Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 a~ OFFICE OP.SUPERVISOR TOM OF SOUTHOLD ALBERT M. MARTOCCHIA "` _ _ TELEPHONE SUPERVISOR �• SOUTHOLD 5.1800 SOUTHOLD, L.I.,N.Y. 11971 " October 17, 1978 Mr. William W. Schriever Box 128, Main Road Orient, New York 11957 Dear Mr. Schriever: Your letter of October 10, 1978, relative to your appeal upon your belief you have been denied - access to public records, has been called to my attention. This letter was submitted to all members of the Town Board on October 10, 1978. Regretfully a person or body was not designated to hear your appeal. However, I have researched the matter and find that the records requested do not in fact exist. Very truly yours, Albert M. Martocchia Supervisor 6F7TQ K N OF,SO JUDITH T.TERRY UFFOLK CO.,� TELEPHONE TOWN CLERK (516) 765-1801 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Southold, L. I., N. Y. 11971 October 17 , 1978 Committee on Public Access to Records Department of State 162 Washington Avenue Albany, New York 12231 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the appeal of William W. Schriever, Main Road, Orient, stating he _ believes he has been denied access to public records, and appealing this denial under Section 73-8 of the Code of the Town of Southold. I regret I did not file this letter with you immediately as stated in our Code. However, I advised Mr. Schriever initially that the records he requests do not exist. Very truly yours, i Judith T. Terry Town Clerk 1- • WERED OCT ! ( 1f �D7 r°nl. Tolvn G1N,4 eiifh��� October 10, 1978 Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, N. Y. 11971 Gentlemen: On Grievance Day, July 18, 1978, I made an appearance before the Board of Assessment Review with reppect to five parcels of wetlands In Orient. Some time later I received five letters from Mrs. Henry B. Lytle, Chairman of the Board of Assessment Review, informing me that my petitions had been denied. No basis was given for their decision. On September 22 I called the Assessor's office to request a copy of the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Assessment Review and was told to contact Mrs. Lytle which I did. She advised me to obtain the minutes from the Town Clerk which I did on September 28. At that time I was advised that the only minutes available in the Town Clerk's office were those of Grievance Day. I stopped at the Assessor's office and they advised me that they had no minutes of the subsequent meetings either. On the advice of the Town Clerk I wrote a letter to Mrs6 Lytle, a copy of ithich is attached to this letter, formally requesting access to these minutes. I stopped by the Town Clerk's office this morning and was advised by Mrs. Terry that she had not received any additional minutes of the Board of Assessment Review and therefore could not honor my request. Under Section 73-2 B (1) of the Code of the Town of Southold, it is required that a record of the votes of the members of the Board be maintained. Further, I believe that this Board has an obligation to maintain a record of its findings of fact upon which its decisions are made. I believe I have been denied access to public records and I. wish to appeal this denial under Section 73-8 of the Code of the Town of Southold. erel y r William Schriever Main Rd., Orient September 29, 1978 Mrs. Henry B Lytle, Chairman Board of Assessment Review Town of Southold Soundview Ave. Peconic, N. Y. 11958 Dear Mrs. Lytle: Following the advice of our telephone conversation last Friday, I requested the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Assessment Review from Mrs. Terry, the Town Clerk. She supplied me with the minutes of my meeting with the Board but did not have in her file any minutes of the subsequent meetings of your Board at which my petition was discussed or acted upon. I also requested such minutes of the Assessors and they informed me they had nothing of that sort on file. Both the Town Clerk and the Assessors advised me to make my request for these minutes to you in writing. I request �dcsss to all of the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Assessment Review subsequent to the date I appeared before the Board, namely