Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 r x IM-06 41 July 20, 1982 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: Theodore Heuser, William Wilhelm, Samuel Markel and Andrew Pitre. The following complaints were heard by the Board of Assessment Review: NO. 1: GARRETT A. and BARBARA STRNG, P. 0. Box 1279 , Mattituck, New York 11952; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-115-06-06; Grounds for Complaint: Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $5,800. 00. Mr. Manarel administered the oath to Mr. and Mrs. Strang. MR. MANAREL: You are aware no decisions are made here today? GARRETT A. STRANG: Yes. THEODORE HEUSER: Let' s see what we have here. WILLIAM WILHELM: Sam, on that overvaluation. They have full market value of $58,000. 00 and on assessed valuation of property $68,000. 00. MR. MANAREL: Where did you get that figure? BARBARA STRANG: From your records. SAMUEL MARKEL: Why don't you just initial this and change it? MR. MANAREL: Who determined the full market value of $58 ,000.00? MR. STRANG: That was the price of the house. The sales price of the house as of May 22, 1981 was $58 ,500. 00. MR. MANAREL: May 22, 1981. Have there been any improvements since that time? MR. STRANG: No. MR. MANAREL: Charlie, you are Mattituck, are you not? CHARLES C. WATTS: Yes. MR. MANAREL: Can you come here and give us some data, please? The full market value of the house was established by the purchase of the house. It is assessed at $68 ,000 according to the records here. Board of Assessment Review -2- July 20 , 1982 MR. WATTS : It has been assessed at $68 ,000 since 1973. MR. MARKEL: The last assessment date was December 11, 1973. Right. MR. MANAREL: And it was sold for $58,000? What establishes the assessed valuation of property? The market value? MR. WATTS : Well, the State says it should be assessed at 10. 11% of the full market value. That is what the State says. It doesn' t always hold true especially with new building. We have not changed that assessment since 1973 . MR. MARKEL: Are there any houses that are about the same in your area? MR. STRANG: Close by? MR. WATTS : Do you know their names? MR. MARKEL: Who' s your closest neighbor? MR. WATTS : Right along side of them is a new house. MR. MARKEL: We could compare lot size and square footage. MRS . STRANGE: When I came down and talked to Mr. Moisa, he told me that $6800 was ten percent of the market value. MR. HEUSER: The assessed valuation has been $6800 since 1973. MR. WATTS : This is the neighbor immediately to the west of them. The card says the property is assessed at $6800, not $68 ,000 . MR. HEUSER: Did you taxes go up at all, folks? MR. STRANG: The rate goes up, right? MR. MANAREL: Was that your only question? Based on the assessed valuation? MR. STRANG: The assessed valuation was in excess of the full market value of the house, and that is what is making our taxes higher. MR. MANAREL: Well, you know there was a new law passed on how to establish what they call a Residential Assessment Ratio. It has to do with selling units in areas. The State came out with that figure. I have an example here. If you have a $5 ,000. 00 assessment using the formula our assessors use - would cause the house to cost roughly $49,045. 00 full value. If you use the new formula the State gave all the assessors, using the Residential Assessment Ratio, the full value of that house assessed at $5,000. 00 would be $64 ,516 . 00 or a difference of $15, 471. 00. t , t • Board of Assessment Review -3- July 20 , 1982 MR. MARKEL: Charlie, where did you go? FREDERICK GORDON: He is on the phone right now. MR. MANAREL; If you use the State formula which is 7. 75% instead of the 10. 11% this lower number gives you a higher assessed valuation. MRS. STRANG: This was a 1981 transfer. MR. MANAREL: They have that transfer. Are there any other questions? MR. MARKEL: I am waiting for Charlie. MR. MANAREL: Do you gentlemen have any questions? MR. HEUSER: I was just going to comment on this comparable piece of property owned by Towbridge and wife . They have more square footage than you by 300 square feet . Your assessment is lower than theirs . I do not think there is any mistake in the assessment MR. STRANG: You can take the comparable one step farther. There is the Murphy residence three lots to the east of us. I believe the house size is just about the same. Theirs may be larger and their assessment is lower. MR. HEUSER: That is the card we want to see then. MR. MARKEL: We 'll have to wait a moment Charlie is on the phone. MR. WEINHEIMER: Sam, if we use those formulas and take their 6800 assessed valuation with the 7.75 RAR, you get a value of $52,700 and a market value of $585000. I think they are over assessed a little bit. MR. MANAREL: Henry, can you answer one question for us? Charlie is on the phone. It has to do with rates. Would you explain this. This one has an upstairs according to the dormers. This was doesn't. MR. MOISA: Right. MR. MANAREL: This one is assesed at $4.50 per square foot and this was is assessed at $3.50. MR. MOISA: In this one they have use of the second floor which is livable and usable . The house with the $3.50 rate does not have that . MR. MARKEL: A whole dollar difference? Board of Assessment Review -4- July 20, 1982 MR. ,,MOISA: That 's right. MR. MARKEL: We need another card. Murphy? MRS. STRANG: Murphy. MR. MOISA: Is that in the neighborhood? MRS. STRANG: Three houses down. MR. MOISA: I think I know which one you mean. MR. HEUSER: I may be wrong, but I think if you take last year's tax bill and this year's tax bill, you will find the only increase is in the rate, not the assessment. MR. STRANG: We are not complaining the assessed valuation has gone up. MR. HEUSER: According to this card you are only assessed 6800 there . MR. STRANG: Based on the 10% of the purchase price of $58,000 it should be $5800 instead of $6800. MR. MANAREL: We understand what you are trying to say. We will take everything into consideration. MR. HEUSER: Folks, you would not compare this house to your house . MR. MARKEL: You have to look at the land size and square footage and everything that is in the house . Their total square footage only comes to around $3900. MR. MANAREL: The Strang's square footage is $5,937• MR. HEUSER: They haven't any basement, and they have no fire place. MR. STRANG: The rate for the frontage on the road and the rate at which the main building is assessed affects the dollar rate. MR. MANAREL: Okay, we have everything on the record. It is being tape recorded and our secretary is taking notes MR. STRANG: I think our rate is $4.50, and we have a smaller lot . MR. HEUSER: The last assessment on that was in 1973• MR. MANAREL: Is there anything else you would like to say? MR. STRANG: I have one other question. Is the assessment rate for the street frontage the same throughout the Town? Board of Assessment Review -5- July 20 , 1982 MR. MARKEL: I think you are misinterpreting frontage. The only time frontage comes into play is when the property is on the water. What we generally go by is the size of the lot. In your case you have a plot size here of just over a half acre. Mr. Murphy has .634 for just a slight difference. His lot is shaped different. When you get to the comparison, his is actually a smaller house even' though he is two stories. He doesn't have a fire place or basement. MR. STRANG: Is that per square foot? MR. MARKEL!. Yes, absolutely. You see he has a 3.25 assessment on part of the house and a 4.00 assessment on another part of the house. You have something that is worth $.75 more. You have a 4.50 and a 3.25 assessment. It all averages out. MR. MANAREL: The ruler is the same. MR. MARKEL: You are not paying any more than Murphy. On your assessment itself, we will have to look into it. MR. MANAREL: Do you have anything else? We thank you very much. We will be reviewing these in a couple of weeks. You will hear from use one way or another on what the decision of the Board is. MR. STRANG: Thank you very much. MR. HEUSER: I would like to make one suggestion. When you go home get last year's tax bill and this ye arts tax bill out. Look at your assessed valuation. You will find it is the saite. The rate has gone=up. MR. STRANG: That was not our argument to begin with. We knew the rate had not gone up, but we felt the basis for the assessed value was too high. MR. HEUSER: I might point out it has been the same since 1973, and there has not been any increase. MRS. STRANG: Thank you. No. 2. Philip & Honore Gehring, 1170 Leslie Road, Cutchogue, New York; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-97-9-1; Grounds for complaint: Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $700.00 MR. MANAREL Administered the Oath to Mr. and Mrs. Gehring. MR. MANAREL: Do we have the card for this property? Okay, here it is . MR. HEUSER: Do you people have some comparable property? MR. GEHRING: We brought the proplem to the attention of the Town Engineer, the Supervisor. Board of Assessment Review -6- July 20 , 1982 MR. MANAREL: The Supervisor has nothing to do with these hearings or the assessments. Your assessors are elected by law. MR. MARKEL: In other words because of your problems you think the assessment is wrong? ANDREW S. PI-TRE ; Did you build this house? MR. GEHRING: No. We just bought it. MR. MANAREL: I believe we have a picture of it. How does this picture. . . MR. GEHRING: That is looking towards the south. That is our property under water. When we have a large rain we always get flooded. MR. MANAREL: Where is this located? MR. GEHRING: Leslie's road. MR. MANAREL: I think this is what he is talking about. He is not talking about the assessed valuation of the house, he is talking about the value of the property. MR. GEHRING: The house is also. I don't know. My neighbor told me that once the water came up to the house. I did not really believe him until I saw it. This is not even the worst one. MR. MARKEL: The last time it rained? MR. GEHRING: The last time it rained the water was only 30 feet from the house. That was April 19, 1981. MR. MARKEL: You are only claiming the land is over assessed. MR. GEHRING: I don't know. I also feel the house is in jeopardy. I don't know what Wur assessment rules are. If you house is on a cliff, I don't think you can assess it the same as a normal house. I feel the life of the house is 25-30 years. I feel it is going to get flooded. MR. HEUSER: You purchased the property in 1975? MR. MANAREL: You bought the house fot$55,000? You must have felt the house was worth that. MR. GEHRING: We did not know about the flooding at that time. Now, we know. Buyer beware, yes, we nought it for that price. MR. MANAREL: The assessors must have looked at it on a nice sunny day. MR. GEHRING: That 's right, we won't try to sell it on a rainy day. Board of Assessment Review -7- July 20 , 1982 MR. MARKEL: In all fairness to Mr. Gehring, we should let him fill in the rest of the application. MR. MANAREL: Yes, why don't you come and change the application. MR. MARKEL: Why don't you change it to include your residence and not just your land. MR. 'I3EUSER: Does anyone else in your neighborhood have any flooding? MR. GEHRING: A little bit on the left, but nothing like ours. MRS. GEHRING: It is nothing like ours. MR. HEUSER: Let me ask you one more question. Were these pic- tures taken after that heavy rain we had? MR. GEHRING: No, these were taken before that. This is what I mean. The storm in June is what really came up higher. MR. MANAREL: Do you have any other questions? MR. GEHRING: No. MR. MANAREL: Is there anything else you would like to add? MR. GEHRING: The only other thing is it comes over the road from the north side. I donrt know if it has anything to do with you people. It comes from a sod farm. That whole thing slopes to the road and goes over the road. MR. MANAREL: Have you appeared before the Town Board? MR. MARKEL: No, that is not the place. MR. MANREL: You say it is coming across the sod farm? I think you need to talk to the Highway Department. MR. GEHRING: Just about drains come down the side of the sod farm. At, the bottom of the sod farm right at Leslie Road it slopes down and overflows right onto our property MR. WEINHEIMER: There is not anything else between there? MR. HEUSER: May I see that? MR. .MANA.REL: If you have nothing else to add or have any more questions, as you heard me tell the couple before you, we will review the minutes of todayis meeting, and we will be in touch with you within a month to notify you of the Board's decision. MR. GEHRING: Thank you. Board of Assessment Review -8- July 20, 1982 No. 3A; 3B; 3C - LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, Tax Department 250 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501. These three appli- cations were discussed under one hearing number. Suffolk County Tax Map Nos. 1000-45-1-11; 1000-74-2-23; The third application did not contain a Suffolk County Tax Map Number. Grounds for the Complaints : 3A-Inequality,: .Odervaluation and illegality; assessment should be reduced to $107,100; 3B-Inequality, overvaluation, incorrect partial exemption, and illegality; assessment should be reduced to: No figure appears. ; 3C-Inequality, overvaluation, incorrect partial exemption and illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $325000.00. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO DOUGLASS W. KREY, who appeared on behalf of LILCO. MR. KREY: Three of our applications are now pending certiorari. The complaint I an appearing on now is Section 2, incorrect partial assesment. Back in May, 1982, the Government filed two applications under 485B exemptions. - new constructions. The assessors increased. the assessment on both the poles and wires (29,000.00 of which 50% we are entitled to as an exemption for new business. The State Equalization Board,.,has allowed utilities property is acceptable for this exemption, and we have filed appropriately to get that exemption. The same with Item No. 199301. The assessment was increased by $21,000.00. We feel we are entitled to 50% of that increased assess- ment _dueto the fact we added new business. I talked to Mr. Moisa about this. He stated Southold did not have that law on the books as far asthe new business exemption. It is part of Section 485 of the Real Property Tax Law, MR. HEUSER: I might mention gentlemen, this Long Island Applica- tion comes in two parts .. Three and 3A. As it sags here "For values received from the Long Island Lighting Company. MR. KREY: We supply the assessment rate to the Town of Southold. They take the number we give them. If we give him the figure of $100,000 he, takes that times the equalization and adds it to the assessment.