HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 FROM: Board of Assessment Review
TO: — Town Clerk
RE: REPORT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW - TAX YEAR 19�/0f.
DATE:
Attached herewith please find for public filing in yout office, the
complete file covering the public hearing (s) of the Board of
Assessment Review, together with changes ordered by this Board to -
the assessment roll, Assessorsacknowledgment, etc.
The duties of the Board of Assessment Review for the grievance
period covering the 190/assessment roll are completed.
_ �-rt� :!l .� Pel', �• �! <'r �s°t.,_�:
G rmar. Me
� L ol%
Me
'Member
ierr e r
Form BAR-4
✓, .,�
STATE OF NEW .YORK
COUNTY OF ySr i ) s s:
TOWN OR. VILLAGE OF
The undersigned, being duly sworn do severally depose and
say that deponents are members of the Board of Assessment Review;
that deponents have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof;
and the matters set forth are true to the best of the deponents '
knowledge.
Sworn to before me this Z .. day
o f� ccL , 1915.
Not7, Public t SYLVIA K. ROUSE
rJOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York
No. 4674306• Suffolk Goun��PYy/�
._ Commission €.p,rw March 30, iy��/
i/
C airman Me , erg
Me �
Member
Member
R.P.T.S.A. - 200 - 4/72
BAR-2 - Page 2 of 2
FROM: Board of Assessment Review, Special Meeting
TO: Town Assessor
RE: ORDER FOR CHANGE IN FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
DATE: / 1 17
The Board of Assessment Review for the Town of
has duly met to hear petitions on the final town assessment roll for the
tax year 19J/ as prescribed by law.
The Board, having duly convened, has considered each petition for the tax
year indicated, as filed with this Board, as prescribed by law.
A majority of the Board had determined that all of the changes indicated
on the attached page(s) will be -made on the assessment roll by the Assessor.
(BAR-2-Part 1I)
Total number of petitions submitted by assessor
Total number of reductions in assessment -
Total number of increases in assessment - . .
Total number of petitions without a change - O
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Assessment Review hereby orders the assessor
or board of assessors to make all changes in assessments as determined by the
Board of Assessment Review on the final assessment roll of the Town
0ffor the tax year 19r-"I , in conformance with this order.
July 19 , 1983
The Board of Assessment Review of the Town of
Southold was called to order by Chairman. Samuel A. Manarel ,
at 9:00 A.M. (Daylight Savings Time) at the Southold Town
Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. The other members of the
Board present were : Andrew Pitre . Ernest Radford and William
Weinheimer .
The following Complaints were heard by the Board
of Assessment Review:
No. 1: EDITH and JOHN REINERTSEN, 5417 9th Avenue ,
Brooklyn. NY 11220 ; Suffolk County Tax Map No . 1000-126-8-12;
Grounds for Complaint : Unenual assessment . Assessment should
be reduced to $3 .000 .00 .
Mr . Manarel administered the oath to Mr. Reinertsen.
MR. REINERTSEN: Originally I bought this in 1952; it
was a bungalow; I have had it for 31 years . It was just a
bungalow, then I dug a cellar under it myself - poured the con-
crete. That was sufficient when the kids were small but now
they 're grown and T had these windows Riven to me - 15 of them,
so I decided to put them in as a breezeway and then add a garage .
I tried to get a variance and go back. This looks veru wrong,
I can understand when the Assessor comes around. T had nowhere
to go. This lot is 300 X 50 - it 's an odd ball. I had no choice.
I tried to get a variance to go back and they wouldn 't let me ,
so I had to go the other way . So .I put on a breezeway and a
garage . It ' s not even siding - it ' s just these panels and I
don't see how it could double the value of the property . It ' s
not living quarters , it ' s only a breezeway and a garage; it 's a
slab .
MR. MANAREL: According to the card that we have the
square footage of the property has more than doubled and accord-
ing to the card that the Assessors had and you had the privileve
to see - this is nothing new. Thev have charged the regular
rates of $3 .00 for the breezettay, which is enclosed and charged
$1 .00 per sq . ft . for the garage , which is $750 .00 , and it is
Just a matter of simple arithmetic to bring this urs to where it
is . Charlie (Watts ) is there anvthing thn.t you would like to
say cnncerninR this? I believe you are the gentleman involved
here .
MR. WATTS: We left it on a, partial to determine what
they were going to do here . The area between the house and the
garage is 22 X 22 . That ' s why we left this for comnletion down
here - to see what became of this . We know the garage .
l
Board of Assessment Review •Tuly 19 , 1983
MR. MANAREL: Is vour assessment Completed now?
MR. WATTS: No, it 's a partial . When we determine
what , we will deal with this . If he finishes this off with
sheet rack, like the rest of the house .
MR. MANAREL : The assessment at the present time .
if I read this correctly now, is $3,800 . It 's not quite
finished. When it 's finished there will be an additional
$547 .00 or a total of $4,347 as a total assessment . Do you
understand that?
MR. RFINERTSEN: I ' ll tell you gentlemen now, I
c=ln't 1_eava it with the studs . T 'm just going to put panels
on it . T haven't cone it yet . It 's just the way it was .
MR. MANAREL: Do you have anv questions? Dees
anyone have any hues-tions? All right , fine . We 'rA going to
meet in a couple of weeks and gn over everything we have to
review from today and we will come to a decision and we will
send you a letter stating exactly what 's happened. Thank you
very much for appearing
MR. RETNERTSEN: Thank you.
No. 2: DAVID G. WALSH and JUDITH O'KEEFE, 525 West
Creek Avenue , Cutchogue . NY . Suffolk Countv Tax Map No.
1000-103-13-15; Grounds for Complaint : Unenual Assessment .
Assessment should be reduced to $4 ,000 .00 .
Mr. Manarel administered the oath to Mr. Walsh.
MR. MANAREL: Do you want to present your case to us?
MR. WALSH: I feel the taxes were high to begin with.
when I purchased the house, compared to some of the other homes
in the area. I want to determine how my rate was determined.
MR. MANAREL : Has your assessment been changed since
you bouvht the house?
MR. WALSH: Yes . it went up .
MR. WEINHEIMER: I am not quite certain of this .
MR. MANAREL: Charlie, would you release give us some
Information here . T think it ' s on the card here but with the
abbreviations, I think it would be easier for you to explain it .
2 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19, 1983
MR. WATTS: Unfortunately , we reviewed this after
Mr. Walsh bought it . on the basis of the Gelling price and
unfortunately for Mr. Walsh, these changes were made nrior.
This whole thing was deck so this was closed in here and
this was the reason the assessment was raised.
MR. MANAREL: Do you get that? Mr. Walsh, Vou
bought a piece of property and you did nothing to it; however. ,
the people who sold it to you did some improvement on the place
and it never came to the attention of the Assessors . When
.you bought it, they had to add it on when they went to review
it . It ' s simple, it ' s one of those things .
MR. WALSH: Could you explain what ' s on your records?
MR. MANAREL: The only records we have here - and if
you were in to the Assessor's office, you would have seen this;
it ' s 14 ' wide; one part is 14 ' X 15 ' ; another part is 16' X 10 '
if I have this right on this deck business and that added 25
cents per sq. ft . and you had 340 sn . ft . and that ' s $85 .
That 's how they came un with that .
MR. WALSH: That ' s for the deck? I understand the
deck was reduced; the deck was much larger, wrapped around
the house.
MR. MANAREL: Who said that to ,you?
MR. WALSH: That ' s the wav I saw a picture of the house .
MR: MANAREL: Charlie . can you tell us?
MR. WATTS: The deck was much larger. This was all
deck - just straight deck - that ' s all. Now this is a cover deck
and this is closed in back here . Prior the whole thing was deck
at 25 cents per sq. ft . Now this piece here is deck - part of
the original deck.
MR. MANAREL: Did you see that Mr. Walsh? Charlie,
point that out here .
MR. WATTS: This was prior all deck. This part was
all deck and. this part was covered and this was all closed. The
deck size was reduced; this is all the deck you have right now.
MR. MANAREL: I was reading by the card and it says
the deck and I wasn't sure that it was enclosed and that 's why
we have the Assessors in here to help us understand.
- 3 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19, 1983
MR. WALSH: The deck wac reduced in size , so why
Am I paying more? What was that rate?
MR. PITRE: For the enclosed part $2 .50 ner sn..ft .
and it wag 14 X 15 or 210 sn . ft . That gives you an increased
assessment of $525.00 .
MR. WALSH: How is this house in comnarison to
properties across the street or next to me?
MR. PITRE: We cannot take that into consideration.
MR. WEINHFIMER: Unless you bring in the other cards
and we make a comnarison to it . You will have to ask the man to
bring in the cards on the nropprties to which you are referring
and we will. have to make an item by item comparison.
MR. MANAREL: Well, we'll do that when we sit down .
Let ' s make a note of it .
MR. PITRE : We're here to help you. We 're tax pavers
lust like Vou.
MR. MANARFL : Do you have that down? Get a card to
compare . Do you have any other n.uestionG Mr. Walsh?
MR. WALSH: No, not at all.
MR. MANAREL: Thank you very much for coming in.
No. 3: MARGERY D. BURNS, P.O. Box 566 Southold, NY
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-61-1-8 .1. Grounds for Complaint :
Excessive assessment . Assessment should be reduced to $5 ,500 .00 .
Mr. Manarel administered the oath to Mrs . Burns .
MR. MANAREL: I'll read the complaint aloud: "The
Assessors ' Office informed me recently that the assessment on
the subject dwellinz and barn is being raised because the barn
is used as a second dwelling. This is not so. A variance was
granted to use the barn as a second dwelling when I donated 1800
sq. ft . of my land to the Town of Southold to use for a road to
be built from Traveler Street to the town offices . The barn on
the property has not been renovated (as yet) and is not occupied.