Grievance Day, July 18, 1978. In particular I wish to obtain the disposition of every petition before the Board and the votes of the members of the Board on each action taken. Further, I request that, if such minutes do not show the basis for each action taken, then such records as do provide such findings of fact be made available. And finally, I request permission to have copies of such parts of these documents as appear of interest to me after my review of the documents. I hereby offer to pay the required fee for any copies requested and I ask that such documents be made available to me through the office of the Town Clerk as were the minutes from Grievance Day, � cerel yours, Copy to the Town Clerk _ William �. Schriever 1 Box 128, Main Road Orient, N. Y. 11957 i RECEIVED SEP 221978 SPECIAL HEARING OF THE Town Clp-k Southold BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 15, 1978 A public hearing was held by the Southold Town Board of Assessment Review at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on Friday, September 15, 1978 at . 9:00 A.M. for the correction of a clerical error of double assessment for properties owned by George D. Weinstein, Main Road, Mat- tituck, Town of Southold, known as Suffolk County Tax Map 41000-114-11-6, and owned by H.C. Bohack Co., Inc., Main Road, Mattituck, Town of Southold, known as Suffolk County Tax Map 41000-114-11-7. PRESENT were: Mrs. Mabel Lytle, Chairlady, Board of Assessment Review Mr. Theodore J. Heuser Mr. William J. Robb Mrs. Patricia Schwicker Mr. Melville A. Kelsey, Jr., Chairman, Board of Assessors Mr. Charles Watts Mr. Henry Moisa ABSENT was: Mr. Robert W. Brown, Member, Board of Assessment Review The following Notice of Public hearing was published in the Long Island Traveler-Watchman: PETITION of Assessor to the Board of Assessment Review for a special hearing at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York on September 15, 1978 at 9:00 A.M. Dated this 31st day of August, 1978. BOARD OF ASSESSORS MELVILLE A. KELSEY, JR., Chairman Mrs. Mabel Lytle, Chairlady, opened the hearing at 9:.00 A.M. The Board reviewed all documentation pertaining to the double assessment of properties known as Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-114-11-6 and #1000-114-11-7. No one appeared to represent the subject taxpayers, and the hearing was concluded as follows: Page 2 of 2 Special Hearing of the Board of Assessment Review September 15, 1978 Mrs. Lytle: No one having appeared to represent the property owner(s) and it being 10:25, the Board makes the following comments. The Board of Assess- ment Review agrees an error has been made and approves the Assessors' correc- tion, as follows: Due to a clerical error, a double assessment was made on properties listed in the names of George D. Weinstein known as Suffolk County Tax Map #1000-114-11-6 and of H.C. Bohack Co., Inc., Suffolk County Tax Map #1000- 114-11-6. The Bohack property will be removed from the tax records, and a credit of $1400 assessed valuation on the land will be made on the Weinstein tax record. The excess taxes of $249.16 will be refunded by the Suffolk County Treasurer's Office. It was the vote of the Board to have the above stated-corrections made; and the hearing was declared closed at 10:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski r FROM: Boa of Assessm t Review TO: Town Clerk RE: RT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVI W - TAX YEAR 19-/ DATE: Attached heew'th please find for public filing in your office, the complete file covering the public hearing (s) of the Board of Assessment Review, together with changes ordered by this Board to the assessment roll, Assessors' acknowledgment, etc. The duties of the Board of' Assessment -Review for the grievance riod covering the 19 assessment roll are completed. • C airman Me Me e Member e er R.P.T.S.A. 200 - 4/72 Attachment: Form BAR-1, Parts I and II, Form BAR-3, Form BAR-4 CC: Town Supervisor - with attachments Director, Real Property Tax Service Agency - with attachments Office of Town Assessor - with attachments Form BAR-4 i I ASSESSMENT7L L - YEAR Vle, � TOWN OF Complaint Last Name or Of Owner Property Assessment Assessment