- I think that is .what was done this year. Now, it is our _ feeling under Section .485 of the Real Property Tax Law we are allowed a reduction. As I said I talked to Mr. Moisa about it, and he stated Southold Town does not have that law on the books. I tried to inter- pret that because what normally happens is that the law stays on the books, but the Town may opt to ignore the law, but they have to file a copy with the State Equalization Board. The Town of Soutbo ld has not filed with the State Equalization Board and in that case we feel we are entitled to the exemption. MR. .MARKEL: We do not have the law with us. It is not necessary right flow to get a copy and hold everyone up. MR. MANAREL: When we sit in a couple weeks and review everything we will take this into consideration. We will send you a notice of our decision. Is there anything else you would like to add? MR. KREY: No sir. MR. MARKEL: Thank you, Mr. Krey. Board of Assessment Review -9- July 20, 1982 No. 4. CARL DANIEL REITER, JR. , and YVONNE PERRY REITER, 2650 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, New York 1.1952; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-139-3-7; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to MOO. MIS. MALYAliEL -'-ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MR. AND MRS. REITER. MR. REITER: Basically what my complaint is based on is over-- valuation. The property has been assessed at 9300, and we paid what we felt was the fair market value of $73,000.00 for the house . We really feel the house is overvalued by $21,000.00. This is our main complaint, and also it seems inequitable as I went over the tax rolls, because right down the street from me is a beautiful two storyon a body of water, waterfront property, and she is paying only x:.50.00 more than we are. The lot size is the same as ours . It seems neglible to me . MR. HEUSER: Henry. MR. MANAREL: Is this the right card? MR. WATTS : Yes, they just recently purchased this property. We have not received the deed yet, so we cannot change the card. MR. MANAREL: Oh, I see, okay. We thought we had the wrong card, because the names did not match. MR. REITER: Oh, because there is some more paper work we have not even gotten back from the county clerk yet ourselves . MR. HEUSER: When did you purchase this? MR. REITER: June, 1982. MR. HEUSER: Of this year? MR. REITER: Yes . MR. MANAREL: What did you pay for it? MR. REITER: We paid $73,000.00 for it. MR. MARKEL: Who did you buy the property from? MR. REITER: I cannot say his first name. His last name is Mikolajczyk. MR. MARKEL: No relation? MR. REITER: No relation. We call him Mike. MR. HEUSER: Was your assessed valuation raised this year? -7 Board of Assessment Review -10- July 20, 1982 MR. REITER: I'm not sure . We paid the balance of the taxes . What we understand it is assessed for $93,000.00. MR. MARKEL: You say you came in to look at the tax rolls? You came to our tax department? MR. REITER: Yes. I made some comparisons . A house kind of across the street, but it is not a ranch house, but it is on the same acreage, it is a two story house, same square footage, 3/4 of an acre on the water, and she is only paying $150 more than we are. MR. MARKEL: Do you know what her name is? MR. REITER: Smith. MR. MARKEL: We will have the assessor pull that card. MR. HEUSER: We ' ll use that as a comparable first. MR. REITER: Sure. MR. PRINE: You don't have a second story, do you? MR. REITER: No, we don't for obvious reasons. I would appreciate you doing that. There is just one other thing I would say. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place . You judge that. Obviously when I go into a house, especially when we have rented—Almost all the townships in Suffolk County have development funds which they have earmarked to help the handicapped, they make what ever modifications are necessary. Southold Town has the funds, but they have made nothing available. Even when we were coming up here today, they have a ramp, but there is a crucial bump where someone in a wheelchair will never get over. MR. MARKEL: I suggest you go to one of our Town meetings, and just get up there and raise this issue. They will listen to you. MR. REITER: Okay. I didn' t know if I had the right place or not. MR. HEUSER: What was the same of that comparable you wanted? MR. REITER: Smith. MR. WATTS : Are they located on Wickham Avenue, too? MR. REITER: Where you turn onto Grand Avenue . Another thing I don' t understand how the taxes are assessed, but we have a two car garage, which is part of the house . Half of that I had to change into a ramp to go into the house . The way I feel, this is no longer a two car garage . MR. HEUSER: I think we could discuss that. .i . Board of Assessment Review -11- July 20, 1982 MR. MARKEL: I think that is a point. MR. HEUSER: But we are not tax assessors . MR. REITER: There are things like that and other modifications we had to do that have taken away from the living space of the house. MR. MARKEL: Is the form filled out correctly? MR. MANAREL: They have checked overvaluation. MR. HEUSER: There is some mistake in the computation there. MR. REITER: I think we filled in the wrong box. MR. MARKEL: Why don' t you straighten it out? MR. MARKEL: You have one too many zeroes there. You want it to go from 9300 to 7300. Why don' t you fix that. MR. HEUSER: Would you initial it too, when you are finished. MR. REITER: Appreciate that. MR. HEUSER: Mary Smith? MR. REITER: Yes. MR. MARKEL: Is this water view? MR. REITER: I don't think so. I cannot see the water. You have to look over a couple of 40 foot high trees. MR. MARKEL: Charlie, do you consider this water view property? MR. WATTS: It is across the creek. You can see the creek. MR. HEUSER: Where are you located with respect to Mary Edelman? On Wicham Avenue going east? MRS. REITER: Right there on the bend. MR. REITER: Right where the road turns. Right on that corner. MR. HEUSER: Was that the house the dentist had? MR. REITER: No. Noyak is one one side and Rudy Johnson is on the other. MR. HEUSER: Oh, yes, Rudy Johnson. MR. REITER: We are right before that. MR. MANAREL: Did you call to the Assessors ' attention you are Board of Assessment Review -12- July 20, 1982 using part of your garage as a ramp. MR. REITER: No, not yet. I did not know where to go with that MR. MANAREL: This has not been assessed since 1962. MR. REITER: A good portion of my front law is owned by Suffolk County. I don't know if that is indicated on there . MR. HEUSER: 10 feet. MR. REITER: I think� it is more than 10 feet, but I am not positive. MR. HEUSER: I think it is 10 foot deep. Isn't that right Charlie? That is what my deed said. MR. WATTS: That is what it should say. MR. HEUSER: It is technically owned by Suffolk County. You pay any taxes on it• MR. REITER: Inequity all over the place. MR. HEUSER: I have the same problem. In other words Charlies, if the County wanted to widen the road, they would take 10 feet away from my property. MR. MARKEL: Okay, now let' s look at what this has to say. MR. HEUSER: There is no comparison in my opinion between the Reiters house and Mary 'Smith' s house. This is waterfront property. MR. MANAREL: Are there any other questions anyone would like to ask Mr. Reiter? Do have anything else you would like to ask? MR. REITER: I just want to make sure the record shows the 10 feet we were talking about. You see this is- my property line and this is the road over here . Is that legitimate? MR. MARKEL: Basically. They do not assess road frontage. They assess square footage. Just to give you the comparison between these two parcels. Smith has 3/4 of an acre. You have. .689. Her land is assessed at $800 and your land is assessed at $750. MR. REITER: What does that mean? MR. MARKEL: I tried to explain to you, they do not assess on road frontage, but they consider the size of the plot. Isn't that so, Charlie? MR. WATTS : Right. x .r Board of Assessment Review -13- July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: All right, Mr. and Mrs. Reiter, you will be hearing from us as soon as we get everything together and study it. We will notify you by mail what our decision is . MR. HEUSER: Charlie, Mr. Reiter has a problem, where he has a two care garage and uses one half of it for a ramp for access into his house. Should there not be some relief on that? MR. WATTS: We take that into consideration, yes . There is not much we can do until we get the transfer of title. MR. MANAREL: Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs. Reiter for coming in today. No. 5. Margaret Wagner, 20 Slabey Avenue, Malverne, New York 11565. Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-87-6-4; Grounds for Complaint : Inequality and overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to: no figure appears. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MR. WAGNER. MR. MANAREL: Mr. Wagner, please state your case. MR. WAGNER: Gentlemen I put on a 3 foot by 9 foot bay window on the house and I also added a 9 foot x 23 foot garage which results all of a sudden in an increase of 1600 assessed valuation. I do not understand this. In addition they increased the rates from $2.75 to $3.25 when other houses in the area= have a rate of $2.75 and $2.25. What has happened is the assessed valuation has been increased 44% because I put a garage extension and bay window in the house . MR. MANAREL: Because of the extension do you now have a two car garage? MR. WAGNER: No, a one car garage. I put in a closet and bathroom between it. At the time I spoke--.to a builder, and he told me as long as I did not increase the area on the outside my assessment would not go up. The rest of the house stayed in tact. All of a sudden I wind up with a 44% increase. They increased my land values and changed my rates . MR. MAk=: Do you have any comparable in the neighborhood? MR. WAGNER: Yes, what I did was check the other properties in the area. I was told the purchase price does not mean anything as far as assessments go. MR. HEUSER: It goes according to when the purchase was made. MR. WAGNER: Because some of the property in the neighborhood was bought after mine. All I have is 169. MR. MANAREL: Mr. Wagner, we are going to have to stop, because r .1 Board of Assessment Review -14- July 20, 1982 you do not have this filled out proper rly. MR. WAGNER: This is what Jack told me to do. He told me to fill this out, put this over hear and do some comparisons . MR. MANAREL: These are comparisons, but we are asking for definite figures. Regardless of what you were told, this Board is the final authority, and according to State regulations, we just must have this form filled out properly. MR. MARKEL: Maybe we could have the assessors help you. MR. WAGNER: I called a real estate man, and they said. . . . MR. MANAREL: Why don't we adjourn this hearing so you can put the correct information in here? MR. WAGNER: This here part of it? MR. MARKEL: Fill out the part that says what you are complaining about. MR. HEUSER: Go over to the Assessors Office, and they will help you. MR. WAGNER: Thank you very much The hearing was adjourned to give Mr. Wagner time to complete his application properly. NO. 6. ARTHUR L. DAVIS and WANDA S. DAVIS, Box 292, East Marion, New York 11939; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-31-18-2; Grounds for Complaint : Inequality; . Assessment should be reduced to $ MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MR. AND MRS. DAVIS MR. MANAREL: Here is you card and your application. MR. DAVIS: In comparing our neighbors on Rabbit Lane, they are all summer houses, it seems they had a $200 increase on their assess- ment. Ours is an $800 increase in assessment or 38%. We have held this property since 1963. MR. MARKEL: Have you added anything to your house this year? MR. DAVIS: No, 1963. MR. MARKEL: In 1968 you added a garage? MRS. DAVIS: No we didn' t. That is the original garage. MR. MARKEL: According to this card you added a garage. MRS. DAVIS: The original buildings are still there the way we Board of Assessment Review -15- July 20, 1982 bought it in 1950. MR. MANAREL: Can you get Henry for us, I think that is his area. MR. GORDON: No, that is my area. MR. MARKEL: Doesn' t this say new garage? MRS. DAVIS : That was there when we bought it . MR. GORDON: There is a notation on it - some previous assessor had Put a notation a garage was added in 1968. MRS. DAVIS: No, No. That does not even have a floor in it. MR. MANAREL: Would you go down between now and the time we meet and go over this and check it out. Are you home all the time, Mr. Davis : MR. GORDON: The fact the card says 1968 does not matter. There is a garage there . That has nothing to do with the assessment in 1982. That garage was way back in 1968. MR. MARKEL: Do you charge the same for a garage that does not have a cement floor in it? MR. GORDON: No, a cement floor would make a difference . MR. DAVIS : One-quarter of the garage has wooden platform. The garage is about 40 years old. The rest of the garage is dirt. MR. MARKEL: So there would be a difference? MR. GORDON: Yes. MR. MARKEL: Looking at this card, are you charging at the rate for a cement floor garage? MR. GORDON: No, the garage is assessed at .75 per square foot. Most garages are assessed at $1.00. MR. MANAREL: Was the whole area re-assessed? MR. GORDON: The total area of Rabbit Lane plus part of Bay Avenue was re-assessed. We did all the surrounding area. Everyone is on line with the rates for the houses and garages. MR. MARKEL: You have less than one-quarter acre. MR. HEUSER: When you are finished with they, may I see it. MR. MANAREL: I will give it to you. MRS. DAVIS: We don't have our tax bill anymore. We live in r •+ Board of Assessment Review -16- July 20, 1982 Texas . In New York State the taxes are too high. After this is added, the taxes on my property will be more than the beautiful home we have in Texas, and we have 4 bedrooms , Here we just have this little cottage, and we pay higher taxes . Our house is right on a golf course. MR. MARKEL: Do you have a house vacant next door? MR. DAVIS: We have a96 hole golf course. Not all of our neighbors were reassessed $ 00 MRS. DAVIS: Nothing has been done since the 196O1s. MR. MARKEL: It might be that your house has not bee reassessed for so many years . We have no way of knowing. Do you have a specific house you would like us to use as a comparison? Tell us which one you would like us to compare. All we are trying to do is see that you get a fair deal. MR. MANAREL: Our authority here is only to be of help to you. We do it several ways, one of which is comparisons of neighboring properties. We have no authority to raise or lower anyone else ' s taxes. If you can give us someone to compare by, it would be helpful. Our assessors do not go back and raise the other guy' s taxes. MR. MARKEL: We will glady do it, it only takes a minute . MRS. Davis : What about Robert Roemer? MR. MARKEL: Okay, how do you spell their name? MR. DAVIS : R-O-E-M-E-R. MRS. DAVIS: Now, they have made more additions to their house more recently. They are right next door to us. MR. MARKEL: Is you house on the canal? MRS. DAVIS: No, it is on the water. MR. MARKEL: Is it bulkheaded? MRS. DAVIS: If you knew Captain Ketcham it was his old cottage. MR. MANAREL: Purchased the property in 1950. MR. DAVIS: They only paid $28. 