If my assessment is raised because of the variance, I suggest
the Town issue me a Certificate of Occupancy for the barn
_4 _
Board of Assessment Review July 19, 1983
immediately, otherwise, the assessment on the single family
dwelling I occupy and the empty barn should remain the same
as it was in 1982. I would also like to inquire why my land
assessment did not go down after my gift of 1800 sq.ft . of land
to the Town of Southold which was effected in 1978. "
MR. MOISA: It was never involved with anv so-called
transaction between Mrs . -Burns and the Town. There wasn't
enough land involved to indicate a reduction in any of the
prior land__assessment prior to the transfer to the Town. It ' s
just a small area. I believe it 's 50 by - I don't recall how
deep, but I could check it .
MRS. BURNS : It ' s about 40 ' X 50 ' .
MR. MOISA: Being it was at the leg of the property
and I think you would find most of this property is street
frontage. The prior assessment didn't even include that piece,
as far as the transaction was concerned. As far as the garage
is concerned, that was never• on the tax roll and when some
work was done on the rear part of the house, we checked the
card and we naturally had to take notice of the fact that some
enclosure was being completed there and that the garage wasn't
tin - it had to be included. Through the vears there was never
an assessment applied to it and you will also see that there is
a $2 .50 rate apblied to the garage plus a 35% depreciation
factor which brings it down to $1. 65; somewhere in that area.
MR. MANAREL: Thank you. Mrs . Burns, please feel
free to say anvthing you wish..
MR. BURNS: It was important enough - other people
held the Town up for money . I did not . As far as the reno-
vation to the back of my house , there were no structural changes
made. I had some new shingles put on because the water was
coming it . I had to replace it or let the water pour in. I
would be glad to repair my whole house but I can't afford it -
which is immaterial .
MR. MANAREL: Was the assessment changed as a result
of putting the shingles on and things of that kind?
MR. MOISA: When it 's enclosed. Normally, when it's
enclosed we do have to take that into consideration as far as
the assessment is concerned. Everybodv is handled the . same and
if you have an enclosed porch versus an open porch there is a
difference.
- 5 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19 , 1983
j
MR. MANAREL: That part 1s true , but what I'm
getting at is this : If I have a house and a corner is leak-
ing and I put shingles on the outside of it to prevent it
from leaking, or even If it wasn't leaking - I ,just wanted to
put shingles on instead of clapboard, would that change the
assessment of my house?
MR. MOISA: If it ' s a minor repair , no .
MRS. BURNS: Excuse me , I deem this a minor
repair; I merely repaired it to keep the rain out - I can
get a.n . affidavit from my builder to prove what terrible
condition it was in. The house was built in 1904 and nothing
much has been done on it . I will be served a summons for
living in a slum. if I don't take care of it . T've done
nothing to improve it. except keep the rain out .
MR. PITRE: Do I understand that the porch has
a1wairs beAn enclosed?
MRS. BURNS: It has always been Pnclosed and I
will Let an affidavit . It was so bad, the whole thing had
to be replaced; the old wooden gutters le?ked through. A.s
you know, Mr. Radford, when it goes through, it ' s bad. I did
nothing about it because of my husba.nd' �z long illness . The
first time I've been able to do any repair work on my house .
MR. MANAREL: Any questions?
MR. RADFORD: I understand it was repair but not
replacement .
MR. MANAREL: Anything else you'd like to say?
MRS.. BUFNS: No.
MR. MANAREL: We will let you know in a, couple of
weeks and we will send you a dispositinn on your case .
MRS. BURNS: Thank vou.
MR. MANAREL: Thank vou very much. Nice seeing
you again.
No . 4 : JOHN P. and LINDA F. KOWALSKI, 610 Ole Jule
Lane., RR #2, Mattltuek, NY 11952; Suffolk County Tax Man
No. 1000-112-12-13.4 ; Grounds for Complaint : Unequal assess-
ment . Assessment should be reduced to $1,300 land and $8,000
improvements - total $9 ,300 .00 .
- 6 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19, 1983
Mr. Mana.rel administered the oath to Mrs . Kowalski..
MR. PITRE: . This is your house?
MRS. KOWALSKI: Yes .
MR. M.ANAREL: Is there anvthing you wish to state?
MRS . KOWALSKT: I filed the Complaint for two reasons :
One, I feel the assessment is much too high for houses in the
area and I brought copies of two examples : onP is . Feiler who
is just adioining us on the north - he has 2 .87 acres and one
acre is buildable and the rest is meadowland and ours, on the
nroperty record card, shows that they are also taxing us similar
to him. We have less acreage - 1/4 of it is meadowland and one
acre is buildable , just like his . His assessment is $1,300 and
ours is $23000 for the land. They have similar topography -
we have the meadowland problem just like he has . I don't
understand having less acreage why the assessment is so much
higher.
MR. MANAREL: Excuse me a second. Charlie, when
people have meadowland that is unbuildable is it still taxed?
Still assessed?
MR. WATTS: At a lower rate .
MR. MANAREL: I thought that was the answer.
MRS. KOWALSKI: Yes , I understand it is and I.'m
happy about that because I agree with his portion of it that
he said that ' s meadowland; however, the acre that ' s buildable
Feiler is $1,300 and we're $2 ,000 for the same buildable acre .
MR. MANARRL: The buildable acre, according to your
map is 1 .645 if I read this correctly and this one is 2-1/2
practically.
MRS. KOWALSKI : This is a separate lot that we have.
The only lot that I'm grieving on is this one - it shows 2.7,
a builders acre at the time this lot was sub-divided was con-
sidered 40,000 sry. ft . but it 's not buildable land. What I 'm
saying is if you look on the tax propertu cards it shows - for
the house lot - 1. 495 is meadowland; one acre house plot that
they are taxing us full assessment on. The other one they
give a reduction on. Mr. Feiler was given 1.8 meadowland, one
acre house plot $1200 .
MR. PTTRE : It ' s 1600 .
- 7 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19 , 1983
MRS. KOWALSKI: But if you look up here it 's
$2 .000 .
MR. PITRE: No, that $2,000 is a combination of
$13600 and $374 . 00, rounded to the nearest thousand.
MRS. KOWALSKI : But Mr. Feiler, for the same one
acre is assessed at $1,200 - house plot - so his... total assess-
ment is $1,294, where mine is $2,000 and I feel the land is
very similar.
MR. MANAREL: Charlie , would .you come forward please .
MR. WATTS: This property is quite a bit lower than
the adjacent property .
MRS. KOWALSKI : It' s still one acre but it ' s a
difference of $1 .600 and $1,200 and it ' s very similar topo-
graDhy ..
MR. WATTS: It ' s probably a lower assessment because
the elevation is considerably lower.
MRS. KOWALSKI : We drop from 25 ' elevation down to 5 ' .
MR. WATTS: I'm talking off the main road.
MRS. KOWALSKI : But it 's the same elevation.
MR. MANAREL: Would his be the same elevation?
MRS. KOWALSKI: You can see the contours here , they
are running the same - it goes right over to his propertv - 10 .
5, 15 foot elevations .
MR. WATTS : I am of the opinion that this lot is
quite a bit lower entirely.
MR. MANAREL: If you follow the contours, actually
he is lower than you . His slope is greater than vours . See?
According to your own figures and that ' s what the Pssessors
are sayinv.
MRS. KOWALSKI : This is meadowland - I'm talking
about the one acre .
- 8 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19 , 1983
MR. MANAREL: If this is meadowland and that ' s
15' high, see now it comes up there - he' s 15 ' here; yours
is 15' there. And the same thing, he 's 10 ' here; you're 10 '
down here and that 's what the Assessors have taken into
consideration.
MRS. KOWALSKI: We also have a problem from water
running off from the road - we have ditches .
MR.. MANAREL: I think that 's something ynu ought to
take up with the Highwav Dept .
MRS. KOWALSKI : I also have a house that is com-
parable in the neighborhood.
MR. MANAREI,: This is your second comparison?
This is A. Simierling - we need another card.
MR. WRINHRIMER: I think Rhe attached copies to
her apnlica.tion.
MRS. KOWALSKI : I am comparing Mr. Simierling's
land and house with our land and house .
MR. MANAREL: Excuse me . You only have one
grievance but you are comparing it to .two. Q.K.
a
MRS. KOWALSKI: Mr. Simierling' s card do you have
that? Here it is here . You have got a cony of his cArd? Mr.
Simierlino- has 1. 6 acres waterfront . Nn part is mAadowland.
He 's being asses--ed for 1500, still less 500 than mine and he
doesn't have an elevation problem. His house is very comparable
to our house and he' q being assessed for his house at 8 ,000 -
we 're being assessed on our rouse for 9700. Again, Mr. Simier-
ling' s property, the 1.6 waterfront and it ' s beautifully land-
scared - we have no landscaping at all. Our whole piece is
sand. We are gettinu- ditches from water running off tree road.
Also, hart of our house is still not completed. Mr. Simierling' ,-
house is absolutely gorgeous - we still have closets. not done
and trim not done - no sidewalks . I feel they should be the same.
MR. MANAREL: On this card of Simierling's land 1500
improvements - you went up $100 but there is no reason why it
went up.
MR. WATTS: They put a deck on.
MR. MANAREL : O.K. , fine .
- 9 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19, 1983
MRS. KOWALSKI: Do you have any other questions?
MR. MANAREL: I do not . I will ask the Board
members; do you have anv questions? All right , fine . leave
all of the information that you want us to have and we will
review this in a couple of weeks and send a letter. Tf you
don't like what we 've done, vou. can go to small claims court
or certiorari, in the event we do not came up with something
vour Satisfied with .
NO. 5: FRANK M. FLYNN and INGEBnRG L. FLYNN,
P.O. Box 144 ,Southold, NY 11971; Suffolk County Tax MRp No .