Grievance No. On Roll Desc. From To 6-- - - 4-VV 4 4f"3-ii ;-.1 j &AL I . . R.P.T.S.A. - 500 - 4/7 13AR-2 - Part II FROM: Lourd of Assessment evi�-w TO: Town Assessor RE: ORDER FOR CH. IN ASSESSMENT ROLL DATE: 77 4-ze- TIna Board o Assessment Review for the Towno , has dulv met to near complains or grievances on the tentative town assess-ment roll for the tae: year 1 ,� , as prescribed by law. f T;:e 3oaTd, having duly convened, has considered each and every complaint or grievance on the assessments for the tax year indicated, as filed with this Board, as prescribed by law. A majority of the Board had determined that all of the changes indicated on the attached page (s) will be made on the assessment roll by the Town Assessor. (BAR-2 - Part II). Total number of complaints submitted by assessor - Total number of complaints received on Grievance Day a Total number of complaints reviewed by the Board 6601 - / Total number of recommended reductions in assessment - / Total number of recommended increases in assessment - Total number of grievances without a change - NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Assessment Review hereby orders the assessor or board of assessors to ake all changes in assessments as deter.-wined by the Oard of SsespMent Review on the ass sment roll of t.e Townx lof , for the tax year 1 , in con-`cL,a nce w th this order. BAR-2 - Page 1 of 2 � JOB^ � •�•�� M �+ J: G1G V.. nJGZ �:: si. n-"1. O GRIE A::�'%rE J -:i k'co T.p-.l CZii1t.CJ) D:�,E: August 24. 1978 is is to certify that the ten t-_iv:: assessment roll for the Town of Southold was by the Office of the Town Assessor on July 1. 1978 . As o_ the p:,;alic decI aratio n of -Cr- tive roll for the tax yep, 1978/ 79, the office of Tc r- Assessor has not, in a-cordance with the State Laws, _ ' ted or allowed any am- endmnant to the assess.ent roll which incr3asez, dcc--eases or amends assessments. Alco, as of the pylic date of w _ tentative roll, the Assessor's O`f4ca has acted in a custodial ::air 4n accurately keeping all g-levance or complaint forms whic-h are transmitted in their entirety at 't'his time to the Board of Ass-zs-ant Review. Total number of grievance forms attar. ed herewith - 62 Chairman Boardbf Plessors 2010 - 4/72 r_y 30.:.r" of %S.szsz—manRovi '.. T.iT n T r: i+�^_ -- L: a.1X0..:�EO��: ZT OF CL. '�G _C itSJ J. �T Rv.jL • August 24, 1978 _s u it 1 ac.cnowledge erd;:_ from t e Ec,-r4 of Assessm nt Review to a—mend (NInIm!. r of) 11 assessment items in the assessment roll in the io�an of Southold or tht. tax- _ year 19- This will acknm.ladge that the Cffice of aha Assessor has coriple.ted all changes as ordered by the Board of Assessment Review. s'o�cx3ac�cs�aots =airman of the oa n of Assessors OF NE .1i� i0 0: i:;e undersigned, being d,::!v sworn Co severally depose and sav t'.: t deponents are me ?hers of the Board of Assessment Review; --at u ponents haveread the foregoing and know the contents thereof; ; Gnc tha mutters set forth are true to the best of the deponents' knowledge. Sworn to before me this day j9 • of 1<LICABEfH ANN NeVILL! NOTARY PUBLIC, St8te of New Yolk No, 5 .812S65Q, Suffolk Cou r h 90, 1 tIc r.w�. Chairman Niemb /V Member Member C � Me er ; R.P.^.S. ,. - 200 4/72 Page 2 of 2 FROM: Boardf Assess view TO: Town Clerk RE RT - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT VIEW - TAX YEAR 19 DATE: ZZ2 Attached h4eO ith please find for public filing in your office, the complete file covering the public hearing(s) of the Board of Assessment Review, together with changes ordered by this Board to the assessment roll, Assessors' acknowledgment, etc. The duties of the Board of' Asaessment Review for the grievance p riod covering the 19_/, assessment roll are completed. ;* Carman Mem �r Nembet/ Member Member R.P.T.S.A. 200 4/72 Attachment: Form BAR-1, Parts I and II, Form BAR-3, Form BAR-4 CC: Town Supervisor - with attachments Director, Real Property Tax Service Agency - with attachments Office of Town Assessor - with attachments Form BAR-4 FRO!,.!: Lo--rd o Assessment Review TO: Town Assessor RE: ORDER FOR CHANGE IV ASSESSZIEM ROLL Ar 7 DATE: a-r-~ T e Board of Assessment Review for the To-;n o , has duly met to near