00 in taxes then. MR. MANAREL: You bought the land and built your house? MRS. DAVIS: No. This was the Ketcham' s cottage . Board of Assessment Review -17- July 20, 1982 MR. DAVIS: We put new siding on top of the old. That was it. MR. MARKEL: The first house I ever bought cost $2300.00. MRS. DAVIS: We like it down there . We would not give it up for anything. We have lived there for a long time. We lived. in Westchester when we lived in New York. MR. GORDON: This is Roemer' s card. MR. MARKEL: Now, can we have the original card. MR. MANAREL: I/8th1s of an acre. MR. MARKEL: Both on the water. MRS. DAVIS : He has about 42 feet or something like that. MR. MARKEL: His is a corner lot. MR. GORDON: Property on the water is assessed at so much a square foot. MRS. DAVIS: We have been told our house was on a barge or part of a World War Ilbarracksw', We don't know. MR. HEUSER: Looks like it could have been part of barracks. MR. MARKEL: Fred, you are the Assessor on this? MR. GORDON: Yes . MR. MARKEL: Could you explain the fact Mr. Davis is paying for a screened porch at $2.00 and Mr. Roemer is paying for a screened porch at $1. 00. MR. GORON: I am sure it is two different types of porches . I think one is closed in. MRS. DAVIS: Ours is not closed in. Thei�have shutters, but they move up and down. . We put windows in ours. MR. MANAREL: Jalousie windows? MR. MANAREL: So they are permanent. MRS. DAVIS: Yes, they are permanent. MR. GORDON: That is the reason. MRS. DAVIS: Every time we have a hurricane, the roof from the Board of Assessment Review -18- July 20, 1982 porch goes up the street. We had that happen a couple of times, and then we closed it in. MR. HEUSER: There is 50% more space. MR. MANAREL: Okay, does anyone have any more questions of the Davis ' s. Okay, do you have any more questions of us? We are going to meet and get all our information together so we can make a determination. We will send you a notice in the mail of our decision. Do you have one of these booklets that tells you what to do if you are unhappy with out decision? Okay, take one of these. MR. HEUSER: Will you be there for the rest of the season? MR. DAVIS: We will be there until the end of September. NO. 5 - MARGARET WAGNER - Hearing reconvened. MR. MANAREL: Where is their card? MR. MARK.EL: We held it in abeyance. What is the complaint now? MR. MANAREL: Go ahead Mr. Wagner. MR. WAGNER: I extended my garage and put a small extension with no foundation between the garage and house. Now, because of this it seems I have been reassessed for everything. I end up with the property being increased in assessed valuation. MR. MANAREL: Is this the end of your house? The roof comes down to there? MR. WAGNER: Let me see . No, No, No. Let me show you this here. You see this window here? That is this window right here. MR. MANAREL: But if you look at the pitch in the roof? MR. WAGNER: There is a little indent there. I added on this 9 x 23 foot extension. That picture does not show everything. MR. MANAREL: You see that is on an angle. MR. WAGNER: There was a garage there. In other words what ' s happened is this here. . . MR. MANAREL: No, that is not what I was getting at. When you look at a picture from this angle, you could interpret that as a garage. MR. WAGNER: But it isn' t. i Board of Assessment Review -19- July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: But he says that is not the garage. MR. WAGNER: The garage is set back about this much from the front of the house. From the new photo you will see the extension as it really is. This all resulted in an increase in 1600 worth of assessed valuation. Based on the building itself, this is almost a 44% increase MR. MARKEL: You mentioned installing a bathroom? MR. WAGNER: It is a tiny shower, sink, toilet and closet. MR. MANAREL: What is the size of your shower? MR. WAGNER: I would say 4 x 4. You can't get much in it. It is really small because when I an in it, I am bumping all the sides. It also has a midget toilet. MR. MARKEL: Okay, let ' s take a look. MR. HEUSER: The basis of this is increased assessment? MR. WAGNER: Yes. MR. MANAREL: Increased assessed valuation based on the addition that he made . Have you fully stated your case? MR. WAGNER: No. Why is there a difference in the rate from $2.75 to $3.25? I don't know what this rate is . The building area the increased the rate to $3.25 when everyone else in the area is 2.75 and $2.25. MR. MARKEL: We can have the Assessor explain the rate to you. MR. MANAREL: What rate are you talking about? After the addition? MR. WAGNER: Yeah, everyone else is $2.25 and they increased mine . They have fire places. I'm familiar with all these houses . with?MR. MARKEL: What house would you like us to compare your house MR. WAGNER: I am comparing with Panella. MR. MARKEL: Could we have that card please? MR. WAGNER: I still don't believe I did anything to justify an increase . MR. PRIME: I see $2.75 here and $2.25 is for the extension. MR. MARKEL: Your extension is assessed at $3.25 and his extension is assessed at $2.25. Your extension is larger than his Board of Assessment Review _20_ July 20, 1982 extension MR. MARKEL: His does not have a fire place . MR. WAGNER: Yes it does. MR. MARKEL: Okay, I see. MR. 71TRR: Your garage is larger than his garage. You have a bay window. MR. WAGNER: When you use the Pannella house, the rate is lower. The purchase price in_ 1972 two years after I was there was $46,000 compared to my $25,000.00. MR. MARKEL: How long ago did you buy your house? MR. WAGNER: 1970. He bought his in 1972. Zang, he bought his house for $20,500 They are all on the bay. I'm on the creek. They havenzu h more lucrative property than I have They have big bulkheads and everything. MR. HEUSER: Your living area increased. MR. WAGNER: Yes, it increased, let's see 200 square foot. MR. PRIME: 180 feet. MR.WtWAGNER: But my property is only 169 square feet more than Pannella. Yet his assessed valuation is 5+00 and mine is 6200. He has a much better parcel than I have. He is on the water with bulkheads and everything else, and I am on theccreek. MR. MARKEL: You have a 1/5 of an acre and he has a quarter. MR. MANAREL: Panella is assessed at 800 on his land and you are assessed at 600. MR. WAGNER: I do have a smaller parcel. I am 100 x 107. As I say his property is much better than mine because he is right on the bay. MR. MANAREL: With what you have here, do you think you have completed your story? MR. WAGNER: Well, MR. MANAREL: We are not going to make any decision here today. MR. WAGNER: Could you ask him why the increase. Could you ask about the $2.75 to $3.25? I don't understand this. Board of Assessment Review -21- July 20, 1982 MR. MOISA: The rates are based on what is there. There can be a difference in the construction, what has been reconstructed, new siding and things of that sort. MR. WAGNER: My siding is wood. Pannella' s siding is wood. Cement block base - cement block base. Asphalt roof - asphalt roof. Fireplace-fireplace. There is absolutely no difference between that house and my house as far as the materials used. There is no difference between these houses. MR. MARKEL: Henry, can you help us? MR. MOISA: As I said there has been some work done on the house which will bring up the assessed valuation. The assessors feel the value is there, and that is why it was increased. MR. WAGNER: How can you say that? I had to replace the windows because they were rotting. That is maintenance, that is not an improvement. MR. MANAREL: Okay, I think we have all the facts. We will meet in a couple of weeks and go over everything, and we will notify you by mail. Thank you very much. NO. 7 - SUZANNE CLARKS, P. 0 Box 87A, New Suffolk, New York 11956. Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-117-6-32. Grounds for the Complaint: Inequalit Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to T4921. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO SUZANNE CLARKE. MS. CLARKE: The first thing which you see is the house that was sold several months which was reported in last week' s Mattituck Traveler. They had divided the property and the half parcel with the house was sold for 83,500. That property is assessed at the same rate as mine. The 83,500 price reflects a division. Hartungs had divided the property, and I believe this was assessed on the basis of the division. I purchased my property 3-1/2 years ago for the sum of $70,000, and I do not think it has increased in value. The Hartung sale is a good example of what market value transfers are like in this immediate area. I have a tremendous amount. . .I have information on every single parcel around me, and I am prepared to discuss any aspect of this that you would like. I have picturds also of my house. 14R. MA.NR.EL: First of all, let me say, relax. Let' s not get argumentative. MS. CLARKE: I don't want to waste-.your time. MR. MARKEL: You are not wasting our time. We have all day. Board of Assessment Review -22- July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: Just let me say that you are using the figure of the Residential Assessment Radio. M5. CLARKE: I see that as a more accurate . MR. MANAREL: If it is a more accurate figure, dear, your assessment is going to go higher. I will give you an example . MS. CLARKE: I have already figured it out. MR. MANAREL: You see, if you use a $5,000 assessment. MS. CLARKE: I have my calculator. Based on. MR. MANAREL: Just listen please. I just want to explain one thing to you. You are getting argumentative again, and I just want to explain something to you. This is the formula used by our assessors. When you divide that $5,000. The assessed valuation on the house comes to $49 079. If you use the residential assessment ratio,-that jumps to $64,00 or $15,000 more than our assessors use. MS. CLARKE: I worked at it from a different angle . If the true market value of the house is $70,000. MR. MANAREL: But you were quoting the state figure. MS. CLARKE: The State figure is what I have shown on my analysis. If you use the RAR figure instead of the State Equalization Rate, it comes out to a market value which is more close to the true market value. I know real estate values, and believe me that comes out to a value which is more close to the market value than the State Equalization Rate. You can look in my numbers here before we get into the details of that, because of the controversial content. I want to show you pictures of my house to show you the condition this house is in. This house sits right upon the road. Right up on the corner of the intersection of Fifth and Main. It is not 10 feet off the blinker light. I am kept up all night by the cars racing up and down and jamming on their brakes. It is a very noisy intersection. I an sorry some of these pictures are fuzzy. The condition of the house is dread- ful. There is only heat in half of the house. This shows how it sits right up at the intersection. This is the garage. The garage is a simple garage . It is not a fancy garage. The property is generally run down, although I am trying to clean it up. Your assessment does not reflect the fact I tore down two cottages on the property. MR. MARKEL: Okay, that is what happened to them. MS. CLARKE: I tore down two cottages on the property. Now, I have the square footage on the house . MR. MARKEL: When did you tear down these two cottages? Board of Assessment Review -�3- July 20, 1982 MS. CLARKE: I tore them down about two years ago. MR. HEUSER: Two camp cottages? MS. CLARKS: Two camp cottages. The only buildings on the property are a one and one half story cottage, which I aoved and put on a foundation. I took out a building permit . They did the final inspection, and I thought that was the end of it. Then they sent me a postcard last year saying I had an open permit, and I had to get a new CO. I had a CO on the cottage before I moved it, so I applied for a CO, and after their fussing around and this and that, they just gave me the CO in May, 1982. That is probably what triggered. They know the CO was issued and all. So that is what probably triggered this reassessment. Now the only buildings on the property are a two family house, one garage and this one and one half story cottage. MR. MARKEL: Before you go any farther. Did you advise the A se sors you had removed these buildings? Also, please fill in these b an s. MS. CLARKE: Again, I am confused'-as to the full market value of the property. This is what I think it is. MR. MANAREL: We need the value of the property here and the assessed valuation of the property here . MS. CLARKE: Nobody is assessed at full value. Okay,1I have to do the arithmetic . MR. MARKEL: Don't get excited. MS. CLARKE: Okay, take $70,000 divided by .1011. It is assessed at about $7200. MP2. HEUSER: That is exactly what it is . $7200. That is what is on this card. MS. CLARKE: But again, what I am telling you. .The point is the equalization rate is not uniformly applied and it results in gross inaccuracies . I will demonstrate, if I can what some of those