1000-53-5-8 • Grounds for Complaint : Ineryuality , overvaluation
and illegality . Assessment should be reduced to $4 .500 . 00 .
Mr . Manarpl .administered the oath to Mr. Flvnn.
MR. MANARFL: Go ahead and present vour case .
MR. FLYNN: Gentlemen, T have made some notes and
calculations - rather complicated situation . Particularlv
the assessment procedures a.nd it is ircumbant upon me to Lzive
you mir qualifications and background for making* these remarks . -
MR. MANAREL: Mr. Flynn, we 're only here for one
purnose - to hear why you don't like the assessment you have .
We are not interested in assessment procedures and if you
feel that you have a. grievance - to help you. We 're not here
for argumentative purposes . We are here to serve 1rou as a
person who f-els vour a.sse-sment is too high. We have no other
authority under the law to do anything else about the assess-
ment nrocedure . We a.re here to say . Mr. Flynn, we think you have
a good case, or not, and in a couple of weeks we'll review the
whole thing and reduce vour assessment if we feel it should be .
MR. FLYNN: If T may . I have testified before Boards
of Assessment Review in the State of New York and it is customary
to cite my qualifications , Are you going to deny me that
privilege?
MR. MANAREL: We are not going to deny you anything.
That was not my statement .
MR. FLYNN : What T would sav, if T may _ I have been
an appraiser for 37 years - for the last 20 vears I have spec-
ialized in certioari proceedings . I have been an Assessor
myself for 12 years . In certiori4ri procepdings , as appraiser
or consultant I represented Lilco, etc . T am a consultant with
Co- Edison in their case against the City of New York and in
general. my clients believe I have some knowledge of assessment
10 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19 . 1983
procedures . That ' s my backwroun.d. To get down to this
specific situation regarding my property , I have attempted
to cpmply with the nrotnco1 by consulting with the Assessor
regarding the assessment on tris property . T was referred to
the Board. The assessment itself and I have occasion over
the course of the year- to review 25 to 50 mia.niciPali tie- -
I find that particular assessment to be incompetent , c�lnical
and dishonest . Evidently . the rise-sor[ expect you to rubber
stamp tris .
MR. MANARFL : Excuse me . T don't get the signi -
ficance of rubber stamp.
MR. FLYNN: The assessors stonewalled me . I w-uld
expect if you are sitting on this Board you have some know-
ledge of tax law of the State of New York. What I would say .
bluntly . is only a fool or a liar would say it is possible to
assess without inspecting - only a liar would say that my
property has been inspected. The property , according to the
assessment card, property record card, indicates a deduction
of apnrox!matply 3% on construction costs for lack of comnle-
tion on that property . That property iG essentially a shell.
The second story is completely incomplete . This constitutes
an illegal assessment and I'll press , if legally sustainable,
a charge of malfeasance and misfeasance .
MR. MANARFL: It would be foolish if you did not .
Would you get ahold of Fred please . One of the -,tatpments
you made is that an assessment wA.s macre on your property and
tr+.ere was no inspection nf ,your property made . In other words ,
it was done from a duck blind.
MR. FLYNN : Yes . In the trade we refer to it as
"the windshield of a. car" . In other words , a photo was taken of
the property . This is a common practice =end it 's no assessment
at all.
MR. MANAREL : Was this indicated as a partial assess-
ment?
/'R Go 4,(a l Yes . Pending comnletion.
MR. FT,YNN : I doubt if I could market this house in
_its present state . This 1s a question of market value. My wife
is an active real estate broker.
MR. MANAREL : Fred, did you visit this propertv to
make an inspection?
the outside .�� a
c� Yes . We physically measured it on
MR. FLYNN: May I ask a question?
-- 11 -
Board of Assessment Review July 19 , 1983
MR. ^41.4,Pef Through the Chairman only.
MR. FLYNN: My auestion is dial he inspect this house
internally for a degree of completion?
MR. MANAREL: Did you inspect it internally?
MR. eg- A4-s Only through the windows . . I
don't believe anyone was home at the time . We knocked at
the door and received no answer .
MR. FLYNN: Tf the. Assessor is familiar with the
Assessment Manual, it says you must inspect the property
internally for the decree of its comnlet.lon in the company
of the owner, by nrior arrangement .
MR. MANAREL : We got the answer to that n+uestion
when we asked him if he inspected the house and he said "only
through the window" .
Mr. Manarel administered the oath to MrR . Flynn.
MRS. FLYNN: It is very hard to look at my house
through the windows . You can only look through the center hall
and my bedroom and T have the dra.pps drawn in the daytime
when I Leave my house . You would havp to uce a ladder for the
other windows . T have put come kind of curtains on there - juct
in order to keep it looking. all right but it 's not finished.
I could havp comp down any time during the daytime to show the
house if he left a card - T 'm working locally .
MR. MANAREL: Any n.uestions (to the Board) . All right ,
fine, Nr. & Mrs . Flynn, we 're going to meat in a. counle of
weeks and well-1 inform 7 ou bV Ina.il of the d.ecicion of the Board.
Thank you very much for your precenta.tion.
No. 6: EDWARD TASHJIAN & WF. , 401 Littleworth Lanp,
Sea, Cliff, NY 11579; Suffolk County Tax Map No . 1000-137-3-8. 2 ..
Grounds for Complaint : Overvaluation . Assessment chou.l.d be
reduced to $6,000 .00 .
Mr. Manarel administered the oath to Mr. Tashjian .
MR. MANAREL: Go ahead, state your cafe .
MR. TASHJIAN : O.K. I qubmitted in the statement
that I had made an inquiry of the Asspssor. ' s Offiep regarding
an increase of almost 45% on my acsescment . Thr- rea-,on that
was given ma was the fact that in submitting a new sia.rvev they
determined that there was m-re waterfront than had been
indicated on the man on file. The map I have submitted ;ndi-
12 -
Board of Assessment Revi w July 19, 1983
catcd something like 300 ft . wnich wao a nand-drawn kind of
thing a..d which was used as µ bas._Ls of wsseosme,.t thr-ougu
the past 20 or 30 year. . My ..ew m,p waw a rrro.e prufes..ionu.l
survey and _t ins icauea a water frontage 410 ft . or tciereubouts .
My con.ent-Lon io tna,, wrri-Le Lh..re i., an i..creuse i.. wat,.r
1'r-ntage, about ane-i.alf _s now use-ble - iL I - ir►ar�hla..d dna
swamp - y-u caii' u the-pas- arid it is ..or, uuat)l.. . 1 c-nrro„
improve because ot, wetla..ds, ..tu. was ti.at e-ement wa- not
„ake.. irrt- can-iue. ati„n wh..n uh., new wssewsme..t wa- mad.. for
-he new may tnau was tile,. l h..reby request wn ex-min-tio..
of tyle pr�pervy oe waae No that the ass,.ssm�nt cwn ae evi-ea.
h1R. MANARLL: Dj you ��ave any questions (to tyre Board) ?
No, all right we ' ll review the case in a couple of weexs and
we '1.1 send you a letter atating the decision of uhe Buard and
our review of what your possibilities are from there .
1AR. TASHJlAN : -.chanx ,you.
MR. iviANAREL: -tchanx you very much.
No. 7 : VIACENl DE SzTA by MAX.iNE DcSETx, b3u
Second Su . , Greenport , NY 11944; Suffolk 0ounty Tax Map leo.
1001-u02-u05-u23. Grounds for Cornplaint: Inequaliuv. Assess-
merit should pe reaucea to $1,974 . 00 .
Mr . r�ianarel auministered the oauh to airs . l)eSeua.
Mn. MAa AREL: Why don't you tell us your problem?
MAS. Dn SETA: One of the problems is every time I
say we have high taxes peop.re keep saying it ' s based ori 1968 -
seems like a long uime ago. 1 feel foolish. I don't know what
it means anyhow.
MR. PITRn : Builuing costs as of 1968 .
MRS. DE SETA: In 1968 ti�is property was well maln-
taineu. Since trren, as you can oee, it was solo for �7,OuO in
uoa.raed up conuition - total-Ly wreckeu inside arid ali we could
uo was put �12j000 .00 into it to wring it up to a -Livaule
suandard. We are getting a three as5essrnent, whatever that
means? Tne lacy across the street has uhe same boarding and
siaing on her property - she bought it for -�18,uOQ arid also dia
improvements but she suarted with floors, which you could see,
and a whole bunnch of things. it has 2 bathrooms . wone of the
rates are as high as ours .
Board of Assessment Review July 19 , 1983
iviR. MHNARnL: Snow us . some names and we '11 pui1
the cards .
riRS. DE SE•i:A: I ' m showing them to you here . Bi•oad
Street is much lovlier and there ' s a $2 . 25 on Broad St . , that ' s
one story . Across the strett at 4he Steveris that ' s a two-story
you are giving a 2 .75 rate . b'or a one-story you give a $2 . u0
rate.
Mn. MANAREL: Two things you have to Keep straight.
One, you' re opening statement had to uo wiuh taxes, we have no
uontrol over taxes . The uther thing you have to remember is
that no assessment has peen changed on this property since
1968. It is still the same - it diu not change even afuer you
bought it .
MnS. Dr✓ SETR: I urrderstanu than . In 1979 on First 5U . 3
tare property there - Aedoszytxo - sold for $3y ,00u - it ' s one a
a half suories and it ' s a $2 . 75 rate arid that ' s on a $39 ,Ou0 value .
r,rR. MtiNARLL : Ted, the young lady here i-s telling us
that the rates on which they are paying their assessment you are
using a different scale on her place - it - s $3 per sq. ft . and
she ' s giving us comparaule piaces and we wiil ,have to get the cards .
mRS . liE SE-i•A: Gu to the one story - trre last example .