complain-s or grievance on the tentative town assessment roll for the tax year 19 , as prescribed by law. The Board, having duly convened, has considered each and every complaint or grievance on the assessments for the tax year indicated, as filed with this 'Board, as prescribed by law. A majority of the Board had determined thatallof the changes indicated on the attached page (s) will be made on the assessment roll by the Town Assessor. (BAR-2 - Part II)• Total number of complaints submitted by assessor - Total number of complaints received on Grievance Day - , Total number of complaints reviewed by the Board - Total number of recommended reductions in assessment - Total number of recommended increases in assessment - Total number of grievances without a change - NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Assessment Review hereby orders the assessor or board of assessors to .-ake all changes in assessments as determined by the oard or essment Review on the ssment roll ,!of t_.,. Town o for the tax year 1in conformance with thin order. 7 BAR-2 - Page 1 of 2 SS�ss ►Y�ert-��1 a � �- `1 ear � `�7d�7 9 I D LA-) C 0•,,p�0.1 ni- �Qs��CWOL, rn► airOwner 1prope4ne NIC rrSSCsS ►Y,e„-F c Assessrney II .3 - -- _c I1- ! 6 y-`7 -Z1 - 1 rl ob 6,_2 ©o =1- ous llen )A&A _ - o d - 100 H --- _ -- -Q r Q i �ZI7 ` 7—� )00 � OG L,300 _4 ou-s e -- 1 - ►� �cnaol 5_�1- - 1 d 2 0 8`acs 14 o4 oo '460 13^ c9sc� 9q -3- 1. 1 006okarld os- Zia , 0 0 0 ?oo X31 -- --- - - - - - - law 1,L BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FROM RENDERING DECISION MEMBER: (Name) /r%'!^•.:..-.-t_,. Vic^.,-��r�c�� >���t. } - TOWN OF: DATE: 11-rl '_ ROLL YEAR 19 COMPLAINT OR GRIEVANCE N0: TOWN TAX OR IDENTIFICATION NO: i n fz -- -� % � y &EPUT£D OWNER It is. to be so• noted in all records attached to this hearing ~k. that the member's name of the Board of Assessment Review as indicated herein is to be "withdrawn and will abstain" from all decisions and/or voting on the tax complaint noted herein. R.P.T.S.A. - 200 - 4/72 BAR-5 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW SUBJECT: -WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FROM RENDERING DECISION MEMBER: (Name) l' ,i. /✓� ... �- ., ;' TOWN OF, < - DATE: / % X' ROLL YEAR 19 COMPLAINT OR GRIEVANCE NO: TOWN TAX OR IDENTIFICATION NO: REPUTED OWNER: It is to be so. noted in all records attached to this hearing that the member's name of the Board of Assessment Review as indicated herein is to be "withdrawn and will abstain" from all decisions and/or voting on the tax complaint noted herein. x.Y.T.S.A. - 200 - 4/72 BAR-5 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW .SUBJECT WITHDRAWAL BY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FROM RENDERING DECISION ly;EM8ER: (Name) TOWN OF.- DATE: F:DATE: %y ROLL YEAR 19 /.-!' COMPLAINT OR GRIEVANCE NO: TOWN TAX OR IDENTIFICATION NO: REPUTED OWNER: It is to be so. noted in all records attached to this hearing -.that the member's name of the Board of Assessment Review as indicated herein is to be "withdrawn and will abstain" from all decisions and/or voting on the tax complaint noted herein. R.P.T.S.A. - 200 - 4/72 BAR-5 ^. SS"EXT ROIL �Z'N E:J V:.aaNT OF �...:i lit V`. 115Jr. - Au ust 24 1978 1dil? .3c nou, edge c=uter frcm A he Ec"ard of ASscssment Revievei to a-mend of) 11 asscssa,,ent items in the asscssmcnt roll in the Town of Southold for- tam Srca r 197 /79 _his wi1.1 ack=-.,ledge t hat the C--'-=ice o-f the Assessor has completed all changes as ordered by the Board of Assessir,ent Review. :V C_aairnan of the oa o� Assessors F S%OY: As6cdJoz ..;)Oe :�: : �iti.;1S :_i� L OF Cr.I V : C.: _ ;coxplaints) DAZE*: Aucrust 24, 197.8 is to ca_tify that the tent-.:.iv-z assessment roll for the Town of Southold , was p= _ared by the Office of the Town Assassor on July 1. 1978 As of t.4:e r• b, - declaration of roll for the tam year 19 78/79, the office of =''e Town Assessor has not, in accordance with the State Laws, _ -._ fitted or allowed any amendnant to assass^ent roll which incr2asaz, decreases or amends assessments. Also, as of the public date of t:._ tentative roll, the Assessor' s office has acted in a custodial _=%, ir. accurately keeping all g.Jevance oz complaint forms whir*. a e transmitted in their entirety at pis time to the Board of Assays-ant Review. Total number of grievance forms attac ed herewith - 82 x9otfirecxB�c Czairman Board Pf Psessors R.?.