999 at 9pm.