MR. PITnE: Iu has a fuli basement - the one you Ore
comparing it with?
MRS. DE ,SETA: Yes , it has a full basement . uur
basement was floodeu.
MR. MANxREL: Freu, she says they' re paying $2 . 75 .
We ' ll get the card and see .
MR. PIT.KE: You have it rixeu up nicely - it - s a
cute little house .
Mn. MAN ABEL: Why is the one building rated at p2 -7D
per sq. ft . and Lhis one is rated at p3 .00 I uhinx that 's
her question.
Mn. GOnDON: Unfortunately, I can't: answer for
previous assessors . j:here is a possibility tnere eoulu be some
age factors involvea. We rind uha.t 1n a lot of uldev houses
tnat instead or thein putuing it on a rate it shoula be on, they
put it on a lower rate arid give it very Kittle depreciation. But
recently we nave ueen attempting to put all the homes on at the
same starrdaru rate and then a depreciation factor, ueperrding on
the age and condition. _
_ 14L _
Mrs. De Seta: I 'm just trying to say the condition of the house was
a shell.
Mr. Pitre: $100.00 difference-$200 .00 difference.
Mr. Manarel: $200.00 but what she is saying is this is a one and a
half story you 'pay a higher rate for one and a half than for a single
story.
Mrs. De Seta: The very last one on my complaint (Terry) thats a one
story structure in prime condition on Broad Street a $2 .25 rate much
more desirable and yet this is $3.00 and this is $2 .75.
Mr. Manarel: You say that they're paying $2.25 get Terry Card Fred
on Broad Street.
Mrs. ,De Seta: Land value on Terry is the same $400.00 and they have
a smidgeon less property than we do.
Mr. Pitre: You're not talking about land, ,,your talking about improve-
ment.
Mrs. De Seta: The structure itself.
Mr. Pitre: Is the house occupied at the present time?
Mrs. De Seta: I do in the summer and I come out a lot to keep the
grounds. My father died this I ended up with this house.
Mr. Radford: Has there been any improvements over the past few years?
Mrs. De Seta: Not recently no. The Town is suppose to maintain
the street the sidewalk out a little ways its all ripped apart. In
our particular section well also because there is boarded up houses-.
Now I am in probate right now so I have to theorectically sign for my
fathers estate. In the Executrix of the will. I'll have papers from
the lawyer about a week.
Mr. Manarel: Any questions (Board members respond negatively), Do you
have anything else you like to inform us Mrs. De Seta?
Mrs. De Seta: No.
Mr. Manarel: Thank you very much. We expect to meet in a couple of
weeks and we will advise you by letter of our decision.
No. 8: Alex and Eugenia Spiridakis, 415 Clark Road, Southold, NY
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-51-3-21. Grounds for Complaint: Over
valuation wants to be reduced to $3 ,350. 00 .
Mr. Manarel: Administered the oath to Mrs. Sporidakis.
Mr. Manarel: Tell us your problem.
Mrs. Spiridakis: I received this reassessment when we got our taxes
in January.
Mr. Manarel: Are you talking about taxes or assessed valuation?
Mrs. Spiridakis: Assessed valuation. How we have a re-assessment
which came about 3 weeks ago for $300 .00 more. I called and was told
what my deck was assessed at 25� per sq. foot and the shed we purchased
from Agway was assessed at $50. 00. The way I did my arithmatic it
comes to about $93 something so let' s say it comes to $150 .00 . Where
does the other $150. 00 come from; I would like to know. Its a single
family dwelling.
Mr. Manarel : What is the size of the deck?
Mrs. Spiridakis: The deck is 17 by 22 .
Mr. Manarel: That' s 374 sq. ft.
Mrs. Spiridakis: It comes to $94 .00 and the shed comes to a flat $50 .00
they told us. Where does the rest come from.
Mr. Manarel: You were assessed for $300 .00 before.
Mrs. Spiridakis : Where does the other stuff come in?
Mr. Manarel: Your card shows you were assessed at $3200. 00' land was
$400. 00 your assessed was raised to $3500.00 the $300. 00 your talking
about.
Mr. Spiridakis: My house previously assessed at $3200 .
Mr. Pitre: The house is 1000 sq. ft. ?
Mrs. Spiridakis: Yes that is correct.
Mr. Manarel to Moisa: Henry can you tell us by this card, you show
25 x 40 or 1000 sq. ft. at $3.00 comes to $3000, the deck is $94 and
the shed is $50 which comes to $3144 and the other side of the card
is different.
Mr. Moisa: We assess in multiples of $100. So the $3144 backs up to
$3100 so you have increments of $100 each.
Mr. Petre: The first figure where the square footage is multipled
by $3.00 is O.K.
Mr. Moisa: You add $3100 for the house to $400 for the land and you
come to $3500 as shown.
Mr. Manarel: It would be $3100 for the house $400 for the land making
it $3500 .
Mr. Moisa: That"s correct.
Mr. Manarel: Now I think the young lady is saying her assessed value
went up just for the deck and the building which comes to less than
$300 but she went up $300 and wants to know.
Mr. Moisa: I think there has been a change in the rate from $2. 75
to $3.00 right here. Originally this figure was probably $2750 which
makes the difference of the $300 .
Mrs. Spiridakis: Why does the rate change for my house?
Mr. Moisa: Because it is applicable to everybody in the area.
Mrs. Spiridakis : I am the only one.
Mr. Manarel : No. Give us the name of a neighbor of yours.
Mrs. Spiridakis: Beecher Gondouris.
Mr. Manarel : The rate is a figure applicable to everybody in the Town
but it is a good question.
Mrs. Spiridakis : I just want to clear this for my peace of mind.
Mr. Manarel: They should tell us in this letter. When you had something
like you did, deck that caused them to look at your card, they changed
the conform to the rest of the Town, but no where did they say your
evaluation was changed, because of the shed and the deck. That's what
caused them to look at it and once they looked at it they found there
was a maitake made on the rate. It should have been $300.
Mrs. Spiridakis: So if I never built the deck nor added the shed I
would have stayed at $2 .75 .
Mr. Manarel: Do you have any futher questions? The Other on e is a
new house $3. 00 rate
Mrs. Spiridakis: They are bringing my property up to it?
Mr. Moisa: No date on it.
Mr. Manarel: They are not bringing it up they are changing the rate so
that you are on a par with other people. You were getting it a little
cheaper, but now you are paying the same rate. Using an example. He
went to buy gasoline and was paying $1. 00 per gallon. You were paying
90� per gallon. The next time you went the fellow said I made a mistake,
you are supposed to be paying $1. 00 per gallon also. So you aren't really
getting hit with anything, just a correction. We will go over it again
when we meet to decide on your request and then we will send you a letter
telling you of our decision.
No. 9 : Joseph Ferraro, 935 Waring Avenue, Bronx, NY 10469
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-51-4-12. Grounds for Complaint:
Unequal Assessment-reduce to $5500 . 00.
Mr. Manarel- Administered the oath to Mr. Ferraro.
Mr. Manarel: Tell us your problem.
Mr. Ferraro: As I talk to the assessor he said in 1969 there was a
grievance. I didn't file one in 1969 , but there was no change. He is
trying to tell me as of 1983 decks will now be assessed regardless
when they were built before. I have pictures to prove that the deck is
the only means for myself and my family to get into this house. Why
should the entrance way or vestibule be a separate assessment now for
the decks since I had the house in 1959 this is basically what it is.
I was never notified that I had this.
Mr. Manarel : 1959 or 1969?
Mrs. Ferraro: I bought the house in 1959 and the decks were always
around the house. Why should there be a separate assessment - they
were there from the day I bought it. This I don't understand. It' s
not a question of the money at all - it,' s only $25 , but why now?
Mr. Manarel: Henry, do you want to explain?
Mr. Moisa: We were in the area and checking the houses and noticed
there was a deck which was not included on the property card from
probably the time the gentleman bought the house and it had been
overlooked before - that' s not our problem - we have to assess what is
there right now. That's why this is on the card.
Mr. Manarel: Any questions around the Board?
Mr. Manarel to Mr. Ferraro: We will study the problem and in a couple
of weeks we will meet and make a final decision. We will transcribe
all of the notes and we will send you by mail a decision of this
Board so you will have something to go by.
Mr. Ferraro: When they took the assessment in 1969 why didn't they
tell me to reguster the deck?
Mr. Manarel: The answer is easy. First, we have had changes in
assessors - at one time they were appointed and they used to drive by
and make an assessment so a few years back they decided this was not
good enough so they started to elect assessors-and some are new. We
caught them 2 or 3 times today where they had to pick up things that
somebody had let slide. One day a young lady was paying $2 . 75 and
should have pain $3.00 per sq. ft. They said it was a mistake. I
did this one but this is an old one and somebody didn't pick it up.
They are trying to establish a pattern and make it even for everybody.
19.
You' re the fourth person on a deck today.
Mr. Ferraro: But, it"s my only means of entrance to the house - it' s
not an addition - it' s been there in full view since I bought the house.
It' s just strange you live with something for 23 years - now it' s
something different.
Mr. Manarel: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ferraro: Thank you.
No. 10: Mike Constantopoulos, Box 238 , Greenport, NY 11944
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1001-6-2-22 .1 Grounds for Complaint:
Excessive Assessment-reduce to $7900 .
Mr. Manarel- Administered the oath to Mr. Constantopoulos.
Mr. Manarel: You own the Sterlington Hotel?
Mr. Constantopoulos: Yes, I bought the place in 1981 and some remodel-
ing work. In 1982 - assessment went up 18% did not question because I
had made improvements - by the time 1982 tax roll came around the
changes were completed and operating - what I am questioning is it,
went up in 1982 - but your letter states it went up another 14% - the
work that' s being done is not completed yet. I have been forced to
spend money in litigation - rental unit in order to do work I am doing.