are. The Hartung house sold for $83,500. It is on half the property. The house now sits on something like a third of an acre. MR. MARKEL: Can I interrupt you for a second to ask you a question. You took the cottages down two years ago. At that time did you inform the Assessors office that you had removed the cottages? MS. CLARKE: No. MR. MARKEL: The assessors do not go around to every house every day of the week to see whether or not you add or subtract from your property. I think you should inform them. Board of Assessment Review -24- July 20, 1982 MS. CLARKE: Look, they increased the assessment because I got a new CO on the cottage. If they did not come out and look to see there were two cottages gone, I was not going to ask them to come out and look at the property, in order to get a decrease in the assessment. MR. MARKEL: That is how it works. MS. CLARKE: Maybe I should have done that, but I am not that type of person. I let some things go unless there is a problem. Now, I just want to show you something. I don't tresspass, so I had to take this from the road. This house, a large victorian sits on almost four acres of property. It is a big house. That is assessed I believe at $7500. That is just incredible. My house is falling apart, and sits on 3.4 acres and is assessed at 7200. Okay, the Gbig house is assessed at $7900. You can not compare. That house is work $150,000. If we look at the two houses, the two houses closest to me which is Maxim. Let me see, let me get the right form here. MR. MARKEL: You have notes on the back. MS. CLARKE: These are two different houses. That is mine. That is the Grathwohl house. It sits on a half an acre. It is assessed at 1800. The total assessment is 4500 property. The total assessment. The other. It is in very good condition. These houses were never allowed to become run down. This is the Syms house. It is assessed at $3600 total. MR. MARKEL: Would you like us to get those cards? MS. CLARKE: It also has a large garage. It has an apartment over it. MR. MARKEL: Would you like us to see the cards? MS. CLARKE: Yes, why don't you do that. These are referred to here . MR. MARKEL: Would you get us the Brashich house and the Tese house for us? MS. CLARKE: Okay, let' s look at those. MR. MARKEL: You say one of those houses is a two family house. MS. CLARKE: Yes, mine is . Yes, I signed a covenant with the Southold Town Planning Board that I would use that large house only for a one or two family house. Coule you also get the Tese house? MR. MARKEL: Well, I think if we get that one, we will have too many and it will get confusing. Board of Assessment Review -�5- July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: The assessors assessed your property at $7200. Would you please use your RAR figure and see what your full value comes to? MS. CLARKE: Just hold on a second. You have to divide 7200 by the RAR ,0703 and you get $102,418.00. That my property is not worth. MR. MANAREL: That is the figure you are basing your complaint on. MS. CLARKE: May I just explain something? MR. MANAREL: No you may not. I just want to get to a point with you. You are not listening, you are doing all the talking. What I am trying to do is make a comparison for you. You have been using the RAR all along the line as an argument for reducing your assessment. I am trying to get you to compare the RAR tatio that the State has been using and also now I would like to you compare and divide that 7200 assessed valuation with the . 1110 that our assessors are using. Would you kindly do that so we can get a comparison. MS. CLARKE: First thing I would like to say, when you use the RAR in relation to the market value you come up with a different figure. You come up with a lower figure. MR. MANAREL: Will you please do it. MS. CLARKE: That is the correct way to do it. Okay, okay, what do you want me to do? MR. MANAREL: I would like to have you now divide 7200 by .1110 figure that our assessors are using. MR. MARKEL: When you finish with that, could we see it. MS. CLARK: That comes up to $72,000.00. MR. MANAREL: Now, when you first came in you said using the State figure of the RAR you come to a truer value of the house than the figure we are using. Now using those figures, you say using the RAR figure your property is worth $102,418. or over $100,000 of full value . Wetre saying our assessors use that second figure which is better. MS. CLARKE: I think where each of us is confused. MR. MANAREL: Miss Clark, MS. CLARKE: Sir, if the true market value of my house is $70,000 Board of Assessment Review -26- July 20, 1982 and if one uses the RAR ratio that produces the assessment I have shown there of 4921. MR. MANAREL: It does not. You just did it. MS. CLARKE: No. If the true value of my house, and I say the value of my house is not $102,000. MR. MANAREL: I agree with you there. MS. CLARKE: Okay, give me the number that is there. What is it there. $102,000. for the sake of argument. If that was the market value of the house. If it was assessed on .0703 which is the RAR. You would then multiply that times .0703. You would get a 7170 assessment. Almost 7200. Using the RAR if the true market value of my house was $102,000 then the RAR assessment of $7200 would be correct, but that is not the true-:., market value of my house. The true market value is about $7Q,000.00. When using the .0703 number there, you get the $4921 figure I have used. If you take the equalization rate you do get a number that seems to be very close to what it has been assessed for. The point is that all the houses around me are not assessed at any where near_ the market value that is produced when you use the State Equalization Rate. These figures demonstrate that. What I an trying to suggest with my figures is ,what the assessors seem to have done in New Suffolk - the assessments are very low, much lower than they ought to be. Using the State Equalization rate they are so low, the assessors should follow the RAR ration. I am aksing that the inequality be,--,corrected in my case. Now if I could discuss the square footage on the house because I went out and measured this morning. I am not trying to hide anything. I have a tennis court there which I just fixed up. I just spent $200 for that and my neighbor's tennis court is assessed for that and it has been in tip top shape since it was put in. Mine was chicken wire, falling down, had a broken net, no one was using it. I hope I an : .not going to be reassessed because I brought it up to standard. This is what I have . The original house - two story. The size of that is 24 x 30. Then there is 2-1/2 story extension. The size on that is 20 x 25. MR. MARKEL: 25 x 30. MS. CLARK: No, it is not. It is 20 x 25. I measured it mayself. There is a one story extension with dimensions of 16 x 35. MR. MARKEL: Henry? MS. CLARKE: I don't know when all this stuff was done. It was quite possible there were changes and this and that. MR. MARKEL: Are you the Assessor in this area, Henry? MR. MOTSA: No, Charlie is. MR. MARKEL: Could we have Charlie come in? Board of Assessment Review -27- July 20, 1982 MR. MARKEL: The young lady here claims there-might be a dis- crepancy here in the measurements . On the card you have 20 x 30. She says she measured it, and it turns out to be 20 x 25. MS. CLARKE: There:'.is a one story extension that measures 16 x 35. I don't even know if you show that. MR. MARKEL: It is shown here. MS. CLARKE: There is a 20 x 20 garage. 400 square feet. I don't know if you show that. It might have been shown as an out building. MR. MARKEL: Or a utility building. MS. CLARKE: Or as a utility building. MR. MARKEL: The two camp buildings. MS. CLARKE: They are no longer there. MR. MARKEL: A covered porch 6 x 24 and 8 x 36. MS. CLARKE: The porch is 396 square feet. It is one porch. It is 7 x 36 one side and 6 x 24 on the other. And there is the 1-1/2 story cottage. Other people 's porches are $ .10 a foot. I don' t know what-:-_mine is . MR. MARKEL: $ . 50 a foot. MS. CLARKE: $ . 50 a foot? MR. WATTS: This is a very old house. MS. CLARKE: This house was built in 1880. Fifty cents a foot is for an enclosed porch. MR. WATTS: What is the date on that? 1962. MR. HEUSER: Okay, we are going to use Grathwohl as a comparison also? MR. MANAREL: I think it will work out. Okay, Miss Clarke, I think we have enough information here. You will be hearing from us in a couple of weeks after the minutes are typed up and we review everything. Thank you very much. NO. 8. DONALD G. KING, Rocky Point Road, East Marion, New York, 11939• Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-121-3-16; This property is in is in certiorari and cannot be acted upon. A lady by the name of Hannah Krzeminski, an employee of Donald Board of Assessment Review -28- July 20 , 1982 G. King that must be discussed between Mr. King's attorney and the attorney for the Board of Assessment review. NO. 9 -RAYMOND J. AKSCIN & OTHERS, Cedar Beach Road, Southid, New York 11971. Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-89-2-5. 1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $7300. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO GERRY AKSCIN. MR. MANAREL: We have to check to see this is filled` out properly. MRS. AKSCIN: This is very simple. MR. WEINHEIMER: You have to tell us how much you want your assessed valuation reduced by. MRS. AKSCIN: May I make a brief presentation? MR. MANAREL: No, you have to fill this out first. MRS. AKSCIN: I want it reduced by $500.00. MR. MARKEL: Your tax or your assessed valuation? MRS. AKSCIN: The assessed valuation. MR. XANAREL: You can use this.. pen. MRS. AKSCIN: I have one here . I am a licensed real estate broker and appraiser. To make it very brief. In 1981 we put a two car garage, which is not as yet finished. My husband is Akscin Nursery. We ran out of money. I am also self-employed. Business is bad, very bad, and we have not finished it. The permit as far as I know is continuous. We have not finished it because we do not have the money. In 1981 you were down and looked at it. MR. MARKEL: It was none of us . We don't do those things . MRS. AKSCIN: I like all of you. All right. In 1981 we were increased 300. We figured that was fair although we were not finished. We ran out of funds. It is very very expensive to do anything now, and we are both self-employed. In 1982 the building which is exactly the same went up another $500. This is my question. Very simply. Why? MR. MANAREL: This form is not filled out. You are claiming illegally and you are in the jurisdiction of the Town of Southold, so you can not claim illegality. Board of Assessment Review -29- July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: If you were out of the limits of the Town you could claim that. MRS. AKSCIN: I filled this in very quickly, just as I came in this morning. MR. MANAREL: Now, which one of these are you complaining under? MRS. AKSCIN: Which one would you suggest? MR. MARKEL: That is a decision for you. MR. WEINHEIMER: The most appropriate one is overvaluation. MR. MARKEL: Henry, uo uld you explain them to her so she could decide. MRS. AKSCIN: This is what I did when I read the thing through. In 1981, we were reassessed $300. But in 1982, we were reassessed another $500. The situation remains the same. We have lack of funds . The house is exactly the way it was . We do not have a CO on it because we cannot afford in our present circumstances to finish it. MR. HEUSER: May I interrupt. You mentioned you were raised again in 1982 MRS. AKSCIN: Right, $500. MR. HEUSER: The only time you were raised on here was in 1981. MR. MARKEL: This is 1982 now. This is still not filled out. MR. MANAREL: The lady told me she was an appraiser, I did not want to over step my bounds. MRS. AKSCIN: No, I admit to being stupid at times . MR. HEUSER: Well, you can join the club . We are all members. Maybe this will clarify it in your mind. They put the increase in there, but then they reduced it by $170 because it was not completed. They did not give you the full increase in the value of the garage . MRS. AKSCIN: Yes, but it is still in the same condition it was in 1981 MR. MARKEL: Can she please fill out the application so it is legal? MRS. AKSCIN: You want me to do "B" right? MR. MARKEL: I would suggest that. Board of Assessment Review 30- July 20 , 1982 MRS. AKSCIN: Thank you very much. I just had a deal fall through on a beautiful house, waterfront property, gorgeous, because the economy is terrible. MR. HEUSER: 1981 prior assessment. MRS. AKSCIN: I did "B" . MR. MARKEL: Just initial it for us. Thank you. MR. HEUSER: 1982 it says here. MR. MARKEL: Let' s ask Mr. Moisa a couple of questions. Henry, can you tell us your reason for the increment in the garage. MR. MOISA: The Building Permit for the garage is dated 1980 sometime. We went there in June, 1981, there was only a portion of it. So we applied what was there at that time. This year we visited again. . MRS. AKSCIN: You raised it $300, no problem MR. MOISA: Then we raised it $500 for this coming year. MRS. AKSCIN: I know, but we have not completed it. I doubt we will before the end of the year. MR. MANAREL: Mrs . Akscin, at these hearings you may not address the assessor. Any questions you have should be addressed to us and we will ask the assessor. MR. MARKEL: Let him finish his explanation. MR. MOISA: Then we went back and reappraised it. There was another 500 to be added to the assessment leaving another 200 for the incompletion of the garage. It is all stated on the garage there. MR. MARKEL: So you get your first assessment, second assessment, third assessment when it is completed. MR. MOISA: In other words, if you add up. all the figures they total $720 of assessment for the garage. Now, the way we allowed the $200 for the completion. MR. HEUSER: 1981 prior assessment $7300 - 7800. MR. WEINHEIMER: The prior assessment is right here. MR. MANAREL: Okay, let Henry put those two together and explain it. MR. MARKEL: The assessment should be reduced to. See right here where my finger is? This figure should be filled in. Board of Assessment Review -31- July 20 , 1982 MR. HEUSER: It did not go up $500.00. It is in there already. MR. MARKEL: Why did they send a letter. MR. HEUSER: They did not send a letter. MR. MOISA: This assessment here is actually applied to the year before . MR. WEINHEIMER: You are still the way you were in 1981. MR. AKSCIN: May I say something to you gentlemen? You are very nice. I live in Cedar Beach. I walked from Cedar Beach this morning because my car broke down. MR. MARKEL: Don't you have any neighbors. MRS. AKSCIN: They work. I could not reach my husband. MR. HEUSER: This is the same amount . MR. WEINHEIMER: You picked that up. That is very good. MRS. AKSCIN: Thank you. NO 10-A EMANUEL KONTAKOSTA, c/o Podell, Rothman, David & Schecter, 160 Broadway, New York, New York 1003$ Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1001-5-4-71. ; Grounds for the Complaint : Inequality and Illegality; Assessment should be reduced to $21,000.00. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO EMANUEL KONTAKOSTA. MR. ,.MANAREL: We are looking at Item No 544196. MR. KONTAKOSTA: For anyone who is not aware it is the vacant Bohack building. MR. MANAREL: Ok, thank you. This is the application. Is this under certiorari? MR. KONTAKOSTA: No. MR. MANAREL: No litigation? MR. HEUSER: I though this was in litigation. MR. KONTAKOSTA: )[ou might be thinking of the A & P This is the Bohack building. MR. HEUSER: The IGA building? Board of Assessment Review '32' July 20, 1982 MR. KONTAKOSTA: That might be, I don' t know. That is the vacant building on the south side of the road. MR. MARKEL: Near the movif'-1 theatre. MR. KONTAKOSTA: That ' s right. MR. HEUSER: Oh, yes. MR. KONTAKOSTA: We just purchased this for the amount of $300;.000 with a very heavy mortgage. We think the tax is much too high in the sense MR. MANAREL: Excuse me sir. We only deal with assessment here. We have nothing to do with taxes. MR. KONTAKOSTA: The assessment is too high. MR. MANAREL: That is all you want to talke about here. MR. KONTAKOSTA: The assessment is too high especially when you compare it to the building immediately to the east of it, which is somewhat comparable. MR. MARKEL: That is East End Supply Company? MR. KONTAKOST$: That' s right . MR. MARKEL: Charlie, could we have that card? MR. MANAREL: I am trying to distinguish the cards between 10A and 10B. Okay, I see. MR. KONTAKOSTA: The property consists of approximately 1 acre with a 5,000 gquare foot of taxable property which is in heavy need of repair. In fact it has been abandoned for the last five or six years . MR. HEUSER: The acreage is okay. How come they have 18,000 square feet on this? No, 8,300 square feet? MR. MARKEL: Can I see that? MR. WEIM-1EIMER: Is that the card for 10A? MR. HEUSER: Yes. . MR. WEINHEIMER: What is the current assessed valuation on it? MR. HEUSER: $18,800 for the building. MR. KONTAKOSTA: I think the $18,800 is the total MR. HEUSER: You are right. Board of Assessment Review -33- July 20, 1982 MR. MARKEL: The total assessment for this is $33,600. MR. HEUSER: The basis of the complaint is what? MR. MARKEL: The Bohack building is 5,000 square feet larger than East End. MR. HEUSER: Why don't you bring your chair up sir? MR. KONTAKOSTA: What is the size of the Bohack building? MR. MARKEL: The main building on your property is 8,360 square feet. MR. KONTAKOSTA: The main building? MR. MARKEL: This is how much East End has, right? So there would be a difference of this. You have this one extension and another at $1.25. On the East End main building they are paying $4.00 per square foot MR. KONTAKOSTA: It is a two story building, which is not the case with the Bohack building. MR. MARKEL: You are paying $2.20. MR. KONTAKOSTA: How much are they paying? MR. MANAREL: $4.00. MR. MARKEL: Now, their first extension. MR. KONTAKOSTA: That is a two story building. Is the $4.00 pre- dicated on each square foot per floor? MR. MARKEL: Yes, on the total square footage. Yes, 39 x 39 two story. MR. MANAREL: Your' s 56 x 151. MR. KONTAKOSTA: That is roughly 3200 square feet. MR. MARKEL: There are no secrets on these cards. MR. KONTAKOSTA: I know. MR. MARKEL: Here is your card. MR. KONTAKOSTA: Okay. MR. MARKEL: Let ' s see how you filled out this application. MR. WEINHERIMER: We are still working on 10A aren' t we? Board of Assessment Review -34- July 20 , 1982 MR. HEUSER: Yes. MR. KONTAKOSTA: You have to keep in mind this building has been abandoned for at least five or six years. MR. MARKEL: That is why I an checking the application. There is something in our law that says something about a building making money or not making money. Maybe that is what you should come here with instead of the way you have filled this out. MR. KONTAKOSTA: I think my attorney has filled in a number of the squares her. MR. MANAREL: Illegality is one that is very limited. MR. KONTAKOSTA: See rider for additional grounds. MR. MANAREL: Illegality on the application can really fall under one type of exemption. Either the property is exempt or the assessor does not have jurisdiction. MR. MARKEL: Here we go. I would suggest you check that box. (Indicated to Part Three, F. MR. KONTAKOSTA: As long as it is all right with you. MR. WEINHEIMER: There has not been a change since 1980. MR. MANAREL: I don't think he is claiming there has been a change. MR. MARKEL: We have F here. This is an income producing property. The fact it has not been used for several years. You have received any income in some time from this property. MR. KONTAKOSTA: None whatsoever. MR. MANAREL: Your illegality here is wrong because the assessors do have jurisdiction. Do you have one of these booklets? MR. KONTAKOSTA: No. MR. MANAREL: Henry, do you have any of these booklets. Could we have some so we could give them to people to explain everything. MR. KONTAKOSTA: I left it to my attorney to fill it out. MR. MARKEL: They still don't know everything. We should make a note about the income. MR. HEUSER: We have . MR. MANAREL: It will be on the tape. Board of Assessment Review -35- July 20, 1982 MR. KONTAKOSTA: I only want to stress the fact the building is in heavy need of repair and cannot be considered under normal true value. Its been vandalized. The sprinkler system is corroded. The boiler is frozen. The ceilings are in poor condition and the roof leaks. Kids have been getting in through the roof. There is a certain amount of water damage and the oak floors have swelled up and basically that is it. MR. MANAREL: Okay. That does it for that one . NO. 10B - EMANUEL KONTAKOSTA, c/o Podell, Rothman, David & Schechter, Esqs. , 160 Broadway, New York, New York 10038; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-5-4- 30 & 31. Grounds for complaint : Inequality and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $3,500.00. MR. KONTAKOSTA IS STILL UNDER OATH FROM COMPLAINT No. 10A MR. KONTAKOSTA: This property is also in the Village, and is the property commonly referred to as the "Park" opposite the coronet. As stated in the application this property is also heavily mortgage, and is overassessed. You apply the 8tEte Equalization Rate. What happened to us here is we purchased the property and hoped to use 90 to 100% of the property for construction. When we appeared before the Village Boards, we found we were going to be restricted to just using 40% of the total land area for a building MR. MARKEL: How long ago did you purchase this? MR. KONTAKOSTAt July, 1MOO. . Sometime in the summer of 1981. It is presently assessed for MR. MARKEL: The last time the assessment was changed was in 1980. MR. WEINHEIMER: Why do you want the assessment reduced to $3500? MR. KONTAKOSTA: I had filed plans for a one story building and I was informed I could only use 40% of the land for a building, which is quite unfeasible. If you look at the buildings surrounding this in the area, they all use, 90 to 99% of the land they are located on. The last time the property was assessed, the increase was 44% of the total assessment. MR. MSI,:: When you went to purchase this property, didn!,t you check into all the ordinances? MR. KONTAKOSTA: We were under the impression that you were allowed to use as much of the property as the adjoining property owners had been allowed to use. r + Board of Assessment Review -36- July 20, 1982 MR. MARKEL: We have 5 year cycles, and I think you are in the middle of one. MR. MANAREL: Okay, I think we have enough information. We will get the minutes typed, and hold another meeting, and you should be hearing from us within the next month with our decision. MR. KONTAKOSTA: Thank you. NO. 11: JOHN WILLIAM BARBER and DORA M. BARBER, Orient, New York 11957; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-14-2-1.10; Grounds for the Complaint : Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $2550. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MR. AND MRS. BARBER: MR. MANAREL: This is piece of property you just purchased, is that correct? MR. MARKEL: Can we have the card first? MR. MANAREL.- Now go ahead and say anything you wish to say. MRS. BARBER: Last year this pike of property was assessed for a certain amount. Nothing has been done on the property; therefor, the fact that the assessment has more than doubled is outrageous. So, I am protesting. The land is mostly farmland. It runs for 195 feet on the water. MR. MANAREL: We will have to correct you because we checked your card. That is not farmland anymore because it has been subdivided. Once it has been subdivided it is changed. MRS. BARBER: It is no longer farmland? MR. MARKEL: It has to be farmed for it to be considered farmland. MRS. BARBER: We had intended to use it as a farm. MR. WEINHEIM R.tTen acres is the minimum. MR. MANAREL: Once it is subdivided, they will not permit you to treat the property as farmland. I asked the assessors a couple of years ago. MRS. BARBER: That is crazy isn't it? MR. MANAREL: They write these things in Albany and everyone has to follow it. So, it isn't farmland for your own benefit. MRS. BARBER: So, I can never use it? t a Board of Assessment Review -37- July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: You can farm it for yourself, but it cannot be assessed as farmland. MR. MARKEL: What was that property assessed for? MR. HEUSER: It was assessed for $4500. MR. BARBER: No, it went up from $2550. I have my paper here. MR. MANAREL: Don't tell me we have another computer error. MRS. BARBER: Here it is as of August. $2550. MR. MARKEL: Who is out in Orient? MISS CORNINE: This letter here is what the assessors give to the attorneys as an unofficial apportionment when property is subdivided so they can figure the tax adjustment. I think there is some confusion there. MR. MARKEL: When you bought the property, it was in the middle of the tax year. MRS. BARBER: But this says total assessment . It is not sub- divided. This is the total assessment. MR. BARBER: What we don't understand though is it says total assessment. MR. MANAREL: I bet you will find there was a mistake in that letter. MR. MARKEL: Will you check that out for us? MR. GORDON: I will get that out for you. MRS. BARBER: We won't get a new assessment every year will we? MR. MARKEL: No, this should stay this way until you build a house on the property. MR. GORDON: Did you receive a revised tax bill by any chance? MRS. BARBER: Sure, I paid more taxes this year than I did last year. MR. MARKEL: Last year you only had to pay a part of the total taxes. MRS. BARBER: But all together, it did not come out to this. MR. GORDON: Mr. Moisa just signed this . I will have to get him over here to explain this. Board of Assessment Review -38- July 20 , 1982 MR. MANAREL: Did he go out to lunch? MR. GORDON: No, he is here. MR. MARKEL: Is there anyone else out there waiting, Fred? MR. GORDON: No. I'm sorry for the delay, I know you people have to get back. I find nothing. These two parcels were sold fairly close to each other. MR. MA.RKEL: What would say the assessment for one acre would be. MR. GORDON: We go by footage on the water. MR. MANAREL: They have 195 feet on the sound. MR. WEINHEIMER: It costs 20.00 per foot. MR. GORDON: Here is Mr. Boda's card who is your neighbor. MR. WEINHEIMER: Does he have the same acreage too? MR. GORDON: Yes. MR. MANAREL: You are not paying anyzsnore than your neighbor. The only thing I can think of is your attorney got something mixed up at the closing. We won't come to any conclusion today, but you will be hearing from us within a month. We will notify you by mail. Mr. Heuser was excused for the afternoon session, and Mr. Prine was excused at 2: 15P.M. fm m the remainder of the afternoon session. NO. 12. NICKART REALTY CORP. , 775 Brooklyn Avenue, Baldwin, New York, 11510, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-52-2-13; Grounds for the Complaint: Inequality and Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $1,000. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TOATHOMAS J. LUKAS, ESQ. who represented the grievant. MR. LUKAS: The reason I am here is because the owners are presently in Greece at this time. I am both their attorney and their friend. They asked me please get out there and see what you can do. The actual part is 90 feet, but they have some kind of easement 80 x 390. MR.1.1MANAREL: 388 x go. MR. LUKAS: Correct a • Board of Assessment Review -39- July 20 , 1982 MR. MANAREL: But they own that. MR. LUKAS : Absolutely. MR. MARKEL: Have they started to build on this? MR. LUKAS: No. MR. MARKEL: When did they acquire this? MR. LUKAS: January 21, 1982. MR. GORDON: Mr. Moisa is busy now, why don't I see if I can help you. MR. MARKEL: Where is it located? MR. LUKAS: Across from the Town Beach in Southold: They pur- chased this property from Helmut Haas. Basically their complaint is the rise from $1000 to $3900 almost $3000. That is the whole problem in a nutshell. MR. MARKEL: One more question. What is this? MR. GORDON: They must have had a permit to do this . sometime in 1961. MR. MANAREL: This property had not been reassessed since 1961. Originally the land was assessed at $4200. MR. LUKAS : When we acquired it, it was assessed at $1,000. MR. MANAREL: This is what the card says. Hear me out. 4200 was what it was assessed.: It was decreased or something to 1000 in April, 1961. I don't understand that. Then it went to $3900. MR. LUKAS: I have been informed that a long time ago this property was zoned commercially. Then it was zoned residentially. It is very possible, when it was changed from commercial to residential, the assessment came down. MR. MARKEL: Is it vacant land? MR. LUKAS : Yes, vacant land. MR. MARKEL: I think we ought to waite for the answer to that question. MR. GORDON: The County could have been interested in taking this parcel over. MR. "MARKEL: Now, you have refreshed my memory. I remember that. It was on the County maps that they were going to widen the road. Board of Assessment Review -LSO- July 20, 1982 It had never been abandoned. MR. LUKAS: I heard that statement too. Helmut Haas told us . MR. MARKEL: That is the only side of the road they can go to. Across the street is the Town Beach. I think that is the explanation. MR. MANAREL: I 'm a little confused. It was 4200. Then it went to 1000 in 1961. MR. MARKEL: That was when they were going to condemn. MR. MANAREL: Then they decided not to condemn. So when they reassessed the whole area, they put it back to 3900. MR. LUKAS: It was also reduced. from 4200 to 1000 as it was orignally commercial. MR. MOISA: It was before my time. I cannot answer for the two top figures . Did you talk to me on the phone? MR. LUKAS: No, he is in Greece now. MR. MOISA: That' s right, he told me he was going away. MR. MANAREL: You revised the whole, area, didn't you? MR. MOISA: It is now comparable because it wa& much lower. MR. LUKAS: Did this go from commerial to residential at one point? That is what we were told. MR. MOTSA: I can't relate the history of it because I am not that familiar with it. MR. LUKAS : That is what we were told. MR. MANAREL: I think your answer.