I have been without a tenant downstairs since May 1982 - over a year now
and I have also been without 5 additional rooms because of work being
done for 8 months. What I am saying - I would say that your re-assessment -
14% to me is reasonable if it was done and operable but considering
the fact things are behind - can't open new part yet received Board of
Review approval last week to open parts of building. Probably 8 or
9 hundred lost rental over last 8 months .
Mr. Manarel: Your assessment - I want to clarify we are not assessors.
We are a civil board appointed so that we may hear problems and be
of help to you as a taxpayer. We 're not the assessors. You said at
the beginning about starting some work and the assessors put on a 15%
increase in assessnent. Then you continued the work.
Mr. Constantopoulos: Different facing I would say work in 1981 was
completed within 3 or 4 months, but nothing major.
Mr. Manarel: What do you mean nothing major?
Mr. Constantopoulos: No chimnies and I added no additional space
Mr. Manarel: Anything you did was inside - you didn't change con-
struction?
Mr. Constantopoulos : No,not since this past Nov. we started our
present construction over a year we did not do anything major, just a
normal maintenance. Because of the work that' s being done we had to uee
income producing $75 week - $300 plus dentist office downstairs $275
ti
month and two additional rooms upstairs $75 a month or so.
Mr. Manarel: So 1,100 is your assessment.
Mr. Constantopoulos : Over the last 2 years, 35%.
Mr. Manarel: You bought it March 23, 1981.
Mr. Constantopoulos: I thought' it ::gas Feb. Right around there.
Mr. Manarel to Mr. Pitre: Do you have any questions?
Mr. Pitre: No.
Mr. Radford: Do you know the depth of that land - 70 ' on the street,
I know.
Mr. Constantopoulos: Low hundreds - 120 maybe if that much. Maybe
less than that.
Mr. Manarel: Any questions - (Board responded negatively) In a couple
of weeks we will meet and review all of the cases we had here today
and we will inform you by mail. I don't know what the decision will be.
If we do nothing, you will have a choice to go to small claims court or
to certiorari - we' ll look it over and see if everything is in order.
Mr. Constantopoulos : I need a chance to catch up and complete work.
Mr. Manarel: Thank you.
Mr. Constantopoulos: Thank you.
No. 's ll, - 12 and 13: William L Maher, 600 Old Country Road,
Garden City, NY 11530 . Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-45-5-7
Grounds for Complaint: Claims inequality in Assessments for Greenport
Shores - reduce to $750. 00.
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-53-1-18 Grounds for Complaint:
Mid Island Shopping Plaza Co. reduce to $5,500. 00.
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-47-2-35 Grounds for Complaint:
Frank Leonard L. & Ors. reduce to $400.00.
Mr. Manarel- Administered the oath to Mr. Mahar.
Mr. Mahar: I am here on three applications. 4hat I have to say
pertains to all in the same way. As you can see they are all vacant
land in the Pipes Cove area and this area is in the tidal wetlands
region. For some time my client has been troubled by the fact that
they have these tracts of land here and they know that there are
regulations with the DEC which would appear to limit their ability
to develop the property and also would appear to limit the market
value of the property. So, what we did was to prepare a map to show
the members of the Board of Assessment Review the protions of these
lots which are within the tidal wetlands area and to explain to the
Board the limitations on development. These limitations it seems to
me, reduce the market Value of the property and, therefore,ought to
•
reduce the assessment. If I may show you a little bit about how we
prepared this map - our clients ST & F who own these parcels
under different names, and then prepared a DEC map which shows the
various tidal wetlands areas and I just wanted you to see that we did
have the map and I think the property we' re talking about is here
and down in here. We used this map and then got the S.C. tax map and
to obtain the location and size of the parcels. Then I got a
planner and with that information we prepared this map. We started
with the survey, we then from the tax maps drew the parcels on here and
then from the DEC map we drew the areas on that showing the tidal
wetlands regions. Now in the regulations of the DEC the HM High
Marsh areas, IM is Intertidal Marsh area and SM is a coastal or salt
marsh area and then in the regulations they talk about the development
of this type of property for single family houses. "Construction of a
single family dwelling multiple dwellings - in the HM area and
IM area and in the so-called coastal marsh areas that's presump-
tively incompatible use and it appears to me from reading the regu-
lations that you cannot get a permit from the State to develope
these tidal areas for construction of single family homes. Also the
regulations so that they define the adjacent area as an area within
300 ' landward of the coast landward boundary of a tidal wetlands -
there is a limitation on the development of that particular area.
That would seem to indicate that areas within 300 ' of the boundaries
of these tidal wetlands areas also either cannot be developed or
there are severe limitations on those areas. Clearly, the market
value of this parcel, this parcel and this parcel, is limited by the
fact that the DEC regulations prohibit the use of these areas for
single family homes. Consider the so-called adjacent area, which is
300 ' that would mean that on a scale of 1" to 100 - this entire lot
here would have restraints on ability to develope single family homes.
and therefore, the value and the assessment ought to be severely re-
duced. In the same manner this lot #7 would appear to be 35% of it
can 't be built on - if you had on adjacent area even more of it
can't be built on On Lot 18 all of the perimeter property which
abuts the Pipes Cove and the Creek, would seem to be unusable for
the development of single family homes. On what basis, we believe
that the market value of these parcels is much less than it would
appear to be and that the assessment had to be reduced. By the way,
I would like to leave this map with you so you can use it in looking
at our applications.
Mr. Pitre: Reduction - that' s quite a reduction from $7500 to $750 .
Mr. Mahar: We always set a figure - sometimes it' s quite low, other
times it' s reasonable 18 to 5500 obviously more sensible. On the
other lot the assessment is 1200 - we ask that be reduced to 400.
I think that lot really can' t be built on at all.
Mr. Manarel: Any questions?
Mr. Radford: Is there piped water in this area?
Mr. Mahar: I don 't know - I don' t think I could find out.
Mr. Manarle: We're looking for whether you would have water piped in
0'2 �
r
like city water - most of us have individual wells except Greenport
and some of Southold has a central city water syste.
Mr. Mahar: I have no idea.
Mr. Manarel: Any other questions? (None) Thank you for coming in.
You made a long trip and a perfect presentation - we' ll get to-
gether in a few days - Aug. 2 - review and study them and we will
let you know by mail.
Mr. Mahar: I appreciate it, I would like to thank you.
No. 14 : Anthony & Helen Dris, P.O. Box 241D, Breakwater Road,
Mattituck, NY 11952 . Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-106-8-20
Grounds for Complaint: Excessive Assessment - reduce to $10, 900 . 00.
Mr. Manarel- Administered the oath to Mr. and Mrs. Dris.
Mr. Manarel: Now you may both talk.
Mrs. Dris: O.K. First of all I found out this morning the taxes
would be approximately $5 ,000 on the house and barn.
Mr. Manarel : We have nothing to do with taxes.
Mrs. Dris: Based on the assessment on the house and barn, I think it
is totally ridiculous because #1 there is a sub division on that property
and they only allowed me to build 4 houses which I have no intentions of
donig right now anyway. I had to sign an affidavit saying there
would never be more than four parcels out of that acreage. Therefore
I should not be paying for 1 - 10 acre and 2 - 3 acre parcels. The
Town has been very negligent - they drain Town water on to my property.
Comes to my back cellar door - they drain it into our property - then
let them pay me for using my property as a sump.
Mr. Manarel: We have nothing to do with that.
Mrs. Dris : They are ruining my land. It"s all part of it.
Mr. Manarel: This Board doesn't deal with that. If anybody starts
dumping on your property all you have to do is call the police. That' s
a problem you have to look out for on your property. It has nothing
to do with this Board.
Mr. Dris: I spoke to a man this morning on the telephone. I had a
larger house than this and we used to commute here to our business. Now
we moved to Mattituck so we would not have to commute. If I am going to
pay your school district; I have one graduated who went astray because
of the incompetence of your school district from straight A' s from
Cold Spring Harbor. This has nothing to so with being around, but
it' s a lousy school.
Mr. Manarel: Excuse me; I am sorry but we have nothing to do with taxes.
If you have a problem with the school district you go there and talk about.
i t.
141 '^^ <�'
We want to understand if your assessment is too high or too low and
we want to be of help to you - let' s not get argumentatuve about
irrelevant things. I can understand your frustration and we have them
too.
Mr. Dris : I built a beautiful home to make Mattituck pretty.
Mr. Pitre: That' s on Breakwater Road - opposite the Greek Church. You
don't see it from the road.
Mrs. Dris : No, we left the trees. We're set back about 600 ' . My
children have four of their own horses. The barn is so excessively high. -
it' s just a plywood barn.
Mr. Manarel: Mr. Wein do you have any questions? Do you (to the Board) ?
Mrs. Dris : The house has no central air - it' s a plain house - it' s
volume - only 3 bedrooms.
Mr. Manarel: Well, Mr & Mrs. Dris apparently you have stated your case
very well and the members of the Board have no questions we wish to ask
of you. If you have nothing else to add, we will tell you that we will
review the case and when we reach a decision we will notify you by mail.
Mrs. Dris : Just remember, I have signed an affidavit saying I would
never make that more than 4 houses.
Mr. Manarel: Did anyone tell you when you signed that - that they would
charge you less?
Mrs. Dris: No, but we should not be paying a full assessment on 12 acres
and went along and said we'd never break it up again.
Mr. Manarel: Well thank you for coming in and we' ll get in touch with you.
No. ' s 15 and 16 : #15 - Vasiliki Adamis, 2545 Valentine Avenue,
Bronx, NY 10458. Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-59-8-5. 4. Grounds for
Complaint: Excessive Assessment - reduced to $1,000.00 .
#16 - Joanna Adamis, 2545 Valentine Avenue, Bronx, NY 10458.
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-59-8-5.5. Grounds for Complaint:
Excessive Assessment - reduced to $1,000.00.
Mr. Manarel- Administered the oath to Mrs. Adamis.
Mrs. Adamis: We were visting out here a couple of years ago and we liked
the area so we bought the property and at the time we could make out
the mortgage and taxes - now with the taxes it' s very difficult. We
have to pay for it and now we have to build on it. I can understand an
increase but to double it, that' s a lot. It's just vacant land.
Mx. Manarel: First of all, we have nothing to do with taxes in here at
all. We sit twice a year - once now and later in November to help people
like yourself when you come in and all we deal with is with the
Assessozs - When 'they say that your property is worth so many dollars and
a3
you come in and say it's not worth that much. The taxes comes as a
result of the people in the other room - the Supervisor and those people
who say that we need so much money to run the government, etc. and they
set the tax rate. This only says what your property is worth in the eye
of somebody who we hope knows what they're doing. We have #16 here now
first and these properties are the same. 1. 84 and 1. 87 acres. Are they
the same ownership?
Mrs. Adamis : It' s just that one is in my mothers name and one is in
my name.
Mr. Manarel: Henry we have a question here for you. On the land under
improvements we have 2 different figures that we were comparing.
Mr. Moisa: That' s what's left from an acre. We take a one acre plot -
according to zoning regulations, originally you had one acre to build a
house on. Where this is a minor sub division and it' s pretty near 2
acres here, we take off one acre and put it at 1200 as vacant land and
the additional acreage is 500 - it's the same formula used on all minor
sub division.
Mr. Weinheimer: Is this the rate?
Mr. Moisa: No.
Mr. Manarel : We thought that was the rate you were charging. That
answers that question fine.
Mr. Manarel : Administer the oath to Mr. Gus Theofanas (Mrs. Adamis'
Husband) .
Mr. Theofanas : They never told us when we went to buy the land that
the tax would go up after we bought it. We didn't know until we got
this letter.
Mr. Manarel: We feel sorry for you. This happens more times - even with
attorneys. Where they go to buy a piece of property and the ask about
the taxes and they tell them but they don't tell them that when it' s
going to change after you buy it - it's going to change. We'v had this
happen so many times.
Mrs. A4amis: Why did it have to double?
Mr. Manarel: Well it's put on a regualr standard rate. What is the
rate on acreage?
Mr. Moisa: Normally, within a fildd sub division, we have a rate of
1400, where this is a minor sub division and there are no improvements,
such as roads make it 1200. When it' s built upon or improvements put
on that one acre , it will then go to 1400. In this particular care
it' s vacant land at 1200. The wood land is at $500 .
Mr. Manarel: So instead of $1700 - ($500 x $1200) you come to $1600.
Mr. Moisa: Yes, because you don't have quite an acre - so it's $400
o`f`t
instead of $500 .
Mr. Weinheimer: What did you assess an acre at before it was sub-
divided?
Mr. Moisa: About $300 an acre.
Mr. Manarel: If they plant the acreage with trees, would it decrease?
Mr. Moisa: No.
Mr. Manarel: Is there anything else you wish to tell us?
Mrs. Adamis: No.
Mr. Manarel: We' ll review this case and send you a letter.
Mr. Moisa: He owns a large tract of land and when you break it up into
smaller acreage or lots-it changes the value.
Mr. Manarel: What we 're talking about is when developers have a large
piece of land and this has been going on for years, they treat them
almost like the farmers - they don't charge them for the full lot because
they are doing nothing - they are doning nothing - they are just sitting
there - the land is - and so they show one piece of assessment and when
it' s broken down and sold then they put the full assessment on it and
that' s what happened to you - we run into this also when someone in the
military service gets a tax break, because of the veterans status, and
then the piece of property is sold to someone who is not a veteran, it
goes back to full value and they come in and say how come you changed
the assessment - it really isn't a change - it's putting it where it
really belongs in the first place. This is the rate thaw regularly done
throughout the Town.
No. 17 : Gerard P. Goehringer, Box 812 , Mattituck, NY 11952 .
Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-106-6-16. 1. Grounds for Complaint:
Unequal Assessment. Assessment should be reduced to $2 , 400.
Mr. Manarel- Administered the oath to Mr. Goehringer.
Mr. Manarel: All right, tell us your problem.
Mr. Goehringer: On my card it refers to construction of the stable,
storage building and fence which was not the nature of this application
on this piece of property. That should be removed.
Mr. Manarel; You mean it's an illegal entry?
Mr. Goehringer: That is correct.
Mr. Manarel: You don 't have it marked here on the application.
Mr. Goehringer: I put this addendum on it and I checked this and I
referred to it here. I want to be honest with you, I find these questions
extremely ambiguous. My basic questions, I have no idea whether the
assessment was raised, lowered or whatever concerning this particular part
of it. I would assume it was raised and that was the reason why I didn't
put it down.
Mr. Manarel: If I remember it correctly going over it this morning,
you said something about you didn't apply to have this thing done.
Mr. Goehringer: No.
Mr. Manarel: Was it done?
Mr. Goehringer: Was it done? A storage building was built on my house
poece of property which is an adjacent piece of property.
Mr. Pitre: Nothing to do with this parcel?
Mr. Goehringer: Nothing to do with this parcel at all.
Mr. Manarel: Do you want to get Charlie Watts in here?
Mr. Goehringer: Let me show you the map.
Mr. Manarel: We don't need the tax map. If this was put on as the
assessment on a wrong piece of property, then it's an incorrect assessment.
Charles, the problem we have here is that this young man says that the
storage building and the stable was put on another piece of property.
Mr. Goehringer: The only thing in construction to date is the storage
building. The stable was applied for and granted but it has not been
constructed and I have no plans to construct it at this particular time.
Mr. Watts: We don 't have the stable on here.
Mr. Pitre: There is no assessment?
Mr. Goehringer: It should be removed from this card at this point.
Mr. Watts: We don't have it on this card. There is a note that it was
applied for and I will put it on the right card when the time comes,
because I didn 't know where you were going to build it
Mr. Manarel: Nothing to do with the assessment.
Mr. Goehringer: After looking at my assessment which is to be a total
of $3, 400 , I pulled both cards on my neighbors' property and based upon
the nature of their assessments, was the reason why I bring this application
before you. This particular structure and I don't know if you can see the
structures. This refers to this last line where I said that you . . . and
now I want to explain the reason why, O.K. ?
Mr. Manarel: The reason why I am taking a little time here is I am trying
to coordinate your application with your statements. This one had to do
with the fence and stable.
Mr. Goehringer: Now this one had to do with the improper assessment. As
I said, I found this extremely ambiguous.
-,2 �
Mr. Manarel: Well, we' ll give the State your opinion of their form.
Mr. Goehringer: In looking at the properties. . . apart from the size of
the properties, the assessment on my particular piece of property is on
the basis of $3 per sq. ft. This particular structure, after looking at it
and my neighbors' property. . . their's which is a heated structure, is
$2 .50 per sq. ft. and the unheated structure on the property next door is
$2.25 per sq. ft. Then my neighbor across the street, across the right-of
way, is $2 .75 per sq. ft. It happens to be a waterview piece of property.
My particular structure itself, 20 x 20 back here, is a slab. The 16 x 29
has a 2 ft. crawl space. I don't understand why it's assessed at $3 per
sq. ft. , as opposed to the neighbor' s at $2. 50 and $2.25 . This particular
structure was moved from Nassau Point and adjoined to the other one and meets
the minimum square footage requirements for Southold Town. It was 400 sq.
ft. and I added this to make it 864. You 850 minimum in Southold Town.
Both structures are in excess of 35 years of age, the same age as
neighboring structures or somewhere in that general vicinity; at least
25 years. If you further incestigate you will see there is a fire place
across the street. I have no chimney, the only cement or brick work is
the slab and a minor crawl space; no stoop. There' s nore sophistication _
with the neighbors to the north and also with the neighbors to the opposite
side. That's why I question the $3.00 figure as opposed to theirs.
Mr. Manarel: Charlie, can you tell us why.
Mr. Watts: Ther's no heat in this one; all I can tell you is we have it
as no heat and that's the reason for the lower assessment on that one.
Mr. Goehringer: In general we have 5300 of assessment with a house on
2 pieces of properties and I will go into the last part of it. It' s
totally usable and I am being assessed for 3400 for one piece of property,
of which all of it is not totally usuable.
Mr. Watts: That doesn't have anything as far as we are concerned - we
are just assessing the building. The land is assessed at $1200 across
the street which is 3/4 of an acre. This parcel is assessed at $800 for
1/2 of an acre,which is on a par. We did look at a bunch of them-- it
looks terrible. This is a disaster across the street - pretty rotten shape.
Mr. Goehringer: The last thing is the situation of the usability of the
property. My particular property is all front yard - start at the bottom
of Bergen. Avenue. The part where this house is constructured is the only
part that is not the front yard. I'm saying that more than a percentage
of the lot is clipped, as opposed to Mr. Santina - neighbor which is all
totally usable property with 2 houses on it - their total assessment is
$5300 for two houses and mine is $3400 for one house. He has more land
on a lot more valuable than I have on one small house and one lot not
totally usable.
Mr. Manarel: That' s it? Any questions - in a couple of weeks you will get
a letter from us, telling you the decision of the Board.
7
Board of Assessment Review July 19, 1983
The following corrections were submitted by the Assessors :
No. 18 : EWALD M. KARBINER & ANO, 39 Edgewood. Drive ,
New Hyde Park, NY 11040; Suffolk County Tax -.Map No. 1000-54-4-33;
Assessment entry should be changed to $10,200 .
No. 19 : ANTHONY VIVONA & WF. , 42-39 194th Street ,
Flushing, NY 11355; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-30-2-41.