-is they got away with it for several years, and finally it caught up to them. NO. 13. WILLIAM C. HEES, 2 Grey Birch-Court, Dix Hills, New York, 117+6; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-112-1-15; Grounds for complaint : Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to: No figure appears. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO WILLIAM C. HEES. MR. MANAREL: Check that form to see if it is filled out properly. We have to ask you to fill out one of these before we can entertain the complaint. MR. HEES : If I may explain. Board of Assessment Review -41- July 20,1982 MR. MANAREL: There is nothing to explain. You must fill out this application. MR. HESS: The property is outside the bounds of the Town of Southold. MR. MANAREL: That is the only thing? MR. HEES: Yes. MR. MANAREL: All right. We have that down there. Henry, please. This gentlemen's application says the land is totally outside the boundary of the Town of Southold. MR. HEES: Not totally. If we can back up a little bit. My property is up on the sound, and we were affected by the Curtis Wright jettys. Some of you may have heard about this. My name was involved very heavily. Consequently we have lost quite a bit of our land. The Town was quite sympathetic with our problems. As such my acreage does not agree with what I am being taxed for. MR. MANAREL: I am going to have to interrupt you again. You had check D-2. That the property was totally outside the boundaries of the Town. MR. HESS : I stand corrected. I an not toally outside the boundaries. Can I correct that. If you go by my measurements some of this land is under water. As you know, everything that is not an upland piece of property is owned by the Stateof New York. Below the mean high level, This was the only place on the form where I thought it fit in. I stand corrected. MR. MANAREL: I don't know what the legal aspects of that are, we will have to check with,,-,our attorney on that. MR. HEES: I did write a letter to Mr Watts, which is a part of my package here . He thought I should prepare an application and come down here and talk to you. That letter is attached as far as facts . MR. MANAREL: Would you mind initialling that for me? Thank you. MR. HEES: Just to review what is in that letter. It was picked up I have 377 feet frontage. MR. WEINHEIMER: Frontgage means the same thing. MR. HEES: Apparently what happened in the previous review, I received aanotice my assessment had been changed. When I came out to question that I talked to Mr. Watts, the property should be corrected to read 377 feet instead of 340 as it had read. That is when we got into the calucation as far as the amount of acreage that I have, be- cause I experienced quite a bit of erosion Board of Assessment Review -42- July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: The acreage you have is 7.9 acres? MR. HEES: That is correct. If you look at the current survey, that it what it says . MR. MANAREL: Okay, fine, we just want to make sure. They changed the footage, but never changed the acreage. MR. HEES : When�I came out and discussed this with Mr. Watts, we both came up with an acreage figure of 7.9 acres. I put copies of the typical tax bills in the package for you. MR. MANAREL: We have nothing to do with taxes, we just review assessments. MR. HEES: Well, the assessment was listed by acreage . MR. MANAREL: Okay, that would be us. There is a difference of .85. MR. HESS: In addition to my letter, there are two other points I would like to bring up. As you probably read in the paper we were involved in the payment of damages. MR. MARKEL: The paper said five million dollars. eft. HEES: Would you believe we will have about $25,000.00 after everything is paid. I could never reproduce my house for that amount. I added in my notes I had a John Breslin, an appraiser from Huntington testify cannot be built on cement block or on a slab. It has some partial structural cracks. The house cannot be moved back. Another house up there that had been moved, Mr . Kirkham's house, it cost him $21,000 to move the house back, but that was about 6 'years ago. Another house that had been moved back, Frank Welzer. My house cannot be moved back. Therefore, anyone who would buy the place would question the value of that house. Naturally, you cannot say how many years it is going to be there, that depends on mother nature. Eventually, that house is going to go over the edge. MR. MARKET: How long have you owned the house? MR. HEES: The house was built in 19+6 and has been in the family ever since. Mother nature after all that time is starting to put things back into shape. MR. MARKEL: I have a house on the sound. MR. HESS: The erosion is approximately one foot per year. Some years it is a little less, some a little more . The last rain storm took out about 3 feet. It varies from year to year. When the jetties were there it was even worse . MR. MARKEL: You still have your house . Board of Assessment Review -43- July 20, 1982 MR. HEES: That ' s true, I still have my house. But as I also indicated in my letter this is assessed as water front property. I could never rebuild. my house from what I am going to be getting as a settlement. We are not able to enjoy this property the way I was able to when I was a teenager. My children cannot go down that bank to get to the beach. What Mr. Breslin says is that we really have water view property and not water front property. We do not enjoy the water the same way people who live on Peconic Bay do. I cannot reliably get to the beach. I'm 46 and I am not up to what I was a couple of years ago. I sprained my hand last year. MR. MANAREL: Are there any other questions? MR. HEES: My main concern is the actual land shown on my survey isn't reflected in the tax bill. I have discussed that with Mr. Watts . MR. MANAREL: We will be sitting and studying the entire case, and we will be in touch with you within the month as to exactly what our decision is. Do you have one of these booklets? It will give you all your alternatives if you do not like our decision. NO. 14. ROBERT K & ELIZABETH A. SIMON, 25-20th Street, Jericho, New York; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 86-6-3-1; Grounds for complaint: Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $2+00. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MR. SIMON. MR. MANAREL: Make yourself comfortable, and tell us about your application. 4R. SIMON: I am just questioning the acreage. MR. MARKEL: Did you just buy this property? MR. SIMON: No, I bought it in 197+. As I said all I am looking for is a reduction in the assessed valuation. MR. MARKEL: Is that the going rate for that area? MR. MOISA: Yes, it is. MR. MARKEL: There are comparable pieces? MR. MOTSA Do you want some cards? MR. MARKEL: Let 's get a location for you. MR. SIMON: I checked with Mr. Baumann. MR. MARKEL: We are not doing it that way. We just want to make Board of Assessment Review -44- July 20, 1982 sure you are not paying any more than the guy next door to you. MR. SIMON: He has approximately 3 acres. MR. MARKEL: Doesn' t matter. MR. MANAREL: If you are paying $3.25 per square foot, we want to make sure eveyone is paying the same. MR. MARKEL: We are not going to touch them, don't worry. MR. SIMON: I checked with them. You see, they have a year round house, over 2000 square feet. MR. MARKEL: When was the last time you were reassessed? MR. SIMON: A couple of years ago. Three or four years ago. ' It just strike me that $50.00 a month, which is what it comes out to moneywise, is a little steep for vacant land. MR. MOISA: The Kull property does notVcome out to the creek and is farm land anyway. MR. MANAREL: Do you get clams on your property? MR. SIMON: No, there is too much silt. MR. MANAREL: All you have is a shed on your property? MR. SIMON: That 's right. MR. MARKEL: $100 for a shed is the normal assessment. MR. MANAREL: Why would Hughes be charged $16.00 a foot. MR. MOISA: He has a dwelling on his propert A shed does not constitute enough of an improvement to justify a 16.00 rate. MR. MANAREL: You charge him a dollar less? MR. MOISA: That is right. MR. SIMON: Could you explain those figures to me so I understand what is going on. MR. MANAREL: You have to address the questions to me, and I will ask him. MR. SIMON: Oh, I'm sorry. Is that figure so much per square foot on the water? MR. MOISA: No, it is 100 feet on the Toad' assessed at $15.00 and 145 feet on the water? MR. MARKEL: You are charge one dollar less than your neighbor. Board of Assessment Review -45- July 20 , 1982 MR. SIMON: Not to get techical, but are we talking high water or low water. We are really talking access to water. I would say 50% of the time you cannot get in there. Are you saying 145 feet of waterfront at high tide? MR. MANAREL: I saw a lot of people clamming there this spring. Hard clams as well as soft clams. MR.MMOISA: Taking that into consideration, you better sell when the tide is right. MR. MANAREL: Is there anything else you want to know, Mr. Simon? MR. SIMON: I just feel first of all the amount is high, but that is understandable. Second of all it was assessed eight years ago when I bought it. It was a large piece of property. I realize everyone 's property values are going up. MR. MANAREL: We have notes on everything, and we will be in touch with you within a month by mail to tell you of our decision. MR. SIMON: The last part is just that the paper value. If I had bought the property to resell it, which I know the property next door to me has been sold three or four times, my plans were to buy it and make a retirment home out of it. Although it might be going upon paper, it is not worth any more to me today then it was when I purchased it 8 years ago. MR. MANAREL: Okay, we will take that into consideration. NO. 15. CONSTANCE KLAPPER P 0 Box 291, Cutchogue, New York 11935. Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-83-2-6.1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality. Assessment should be reduced to $16,000.00 MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MURRAY KLAPPER WHO APPEARED ON BEHALF OF CONSTANCE KLAPPER. MR. MANAREL: We must know what you want, Mr. Klapper before we can act. MR. MARKEL: In other words you have to tell us specifically what you want the assessment reduced to. MR. KLAPPER: It is definitely the assessment. MR. WEINHEIMER: What do you want it reduced to? MR. KLAPPER: To "0" . MR. WEINHEIMER: You have to show us what portion of the 20,800 you want reduced. Board of Assessment Review -46- July 20, 1982 MR. KLAPPER: Just the total? MR. WEINHEIMER: Yes, just a total. MR. MARKEL: These maps just show the surrounding properties. MR. KLAPPER: I brought a survey, I thought you might like to see that. The way the sound goes where we live, it swings around, it is not like a straight line . If most people had 3 acres, it would be 400 feet deep or 500 feet deep in a straight line. Almost 50 percent of the property is cliff. It goes out like this. MR. MARKEL: It steps down. MR. FLAPPER: It swings around so that even the Town said I could make only two parcels on the 3.2 acres. The division they have on the books is a little different. I just had this made so the division comes right to the house. MR. MANAREL: A licensed surveyor did this for you? MR. KLAPPER: Mr. Van Tuyl. MR. MANAREL: Is there any discrepancy between this and the one that is in the County? Or in the Assessors office here? MR. KLAPPER: No, I doubt it. MR. MANAREL: You said .-, there was a discrepancy in the total acreage . MR. KLAPPER: That doesn't mean anything. They are always off until you actual create the lot. Almost everything in the tax book is off. That portion does not belong to me. This is Klapper. MR. MARKEL: Yes, 3.4. MR. MANAREL: That is what I was getting at. Plus on the real property card the property is listed at almost 3.9 acres. MR. KLAPPER: It is really plus or minus. MR. MANAREL: They always do that. Let 's get back on the track so we know specifically what we are talking about. You do not give us the full market value of your property. MR. KLAPPER: I really don't know. MR. MANAREL: You must have some amount in mind. If you were to sell it tomorrow, what would you get? MR. KLAPPER: I put it on the market at $250x000 and nobody took a bite at it. Board of Assessment wiew -47- • July 20, 1982 MR. MANAREL: Do you think that is too high. Just give us a figure. MR. KLAPPER: They didn't buy it, but someone told me they would give)me $200,000 for i t. MR. MARKEL: Do you want this to become part of the record? MR. WEINHEIMER: We really don't need it. MR. KLAPPER: I just wanted to make the point that the waterfront on other people 's property cannot be assessed the same way mine is. Mine is all waterfront, but 50% of it is cliff. MR. WEINHEIMER: Your property does not go back the same distance. MR. KLAPPER: These are the ones in the area. MR.P4MANAREL: Are you saying because you are up on top, you do not have water property? MR. KLAPPER: No. It is just that this one is 661 feet deep, 2,000, 1500 and they are assessed more or less and I am assessed at $25.00 a foot and $27.00 a foot MR. MANAREL: We need some help. Charlie, please. MR. MARKEL: Charlie, 376 at $25.00? MR. WATTS: He has 200 feet assessed at $27, and 376 assessed at $25. When he gets to that vacant land it is cheaper. MR. MARKEL: Charlie, don't run away. You are only talking about your land values, is that correct? MR. WATTS: Right. MR. MARKEL: Where are these parcels without a house? Would you show us some with a house . MR. KLAPPER: This one has a house, this one, and this one. Mr. MANAREL: We want a vacant land one. MR. KLAPPER: What is the name next to Kalamaras? MR. MARKEL: Stevens. MR. MARKEL: Okay, we need Nina Stevens . We just want to make sure you are not paying anymore than your neighbor. MR. ULAPPER: What I an saying is if you took it 648 feet deep. MR. MARKEL: The way I look at it, you have to compare it bit by bit to see you are getting a square shake. MR. KLAPPER: What I was saying this is like a straight line. The straight line goes like this and is 4.9 acres. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW -48- July 203 1982 MR. WEINHEIMER: You are talking linear feet? MR. WATTS: There you are getting into acreage. MR. MANAREL: They are the same. Basically your request stems from the contour of the land on the water? MR.KKLAPPER: I have some land that looks like waterfront on`.a map but isn't really, it is really a curve. This is the actual property and it just goes in like that. When you take my house you are taking in a view because it goes way out here. MR. MARKEL: Where is water to you. MR. KLAPPER: All over the sound. MR. MANAREL: So when you start here and go around, you have water all the way around? MR. KLAPPER: You have the water all the way around, but there is only sa much land. Where the other ones, it is all land there, and it doesn't come out. They all have the same view. Theirs is 600 feet deep or 700 feet deep and ours is only 200 feet deep because of the piece cut out over here. MR. MANAREL: Do you want to leave those with us, or take them with you. It is up to you. MR. KLAPPER: No, those are for you. MR. MANAREL: Okay, we will review all the records when we get the minutes types up and you will be hearing from us within a month as to our decision. NO. 16: ROBERT H. GAMMON 70 Wood Side Lane, Laurel, New York 119+8; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-127-5-2; Grounds for the Complaint : Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $9,000. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MR. GAMMON MR. MANAREL: Why don't you start telling us about your problem. MR. GAMMON: I have been several years . . MR. WATTS: He was here three years ago. We reduced the assessment by $1,000.00 of assessed valuation. MR. GAMMON: I really feel this affects the value of the property. Both my wife and I are past the age of having; ,-any six month infants . MR. MARKEL: Are there any other neighbors on the block with this problem. MR. GAMMON: No, and I will tell you why. Just between you and me:. they all have filters on. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW -49- July 20, 1982 I bought this house in 1976 and afterwards we had the well tested and found we had a high level of nitrates in the water. In fact, when we purchased the property we had to sign a waiver. I would be glad to let you read it. This is already a matter of record. There is also a notation on our survey. I believe the assessment on the land should be lowe due to the level of nitrates in the water, because that is going to definitely affect the purchase price if we ever want to sell that property. MR. MARKEL: They have a problem and they solve it with a filter. MR. GAMMON: They certainly do not have these notations on their paper work. You can check that out. MR. MARKEL: In other words when you built the house you had to submit a water test. How did they get around it? MR. GAMMON: I don't know, I guess they lied. It would be inter esting to go into those houses and test their water. That is the point. Again, I am not trying to appear holier than thou, but I do have a certain conscious to the extent. I don't know how many more years I have to live, no one does, I would not feel comfortable about the fact of misrepresenting to the prospective buyer of this property to get an extra five or six thousand bucks for the house. MR. PRINE: Do you notice any difference? MR. GAMMON: Not really, no I don't., . I do notice a difference from the people who have the filters on The water is a lot flatter in taste. Frankly, I prefer my water as far as the tase. They do not have the problem with the ironization and mineral content. MR. MARKEL: How many times have you previously received a reduction. MR. GAMMON: Three times . MR. MARKEL: Then you get raised up. MR. GAMMON: Then every year I have had to come back and resubmit my case, which to me seems like a waste of everybody's time . I would say if this were removed, I would not have any course. The fact I do have this, it is a matter of record on any title guarantee company. It is going to be picked up in a title search. My wife and I had to both sign an affidavit, which I am told doesn't mean anything techni- cally. I did sign it and my wife did also. It was done at the insistence of the County. MR.114ARKEL: Do you know of any other case? Where that survey is so stamped? MR. GAMMON: In laurel? MR. MARKEL: Or anywhere else? MR. WATTS : We have two in the Mattituck area. They experienced gasoline in their well. No doubt about it. ' BOARD OF ASSESSMENT IEW -50- JuP 20 1 82 5 y 9 We have two in Mattituck in the Village. MR. PRINE: Where is that, I am curious? MR. WATTS: Pike Street. Right near the fire house. Two wells there. They just can't drink the water there. MR. MARKEL: What do they do for water? MR. WATTS: They buy bottled water. MR. MANAREL: We have everything being taped and taken down by our secretary. We will be getting together in a couple of weeks to review all of this, and you will be hearing from us by mail as to what our decision is. NO. 17. EDWIN FISHEL TUCCIO, 313 West Main Street, Riverhead, New York; SuffolkCCounty Tax Map No. 1000-74-4-18; Grounds for Complaint: Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $1600. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO BARBARA KUJAWSKI, WHO APPEARED ON BEHALF:CUF''MR. TUCCIO. MR. WEINHEIMER: Where is this property located? MRS. KUJAWSKI: On Peconic Lane next to the post office. MR. MANAREL: In East Marion? MRS. KUJAWSKI: No, in Peconic . MR. MARKEL: Right next to the antique place . MR. MANAREL: I have been by it enough times, I should recognize it . You may proceed. MRS. KUJAWSKI: We tools it over in a foreclosure, and when we took it over it was in pretty desperate shape. The freezing of the pipes over the window had caused water damage. We started checking the assessments of the nearby buildings and decided to file a grievance. MR. MANAREL: They foreclosed on a $27,000 mortgage . What was the purchase price? MRS. KUJAWSKI: I think it was, well, it was renegotiated. I know the payments are about $462.00 per month. It is a 14% or 15% mortgage . MR. MARKEL: Is this commercial? MRS. KUJAWSKI: Blaschak' s property. Oh, the grocery store, Post office and Henry Smith. MR. WEINHEIMER: Al Blaschak, is that the antique shop. MRS. KUJAWSKI: Yes . BOARD OF ASSESSMENTVIEW -51- Ju11020, 1982 They are approximately the same size with the same type operation. MR. MARKEL: Is there one apartment or two? MRS. KUJAWSKI: The whole top floor is an apartment and one in the back that goes with the store. Someone is going to rent it as a general type of business. MR. MARKEL: You have given us some figures here on principal fire insurance and taxes . They total $462. Is that to show you are losing money on the property? MRS. KUJAWSKI: No, that is just to show you what the deal was. MR. WEINHEIMER: If the property vacant? MRS. KUJAWSKI: The top,.)is rented. The bottom is vacant right now. MR. PRINE: You made all the repairs to the heat? MRS. KUJAWSKI: Yes. It had also been vandalized several times. MR. WEINHEIMER: Do you have Blaschak' s card? MR. MANAREL: Do you want the pictures? What is the square footage on this building? MRS. KUJAWSKI: Just by looking at the outside you could tell it was in disrepair. The plot sizes are almost equal. MR. MARKEL: One might be wider. MRS. KUJAWSKI: The buildings stop about the same in the back. MR. MANAREL: The last time Blaschak was reassessed was in 1965• It was reducedrby $400.00. (Mr. Manarel compared the dimensions of the two buildings. ) MR. MARKEL: They have less than Blaschack. MR. MANAREL: Right. MR. MOISA: I think you will find that was enlarged back in the 1970' s . MR. MARKEL: It was. MR. MOTSA: It was completely remodeled. Look on the other side there is a permit number. MR. WEINHEIMER: 1973 MR. MOISA: Extensive alterations . Board of Assessment Review -52- July 20, 1982 MR. MARKEL: They used to have coffee there, Mary' s. MR.v,iMINHEIMER: $4800 was assessed for the improvements. MR. MANAREL: There are not many differences. In 1965 before the improvements, this one was assessed at 1400, and this one was 1600. When the improvements came into the building the Assessor changed it. That is why those differences exist. MRS. KUJAWSKI: That much? MR. MANAREL: It already existed. You made no changes in your building. MRS. KUJAWSKI: Just the boiler and the heating system. MR. MANAREL: Those are not considered improvements . MR. WEINHEIMER: The assessed valuation has been in existence since 1974. MR. MARKEL: You just bought that? MRS. KUJAWSKI: Right. MR. MARKEL: They did not reassess you. MRS. KUJAWSKI: No. MR. MANAREL: That is what it was all along. MR. MARKEL: They are not penalizing you by reassessing. This transaction does not appear on the card. MR. MOISA: The date of the transaction was after June lst. We have no authority as you know to anything that is transferred after June 1st. MR. WEINHEIMER: August of 1973 was the Building Permits MRS. KUJAWSKI: Based on market value, I think Blaschock was gointo buy it for what we paid for it. If we bought the building for 32,000. I would think Blaschack would be able to get that amount. MR. MARKEL: I know Blaschack's place is for sale. MRS. KUJAWSKI: Iddid hear something about a price in the $401s. I don't know. MR. MANAREL: Do you have any more questions? MR. MARKEL: No. BOPrRD OF ASSESSMENT VIEW 534' Julf 20, 1982. MR. MANAREL: Is there anything else you would like to say? MRS. KUJAWSKI: No. I think the market value is a fair figure, and that is what we based our figures on. MR. MANAREL: We will make a determination when we get our minutes typed, and you will be hearing from us in about a month. NO. 19. RICHARD A. & JANET SCHLUMPF, 32 Curtis Path, East Northport, New York 11731; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-86-5- 8.1; Grounds for complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and additional information listed under D. Assessment should be reduced to $1200. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MR. SCHLUMPF. MR. SCHLUMPF: I urchased the panel of land which was waterfront on Richmond Creek for $37,000.00. I was unable to meet the payments, and had to subdivide a portion of it adi16,000. acent to the front on Indian Neck Lane . I subsequently sold it for which was a mistake . I realize at this time I should have never sold the frontage parcel because this reduced the value of the rear parcel. It now has a 25 foot strip access road which has to be paved and maintained and meet certain requirements under the Town and so forth. MR. MARKEL: May I just see that. MR. SCHLUMPF: It is now an off shaped plot. I sold off the front parcel. MR. MARKEL: You retained the rest. You also retained the right of way to the parcel. This parcel is now one building plot, is that right? MR. SCHLUMPF: Right. I have listed a number of points on there that I feel are important. MR. MANAREL: You say the value of your property is $12,000. You say you are assessed for $20,000. MR. SCHLUMPF: Yes . MR. MARKEL: That cannot be. MR. WEINHEIMER: The assessed valuation is $1900. MR. SCHLUMPF: That is only 10%. MR. MANAREL: That is all you are assessed for. That is what we were trying to get straightened out here . MR. MOTSA: Excuse me, I think he is a little confused about the equalization rate. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT VIEW -54- Ju20 1 82 5 y 9 MR. MANAREL: What you were doing is using this $20,000, sub- tracting 8,000 and coming up with 12,000. MR. SCHLUMPF: No, I said the assessment should be . . Look at my notes . The assessment was raised from 1200 to 1900. MR. MANAREL: But you are talking 20,000 and 8,000.00 MR. MARKEL: Why don't we correct that? MR. P.ZTRF: Is that bulkheaded? MR. SCHLUMPF: It is a mud hole. You go down about a foot and it has weeds . The DEC give you a hard time. They won't let you put in a bulkhead. You cannot even put a rowboat there. With the news laws, I feel they affect the value of my property. They are not dredging the creeks any more. The County is not doing any more dredging. You can't put a 20 foot boat there. It is not deep enough. At low tide you would not be able to get in or out. This is almost at the end of the navigable creek. MR. MANAREL: You sold a piece of your parcel off and retained 1.5 acres? The assessessors say you retained 1.4 acres. MR. SCHLUMPF: That is what I spoke to that gentlemen about. I believe the property includes this right of way. If I include ,this right of way. MR. MARKEL: You have two rights of way to your property. T MR" . SCHLUMPF: This right of way always existed. This is part of the property. MR. MARKEL: I understand that. You retained this when you sold this piece . MR. MANAREL: Was this all one piece at one time? MR. SCHLUMPF: Oh, I don' t know. MR. MANAREL: What piece did you sell? MR. SCHLUMPF: What is shown here. There is Jehovah' s witness right here. Then there is a small plot of land here. Then there is this Cappabianco. MR. MANAREL: Would you say they are about the same size? MR. SCHLUMPF: This was less. I think it was 3/4 of an acres . I believe he has 100 feet on Indian Neck Lane . I have 25 feet. That has to be paved and maintained. Since the time I purchased the property, this plot of land over here Cappabianco. I feel it has fallen into disuse. BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW -55- July 20, 1982. MR. MANAREL: Okay, I think we have all the information we need. We will meet in a couple of weeks to deliberate, and you will be hearing from us within a month as far as our decision goes . Thank you very much. NO. 19 IDA COSTAS, P. 0. Box 70, Greenport, New York; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-53-1-2; Grounds for the complaint : Overvaluation. The assessment should be reduced to $5,000.00. MR. MANAREL ADMINISTERED THE OATH TO MRS. COSTAS. MRS. COSTAS: In 1980 we decided to convert our summer home to a winter home. I just want to show you these tax bills . MR. MANAREL: We haven' t anything to do with taxes. MRS. COSTAS: Only assessments. Okay. The house is an 80 year old house with a screened in porch which we enclosed. We added a small laundry room in the back. We did it all ourselves. We resided it. Now we notice a jump from 2500 to 6700 MR. MARKEL: It is an all year round house now? MRS. COSTAE: Yes. MR. MARKEL: You have have a basement? MRS. GOSTAS : No basement. Just a crawl space. This is an 82 year old house. MR. MANAREL: Can we get some information here. MR. GORDON: $6200 is for the improvements . Land is 500 so you have 6700. MR. MARKEL: Do you have before and after pictures? MRS. COSTA: Except for the screened in porch, everything stayed the same . MR. MARKEL: The house is in Greenport? MRS. COSTA: It is between Greenport and Southold. Near Albertson Lane. Right next to Drossos motel. MR. MANAREL: Okay, I find we have enough information, when we sit down and evaluate everything, we will be sending you a notice in the mail within the next month telling you of our decision. NO. 20 - Void due to misnumbering. Board of Assessment Review -56- July 20, 1982 The following Complaints were received by mail: No. 21: BARNEY & DOROTHY OVISINAK, Alvah' s Lane, Cutchogue, New York, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-101-2-17; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced= '. to $400. 00. No. 22 : STRONG OIL COMPANY, INC. , P. 0. Box 277, Water Mill, New York, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1001-06-02-17; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Overvaluation. Assessment should' be reduced to $4,044.00. No. 23: ANNY BERRYMAN, Youngs Road, Orient, New York, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-18-2-1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequalty. Assessment should be reduced to $7,600. 00. No. 24: MATTITUCK SHORES ASSOCIATES, c/o H. Conston, 21 Flower Lane, Kings Point, New York 11024, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-94-1-10; Grounds for Complaint: `Overvaluation. No. 25: VERA MAYER, c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone, P.C. , 155 First Street, Mineola, New York 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-2-1-9; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation, Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $5,500. 00 or one- quarter assessed valuation (whichever is lower) . No. 26 : FIRST NATIONWIDE SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone, P.C. , 155 First Street, Mineola, New York 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-143-3-4.2 ; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation, and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $4,000. 00 or one-quarter assessed valuation whichever is lower) . No. 27: 235 MILL STREET, INC. , c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone, P.C. , 155 First Street, Mineola, New York 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-4-9-7; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Over- valuation, and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $6 ,750.00 or one-quarter of assessed valuation (whichever is lower. ) Board of Assessment Review -57- July 20, 1982 No. 28: S & E REALTY CO. , c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone, P.C. , 155 First Street, Mineola, New York 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-97-5-12; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation, and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $19,200.00 or one- quarter of assessed valuation (whichever is lower) . No. 29 : VERA MAYER, c/o Koeppel, Sommer & Martone, P.C. , 155 First Street, Mineola, New York 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-2-1-8; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation, and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $1,200.00 or one- quarter of assessed valuation (whichever is lower) . No. 30: MARION ASSOCIATED & STALLER ASSOCIATES c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-31-1. 5-1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $4,680.00. No. 31: THE BEACHCOMBER, POND ENTERPRISES, INC. , c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-83-2-1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $15,630.00. No. 32: THE BEACHCOMBER, c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-83-2-2; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Over- valuation and Illegality. Assessment should be rdduced to $4 ,530 .00. No. 33; LAUREL PROPERTIES, STALLER ASSOCIATES, c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-125-1-2. 5; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be re- duced to $5,400.00. No. 34 : VANTAGE PETROLEIM CORP. , c/o Matthew J. Cronon, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-49-4-1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $5,820.00. Board of Assessment Review -58- July 20, 1982 No. 35: HODOR-STALLER AND KASPER HODOR LOUIS & ORS, c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-122-3-10; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assess- ment should be reduced to $1,890.00. No. 36: ARSHAMOMAGUE ASSOCIATES STALLER ASSOCIATES, INC. , c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-44-3-4; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $2,910. 00. No. 37: ARSHAMOMAGUE ASSOCIATES STALLER ASSOCIATES, INC. , c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-52-3-38; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $2 ,220. 00 No. 38: MICHAEL WEINSTEIN STALLER ASSOCIATES, INC. , c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-69-1-1. 3; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $1,950. 00. No. 39: STALLER PROPEFdY ASSOCIATES STALLER ASSOCIATES, c/o Matthew J. Cronin, Esq. , P.C. , 1001 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-85-1-7; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $1,260. 00. No. 40 : ST. AGNES ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AT GREENPORRT, c/o Bennett, Kaye & Scholly, 255 Merrick Road - P. 0. Box 138 , Rockville Centre, New York 11571; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-35-3-10 ; Grounds for Complaint: Illegality. Application not complete. No. 41: CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORP. , c/o David G. Koch, Esq. 170 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-122-3-10; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $1,575. 00. 1` L • • Board of Assessment Review -59- July 20, 1982 No. 42: GRENVILLE T. EMMET III and PATRICIA B. EMMET, c/o Stephen Lupow, Esq. , 2061 Deer Park Avenue, Deer Park, New York, 11729; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-007-005-004; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $500. 00. No. 43: GRENVILLE T. EMMET III and PATRICIA B. EMMET, c/o Stephen Lupow, Esq. , 2061 Deer Park Avenue, Deer Park, New York, 11729; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-11-1-1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $7,325.00. No. 44: JAMES W. B. BENKARD and MARGARET W. S. BENKARD, c/o Stephen Lupow, Esq. , 2061 Deer Park Avenue, Deer Park, New York, 11729; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-4-5-1; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $8,784. 00. No. 45: ALAN A. CARDINALE, c/o Costigan, Hyman & Hyman, P.C. , 1301 Franklin Avenue, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-142-1-26; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation, and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $78,100.00. No. 46 : ANTONIOS KAPSIS and FAY KAPSIS, 1185 Leeward Drive, Southold, New York, Lot No. 35, Leeward Acres at Bayview, Southold, New York; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality. Assessment shotld be reduced to $10,100. 00. No. 47: THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION, c/o Wimpfheimer & Sherman, Esqs. , 1527 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, New York 11501; Item No. 304361; Grounds for-'Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $5,000. 00. No. 48: WESTBURY EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. , c/o Froehlich, Mahony & DeBruin, Esqs. , 34 Willis Avenue, Mineola, New York 11501; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-53-1-9; Grounds for Complaint: TnequAlity, Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $3 ,300 . 00. Board of Assessment Review -6o- July 20, 1982 No. 49 : WESTBURY EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. , c/o Froehlich, Mahony & deBruin, Esgs. , 34 Willis Avenue, Mineola, New York 11501, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-53-3-2 ; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality, Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $2,200. 00. No. 50: PAUL MFFEI-, MEREDITH ROSE and THEODORE MAFFEI/, 237 West 11th Street, New York, New York 10014; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-117-5-6; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality. Assess- ment should be reduced to $2 ,400.00. No. 51: THOMAS and GAIL CHELLEL, 4200 Pine Neck Road, Southold, New York, Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-70-13-192. ; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality. Assessment should be reduced to $600. 00. No. 52. MID ISLAND SHOPPING PLAZA CO. , c/o Hall, Dickler, Lawler, Kent & Howley, 600 Old Country Road, Garden City, New York; 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-53-1-18; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $550. 00 . No. 53: LEONARD L. FRANK & OTHERS, c/o Hall, Dickler, Lawler, Kent & Howley, 600 Old Country Road, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-47-2-34 ; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $400.00. No. 54: GREENPORT SHORES, INC. , c/o Hall, Dickler, Lawler, Kent & Howley, 600 Old Country Road, Garden City, New York 11530; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-45-5-7; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $750 .00. No. 55: DUNEWOOD TRUGLIA and ILEEN TRUGLIA, P. 0. Box 283, New Suffolk, New York 11956; Item No. 419321; Grounds for Complaint: Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $6,500. 00. No. 56: ANNA & ANASTASIOS PARIANOS, 43-21 Astoria Boulevard, Long Island City, New York 11105; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-126-13-5; Grounds for Complaint: Overvaluation. Assessment should be reduced to $1,400. 00 Board of Assessment Review -61- July 20, 1982 No. 57: OSCAR J. BLOOM, RICHARD D. ZEIDLER, SR. , RICHARD D. ZEIDLER, JR. , ROBERT ZEIDLER, SR. and ANTHONY VACCARO c/o Oscar J. Bloom, 301 Mt. Sinai-Coram Road, Mt. Sinai, New York 11766; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-44-4-2 & 3; Grounds for Complaint: Inequality and Illegality. Assessment should be reduced to $6,000. 00. The following are corrections to be made to the Tentative Assessment Roll: DUNEWOOD TRUGLIA & WF; 342 East 53rd. Street, New York, New York 1002; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-116-2-7; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll: $7900; Entry on Tentative Assess- ment Roll Should be $7800. THEODORE CONLON, P. 0. Box 1492 , Southold, New York 11971; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-107-4-14 ; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll: $6400; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be $1000. JAMES CROSS, Box 730, Main Road, Cutdhogue, New York 11935; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-109-1-4; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll: $7900; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be ; $13,800. THEODORE CONLON & WF, P. 0. Box 1492, Southold, New York 11971; Suffo k County Tax Map No. 1000-107-4-9..2; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll: $700 ; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be $6400. JEM REALTY CO., c/o Emanuel Kontokosta, 43 West 54 Street, New York, New York 10019; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-35-1-24; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll : 29100-29300 ; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be $29100-29-100. JOHN B. MILLIGAN & WF; Truman's Path, East. Marion, New York 11939; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-31-12-2; Entry Appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll $5900; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be $5800. AIL Board of Assessment Review -6.2- July 20, 1982 GEORGE J. MAHR & WF, 604 Main Street, Greenport,New' York 11944; SuffolY County Tax Map No. 1001-3-4-2; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll $3100; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roil should be $3000. EDWARD W. LATHAM, Orient, New York 11957; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-19-7-1 (19-1-3) ; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll: 21300-27600; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be: 20900-27200. ANDREW CYBULSKI & WF, Cutchogue, New York 11935; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-96-2-5; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll: $2800; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be $5800. THOMAS A. CYBULSKI & ANO, Depot Lane, Cutchogue, New York 11935; Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-96-5-1.2; Entry appearing on Tentative Assessment Roll: $11800; Entry on Tentative Assessment Roll should be: $3700. The meeting of the Board of Assessment Review was closed at 9:00 P.M. (Daylight Savings Time) Ver truly yours, Babette Cornine Secretary RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE �`��� HOUR A5 =00 Town Clerk, Town of Southold