Assessment entry should be changed to $41,600 .
No. 20 : MARGARET BABCOCK, One Country Club Drive ,
Cutchogue, NY 11935; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-109-3-2 .2 •
Assessment should be changed to $9 ,500 .
No. 21: ANN Q. DONAHUE, Southold, NY 11971; Suffolk
County Tax Map No . 1000-59-3-21. Assessment entry should be
changed to $7,600 .
No. 22 : FRANK W. CARR & WF. , 4940 Pequash Avenue,
Cutchogue, NY 11935; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-110-3-24 .
Assessment entry should be changed to $6,800 .
No. 23 : WILLIAM A. STEDMAN & WF. , 1235 Oaklawn Avenue,
Southold, NY 11971; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-70-3-2 .
Assessment entry should be changed to $5,400 .
No. 24 : ROBERTA SINNOTT, RR #l, Box 73, Cutchogue,
NY 11935; Suffolk County Tax Map No, 1000-118-2-14 .1.
Assessment .entry should be changed to $5 ,800.
The following Complaints were submitted by the
Assessors :
i
No. 25: DONALD G. KING, Rocky Point Road, East
Marion, NY 11939; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-21-3-16 .
Grounds for Complaint : Inequality and Overvaluation.
Assessment should be reduced to $10 ,500 .00 .
No. 26 : EYLENE H. KING, Box 63, Rocky Point Road.,
East Marion, NY 11939; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1001-4-10-31.
Grounds for Complaint : Inequality and Overvaluation. Assess-
ment should be reduced to $4,900 .00 .
No, 27 : DONALD G. KING, Rocky Point RoadEast
Marion, NY 11939; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1001-004-09-
028 .001 and 028.002 . Grounds for Complaint : Inequality and
Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $12,700 .00 .
I
� g
Board of Assessment Review Tula 19, 19$3
No. 28: THE SOUTHLAND CORP. , 1527 Franklin
Avenue, Mineola, NY 11504; Suffolk County Tax Map . No.
1000-102-5-24 . Grounds for Complaint : Inequality . The
assessment should be reduced to $5,000 .00 .
No. 29 : ALAN CARDINALE, 1301 Franklin Avenue,
Garden City , NY 11530 ; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-122-
06-20 & 22 . Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Over-
valuation. Assessment should be reduced to $7,525 .00 .
No . 30 : ALAN A. CARDINALE, 1301 Franklin Avenue ,
Garden City, NY 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-
142-1-26 . Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Overvalua-
tion. Assessment should be reduced to $48,325 .00 .
No. 31 : CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORP. , c/o
Edgar G. Brisach, Esq. , 170 Old Country Road, Mineola, NY
11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-122-3-10. Grounds
for Complaint : Inequality and Overvaluation. Assessment j
should be reduced to $1 ,575.00.
No. 32 : FRANCES B. RAUCH' Fishers Island, NY
06390; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-009-009-022 . Grounds
for Complaint : Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality.
Assessment should be reduced to $3,250 .00 .
No. 33 : MARION ASSOCIATES, STALLER ASSOCIATES,
c/o Cronin & Cronin, P.C . 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City .
NY 11530 : Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-31-1-5 .1 . Grounds
for Cnmplaint - Ineryuality. Assessment should be reduced to
$4,680 .00 .
No . 34 : MTCHAFL WETNSTRIN, STALLER ASSOCTATES,
c/n Cronin & Cronin, P .C . , 1001 Franklin Avenue , Garden City,
NY 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No . 1000-69-1-1 . 3 . Grounds
for Comnlaint : InegUnlity . Assessment should be reduced to
$1 ,950 .no .
No. 35 : VANTAGE PETROLEUM CORP . , c/o Cronin &
Cronin, P.C . . 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, Nv 11530;
Suffolk County max Map No . 1000-99-4-1 . Grounds for Complaint :
Inenuality. Assessment should be reduced to $5,820 .00 .
No. 36 : STALLER ASROCIATES , c/o Cronin & Cronin,
P. C . , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City . NY 11530: Suffolk
County Tax Map No. 1000-14-2-8. Grounds for Comnlaint :
Inequality . Assessment qhould be reduced to $1,080 .00 .
i
�9
Board of Assessment Review July 19, 1983
Nn. 37 : THE BEACHCOMBER, POND ENTERPRISES, INC. ,
c/o Cronin & Cronin, P.C. . 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City,
NY 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-83-2-2 . Grounds
for Complaint : Inequality . -!AssessMait-�. -hould be reduced to
$4 ,530 .00 .
No. 38 : THE BEACHCOMBER, POND ENTERPRISES, INC . ,
c/o Cronin & Cronin P .C . , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden Citv,
NY 11530 ; Suffolk County Tax Mab No. 1000-83-2-1. Grounds
for- Complaint : Inequality. Assessment should be reduced to
$15 ,630 . 00 .
No. 39 : JOHN DTMOS, 821 B1vd.East , Weehawken, NJ
07087; Suffnik Countv Tax Map No . 1000.-133-3-16 . Grounds
for Complaint : Tnequality and overvaluation. Assessment
should be reduced to $2 ,000 .00 .
No . 40 : BILL KARTSONIS & WF. , 43.-08 Broadwav,
Astoria, NY 11103; Suffolk County Tax Man No.
Grounds for Complaint : Inequality . Assessment should be
reduced to $7 .000 .00 .
No. 41: EMANUEL KONTAKOSTA, 43 W. 54th St . , 2nd
Flr. , New York, NY 10019; Suffolk Countv Tax Map No.
1001-5-4-7 . 1 . Grounds for Complaint : Inequality . Assess-
ment should be reduced to 7% of $300,000.00 .
No. 42 : EMANUEL KONTAKOSTA, 43 W. 54th St . . 2nd
Flr. . New York, NY 10019 ; Suffolk County Tax Man No.
1001-5-4-31. 1. Grounds for Complaint : Inequality. Assess-
ment should be reduced to 7% of $50 ,000 .00 .
No. 43 : ERNA LANG, 117 Greenway Drive, Farmingdale,
NY 11735; Suffolk Countu Tax Map No. 1000-136-1-51. Grounds
fpr Complaint : Inequality . Assessment should be reduced to
$5 .300 .00 .
No. 44 : LAUREL PROPERTIES, STALLER ASSOCIATES,
c/o Cronin & Cronin, P.C. 1001 Franklin Avenue. Garden City,
NY 11530; Suffolk Counter Tax Map No. 1000-125-1-2. 7 . _ Grounds
for Complaint : Tnequality. Assessment should be reduced to
$5 ,010 ,00 .
No. 45 : LORRAINE M. LoGRANDE and MICHAEL A. Lo-
GRANDE, 63 Pinedale Road, Hauppauge , NY 11788; Suffolk County
Tax Man No. 1000-136-2-4 . Grounds for Complaint : Inenuality
and overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $3,247 .00 .
No. 46 : HENRY C . WEISMANN and CHARLOTTE H.
WEISMANN, 940 Tarpon Dr . , RR #e. Southold, NY 11971 ; Suffolk
County Tax Map No. 1000-57-1-10 . Grounds for Complaint :
Inequality and overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced
to $4 .500 .00 .
Board of Assessment Review July 19 , 1983
No. 47: WILHELM & SILKE. FRANKEN, 75 Carroll
Street , Brooklyn, NY 11231; Suffolk Countv Tax Map No.
1001-57-1-9 . Grounds for Complaint : Inequality, over-
valuation and illegality. Assessment should be reduced
to $6 ,000 .00 .
No. 48 : 235 MILL STREET, INC . . c/o Koeppel,
Sommer & Martone, P.C. , 155 First St . , Mineola, NY 11501;
Suffolk Countv Tax Map No . 1001-4-9-7. Grounds for Com-
plaint : Inequality , overvaluation and illegality . Assess-
ment should be reduced to $6,750 .00 .
No. 49 : JOHN W. & PATRICIA BURKE . 135 Split Rock
Road, Syosset , NY 11791; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-81-1-
15 . 7 . Grounds for Complaint : Ineauality and overvaluation.
Assessment should be reduced to $1,600.00 .
No. 50 : OSCAR J . BLOOM, et al. , 801 Mt . Sinai-
Coram Road, Mt . Sinai , NY 11766 ; Suffolk County Tax Map No.
1000-44-4-2 & 3 ; 3 .1. Grounds for Comblaint : Inequality
and illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $6 ,000 .00 .
No . 51: ARSHAMOMAGUE ASSOCIATES , STALLER ASSOCIATES-,
INC . , c/o Cronin & Cronin. P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue . Garden
City, NY 11530; Suffolk Countv Tax Map No. 1000-52-3-38 .
Grounds for Comnlaint : Inequalitv. Assessment should be
reduced- to $2,220 .00 .
No. 52 : ARSHAMOMAGUE ASSOCIATES, STALLER ASSOCT_ATES,
c/o Cronin & Cronin, P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue Garden Citv.,
NY 11530; Suffolk County Tax Man No. 1000-44-3-44 . Grounds
for Complaint : Tnequality . Assessment should be reduced to
$2 .910 .00 .
No. 53 : VERA MAYER, c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone,
P.C . , 155 First St . , Mineola, NY 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map
No. 1000-2-1-8. Grounds for Comnlaint : Tnequality, overvaluation
and illegality . Assessment should be reduced to $1 .200 .00 .
No. 54 : VERA MAYER, c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone,
P.C . , 155 First St . , Mineola, NY 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map
No. 1000-2-1-9 . Grounds for Complaint : Inequality , overvalua-
tion and illegality . Assessment should be reduced to $5 ,500 .00 .
No. 55 : FIRST NATTONWTDE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCTATION,
c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone . P .C . , 155 First St . , Mineola,
NY 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-143-3-4. 2 . Grounds
for Complaint : Tnequality, overvaluation and illegality.
Assessment should be reduced to $4 ,000 .00 .
31
Board of Assessment Review July 19 , 1983
Nn. 56 : S & E REALTY CO . , c/o Koenpel . Sommer &
Martone . P.C . , 155 Fir--t St . , Mineola, NY 11501; Suffolk
County Tax Map No. 1000-97-5-12 . Grounds for Comnlain.t :
Inenualit.y, overvaluation and illegality . Assessment should
be reduced to $19,200 .00 .
No. 57 : MARILYN BLUM, 122 Cross Road, Oakdale,
NY 11789 ; Suffolk County Tax Map No . 1000-103-1-19 .9 .
Grounds for Complaint : Inenuality. Assessment should be
reduced to $350 .00 .
No. 58 : GLORIA LITTELL, Box 709 Main Road;
Cutchovue, NY 11935; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 300-0-103-1-19 .$.
Grounds for Complaint : Inequality. Assessment should be re-
duc Ed to $350 .00 .
-No. 59 : MARILYN BLUM, 122 Cross Road, Oakdale,
NY 11769; Suffolk Countv Tax Map No. 1000-103-1-19 . 7. Grounds
for Complaint : Inequality. Assessment should be reduced to
$350 .00 .
No. 60 : SUZANNE CLARKE , P .Q . Box 87A, New Suffolk,
NY 11956; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-117-6-32 . Grounds
for Complaint : Ineouality, nverv_aluption and illegality.
Assessment should be reduced to $4 ,921 .00 .
No. 61 : GLORIA LITTELL, Box 709 Main Road,
Cutchogue . NY 11935 : Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-103-1-19 .6 .
Grounds fbr Comnlaint : Inequality. Assessment should be re-
duced to $350 .00 .
No. 62 : KEVIN A. MITCHELL, 550 Majors Path, Southold,
NY 11971; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-054-02-006 . Grounds
for Complaint :
No. 63 : KATHERINE BITSES, Lighthouse Road, Southold,
NY 11971; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-87-5-21. 2 . Grounds
fnr Complaint : Tnequality . Assessment should be reduced to
$400 .00 .
No. 64 : LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. , 250 Old Country
Road, Mineola, NY 11501; Suffolk Countv Tax Map No. 1000-074-
2-23 . Grounds for Complaint : Inequality and overvaluation.
Assessment should be reduced to $45 .400 .00 .
No. 65 : LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. , 250 Old Country
Road, Mineola, NY 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-045-1-
11. Grounds for Complaint : Inequality and overvaluation.
Assessment should be reduced to $125 .000 .00 .
_1
Board of Assessment Review Julv 19, 1983
No. 66: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. , 250 Old Country
Road, Mineola, NY 11501; Suffolk County Tax Man No. "Electric
and Gas Transmission System" . Grounds for Complaint : -Inequality
and overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $91,200 .00 .
No. 67 : ST. PETER'S CHURCH, Box 2423 Greennort .
NY 11944 ; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-45-2-10 . 1. Grounds
for Complaint : Illegality . Property should be exempt .
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
UTHOLD TOWN CLERK
THE SO K
DATE/0,
r3 HOURS :/moi°
Town Clerk, Town of Sou ld
i
33 '�
MINUTES OF THE IZETING
For The
FILING OF THE FINAL ROLL
November 7, 1983
SOUTHOLD
A meeting was held on November 7th 1983 by the Southold
Town Board of Assessment Review and each of the Assessors for the
purpose of keeping with the law that went into effect January 1st
1979 dealing with partial assessments.
Present were;
Mr. Samuel Manarel, Chairman, Board of Assessment Review
Mr. Samuel Markel, Member
Ns. Henry Moisa, Assessor
Mr. Ernest Radford, Member
Mr. William Weinheimer, Member
Mr. Chairman Sam�:el Manarel opened the meeting at 9:10 a.m.
First person to appear was Mr. Robert Bolling, represented by his
attorney, Mr. Samuel Glickman. Mr. Bolling took the
oath. After reviewing the facts of this case it was
determined that it was a tax problem and not a pro—
blem for the Assessment Board.. Tie Assessment was
correct as was agreed by all.
II • •
Mr. Chairman Samuel Manarel began reading the transfers as follows:
DISTRICT N0, 5
The following had Veterans Exemption removed:
Final
Name Tax Item Date Assessment
1. Michael & Darlene Flora 1000-70-8-54 5/23/83 S 3800.
2, Ralph L. Levy " 66-3-4 3/4/83 5400.
3. Hugh & Joan R. Newman " 70-11-2 4/29/83 6900.
4• Andreas Faliouras " 74-4-9 12-15-82 4300-
5. Luka & Era Marelic 88-4-18 1/5/83 1100.
6. John & Cynthia Kinsella 79-3-17 6/9/83 9100.
7. Andrew F.GreitzgJr. & 'Wife 78-3-22 6/1/83 5900.
8, Thomas J. Sohlecht & Wife 61-1-21 8/11/83 4600.
9. Frank Field Corp. 55-2-24.1 7/25/83 4500.
10. Robert & Carol Bohn 74-3-20 7/22/83 3300-
11. Robert & Jacquelin Oberlin 77-1-14 10/4/83 2600.
The following had Aged Exemptions removed:
12. Lawrence Hoffman & others 80-2-2 11/10/82 2900.
13. Daniel & Thomas Jerome 75-2-3.1 2/10/83 3800.
14, Joanne O'Brein 54-6-11 12/2/82 3400.
Transfer from Tax Exempt Roll:
15. Compass Transport S.A. Panama 62-1-16- 2/10/83 4700.
Error in Transcription:
16, Long Island Cauliflower Assn. 63-1-18-2 4000-
17. Edw. A. Dart 55-1-11 14,600.
Clerical Error:
18. Julius Zebroski 78-7-32.5 9/14/82 4700,
Julius Zebroski 78-7-9 9/14/82 2000.
Removal of Veterans Exemption:
19, Jos. Kellet Jr. & Ano. 76-1-5 9/12/83 3200.
III • •
DISTRICT N0, 9
The following had Veterans Exemption removed:
Final
Name Tax Item Date Assessment
20. Gordon P. Brunow & Wife 115-15-11 6/30/83 $ 7900-
21 . David A. Nolan 111-8-15 5/13/43 6800.
22. Richard J. Noncarrow 84-4-8.1 5/7/83 3900-
23- Carl E. Vail III 137-1-16.1 3/31/83 7300.
24. John Dempsey & Wife 113-8-14 3/11/83 5200.
25. David G. Walsh & Ano. 103-13-15 2/17/83 5000.
26. Barbara Schwarz 143-2-18 11/26/82 4400.
27, Geo. H. Taylor 141-1-6 11/6/82 3900-
28, Thomas R. Mercier & Wife 114-12-6 11/3/82 6700.
The following had Aged Exemptions removed:
29. Jas. Wyche & Ors. 97-2-12 10/7/82 4300-
30, Helen Louka & Ano. 106-2-42 4/14/83 3800.
County Owned Exemptionlimoved:
31. Loretta DiMaggio 96-1-12 10-27-82 700.
Removal of Veter;3ns Exemption:
32. Donald Houghton & 'life 115-6-24 6/20/83 6200.
33• Ronald Yazzafero 122-2-5 8/5/83 3800.
Aged Exemption Removed:
34. Stanley Chase & Ano. 106-11-21 6/7/83 4700.
Removal of Veterans Exemption:
35. James Heffron & Wife 103-10-11-2 9/14/83 6000,
36. August H. Weil & Wife 107-6-15 9/7/83 6500.
. IV � •
GREENPORT VILLAGE
The following had Veterans Exemption removed:
Final
Name Tax Item Date Assessment
37. Thomas & Josephine Clark 1001-2-6-32 4/1/83 3900-
38, Robert & Marion Hughes it 5-2-5 4/15/83 2000,
39. Marion C. Gordon " 6-1-8 5/23/83 3100-
40, John & Susan Raynor " 6-2-7 6/15/83 2600.
The following had Aged Exemptions removed:
41. Henry & Karen Clark 1001-4-2-30 Clerical Error 3000-
42. Jeffry & Laura Clark " 6-7-14 12-7-82 3100-
43. Jas. Smith & 'Wife " 4-4-16 11/17/82 (Cty.) 3000-
44. Jill E. Ward & Ano. " 2-6-7 12/23/82 1600.
45. Robt. & Mary Jean Webb " 2-6-39 1/20/83 5400.
Repurchased from County:
46, Robt. Bolling " 4-2-13 1/8/83 2000.
. . , .v
DISTRICTS 2 & 4 & 10
The following had Veterans Exemption removed:
Final
Name Tax Item Date Assessment
47. Nancy J. Poole 31-4-13 2/8/83 S 4500.
48. Donna Targonski 53-4-28 12/20/82 3200.
49. Randall Lacey 31-1-1 8/11/82 169500.
50. Edw. & Monica Wennerholm 52-5-42 7/29/83 3200.
51. Maggie Thygesen 33-5-23 6/14/83 5100,
52. Shelia Zuhusky 25-3-1 9/7/82 3300.
53. Richard & Barbara Edwards 6-8-3/1 3/11/83 8700,
54. L.I. Utility Co. 10-7-23 3/11/83 2800.
The following had Aged Exemptions removed:
55• Becky Johnston 31-12-3 1/10/83 4000,
56. Helen Keller 48-1-25 8/27/82 2100,
57. Wm. Rich III 25-2-20/17 Clerical Error 900.
58. Ethan & Helene Kisch 42-1-3.1 County Owned 100,
Exemption
The Board of Assessment Review approved as recommended and the
meeting was declared closed at 11:10 a.m.
Rr spectfully submitted,
Hannah Hansen