=.S .r. - 200 - 4/72 • S On date of August 29, 1978 a photocopy of the attached "Minutes of Grievance Day for the Town of Southold" , July 18, 1978" were mailed to the Director or Real Property, Suffolk County, County Center, Riverhead, New York. M I N U T E S 0 F G R I E V A N C E D A Y F O R T H E T 0 W N O F S 0 U T H 0 L D July 18, 1978 PRESENT: BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW Mrs. Henry B. Lytle, Chairlady Mr. Theodore J. Heuser Mrs. Patricia Schwicker Mr. William J. Robb Mr. Robert W. Brown BOARD OF ASSESSORS Mr. Melville A. Kelsey, Jr., Chairman Mr. Henry Moisa Mr.. Charles Watts Town of Southold • • Grievance Day July 18, 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item No. Matter of Page 1 Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Tillman 1 2 Mrs. Mary Papadopoulos 18 3-A Mrs. Joanne M. Burr Wall 20 3-B Mrs. Joanne M. Burr Wall 26 4 Mr. Julius Abrahams 26 5 Harold G. Wilkens, Sr. 28 6 Mr. Harold G. Wilkens, Jr. and Joyce M. Wilkens 32 7 Mr. and Mrs. James W. B. Benkard 35 8-A Grenville T. Emmet III and Patricia B. Emmet 42 8-B Grenville T. Emmet III and Patricia B. Emmet 47 9 Mr. and Mrs. Joseph T. Halligan 49 10 Mr. James P. Meo 52 11-A Mr. Murray Weitmand and Mrs. Phyllis Weitman 62 11-B Mr. Donald G. King 67 11-C Mr. Donald G. King 75 11-D North Fork Bank and Trust Company as Executor of the Estate of Frank L. Barth 79 12 Mr. George Breen and Mrs. Viola Breen 84 13-A Mrs. Mary Pylko 86 13-B Mrs. Mary Pylko 90 14 Mrs. Veronica Czebotar and others 96 15 Mr. Dominick Proscia and Mrs. Theresa Proscia 103 16 Mrs. Patricia Appelmans 107 (17-21) Introduction by William Schriever 113 17 Mrs. Kathryn Latham 115 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 Item No. Matter of Page 18 Mr. and Mrs. William W. Schriever 115 19 Mr. Clement J. Welles 115 20 Mrs. Rose 0. Silverstone 115 21 Mr. and Mrs. Clifford J. Van Cleef 116 22 Mr. William Rupprecht and Marion Rupprecht 134 23 Mrs. Carol G. White 142 24 Mrs. Carol G. White (Trailer) 154 25 Mrs. Genevieve L. Richards for the Estate of Joseph A. LaColla, Sr. 161 26 Mrs. Genevieve L. Richards 172 27 Mr. Robert H. Gammon and Mrs. Elsa D. Sinnema Gammon 173 28 Mr. James N. Bailey, and Mr. and Mrs. Lars Thunell 181 29 Mr. Fred E. Pivko and Mrs. Susan Johnson P vko 189 30 Fur and Games, Inc. (By Mail) 195 31 William Wyche (By Mail) 195 32 Westbury Equipment Co. (By Mail) 195 33 Westbury Equipment Co. (By Mail) 195 34 Robert W. Jester and wife (By Mail) 195 35 Pauline Mitchell, Estate of Harry Mitchell (Mail) 195 36 Pauling Views, Inc. (By Mail) 195 37 Ralph W. Stultz and Angela Stultz (By Mail) 196 38 Peter R. Petrowski and Elizabeth Petrowski (Mail) 196 39 Hodor-Statler-Kasper (By Mail) 196 40 Cutchogue Joint Ventures (By Mail) 196 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3 Item No. Matter of Page 41 Junction Properties (By Mail) 196 42 Suburbian Federal and Savings Loan Association (By Mail) 196 43 Suburbian Federal and Savings Loan Association (By Mail) 197 44 Colgate Design Corp. (By Mail) 197 45 Associated East Lending Corp. (By Mail) 197 46 Ruth Goodale and Andrew Goodale, Esq. (Ey Mail) 197 47 Warren G. Wiect (By Mail) 1.97 48 Vantage Petroleum Corp. (By Mail) 1.97 49 Vantage Petroleum Corp. (By Mail) 198 50 S S E Realty. Co. (By Mail) 198 51 Nicholas Kouros (By Mail) 198 52 John G. Schramm (By Mail) 198 53 Theodore Banforth (By Mail) 198 54 Morgan Richner (By Mail) 198 55 Chemical Bank (By Mail) 199 56 Alina Wiederman (By Mail) 199 57 Elizabeth A. Porterfield (By Mail) 199 58 Jane L. Bonnert (By Mail) 199 59 James Tsoros (By Mail) 199 60 Southold Savings Bank (By mail) 199 61 Vera Mayer (By Mail) 200 62 Vera Mayer (By Mail) 200 iii • • Mrs. Henry B. Lytle, Chairman, Board of Assessment Review, opened the Grievance Day Proceedings at 9:05 a.m., July 18, 1978, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. #1. Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Tillman, Harbor View Avenue, RD #lp P.O. Box 139B, Mattituck, NY 11952. Mr. Tillman: Do you have any objections that I tape this? Mrs. Lytle: It is not customary. The minutes, rather, copies of the minutes, taken from our machine are available to you, pertaining to your matter. Mr. Tillman: My lawyer informed me that if you were taping, it was legally permissible for me to tape it. Mrs. Lytle: It's the first time we've had anybody want to tape tapes. Who is your lawyer? Mr. Tillman: Joseph Manning, Wading River. It's just for the record. Mrs. Tillman: It's just for us to refer to and use it. Mrs. Lytle: Well, the only question is, I want to see that this is kept legal. I would doubt it very much. Mr. Tillman: It is available to me, your minutes? Mrs. Lytle: Of your case, yes. Your particular case. Mr. Tillman: Ok, I don't want to make an issue of it. Uh, my first ques- tion is, uh. Mrs. Lytle: Just a second. Mr. Tillman: Oh, ok. I'm sorry. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 1. Arthur and Andrea Tillman, RD 1, Box 139B, Mat- tituck, NY. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Tillman, I notice you haven't got this overevaluation checked off? Did you intend to check it? Mr. Tillman: Yes. I checked the wrong box. I am sorry. Mr. Heuser: The complaint is based on over-evaluation of property, full market value against assessed valuation, and an over-evaluation claimed 25 thousand odd dollars. The complaint reads assessment of 52 should be reduced by $8,227.60. The purchase price of the property was $67,200.00. 1 Mr. Heuser: The amount of the mortgage is $31,200.00 and the property is insured for $50,000.00. Mrs. Tillman: Just one thing, you said it was to be reduced by $89000, it should be reduced TO $8,000. We didn't want to expect over an $8,000 reduction. Mr. Heuser: The complainant believes the assessment should be reduced to $8,000, correct that please. Mrs. Tillman: Yes, reduced to $8,000, not reduced by. Mrs. Lytle: Oh. Ok, reduced to. Well, what were the first figures there. Mr. Heuser: The market value is $67,000.00. Assessed valuation is $92,019.54, and over-evaluation of $25,019.54 is stated, and complainant wants the assessment reduced to $8, 227.60. Mrs. Lytle: And yourpurchase price was $67,000. And you want the assessed valuation reduced to $8,200. Mrs. Tillman: Yes. Mr. Heuser: The assessed valuation is wrong here, too. Mr. Tillman: Which is wrong here? Mr. Heuser: You've got $92,019.54 as assessed valuation. Mr. Tillman: Based upon the equalization rate, that's what you have the value of my house. Mr. Heuser: No, don't go by that. Mr. Tillman: Let's stop right now. How do you reach an assessment. Mrs. Lytle: 25% of what we consider the full market value. Mr. Tillman: I was here last year. What about the 60-65 construction costs4 Mr. Heuser: Was that when it was partially completed? Mr. Tillman: It was fully completed, right. Mrs. Tillman: What I don't understand is, we were given the equalization rate for the whole Town. Now why don't you set that as--you know, I know what the equalization rate is. It's a percentage, a fraction. Mrs. Lytle: We are all aware of that. It doesn't have to be taxed at that rate. It applies mainly to the school tax. Everything is done on a 25%. 2 Mrs. Tillman: That's fine with me, too. Mrs. Lytle: On what we consider the value between 65 and 70, it has been updated to 70. Mr. Tillman: Can I make this clear then? The assessment then is based upon the estimated construction costs between 25% of the construction costs? Mrs. Lytle: We're not talking about estimated construction costs. We're talking about estimated value of the house. Mr. Tillman: Established by the assessors? Mrs. Tillman: What is the difference between an estimated value and the construction? Mr. Heuser: Big difference. Mrs. Tillman: In other words, if our house cost $66,000 to build, you could turn around and tell us that the house is worth $96,000, even though we couldn't get it on the market. That is not the market value. We could not sell it for that. Mr. Heuser: Well, who said it was? I didn't say a word. You asked a question and I am answering directly. Mrs. Tillman: I am asking you, that how can you say that a brand new house would have a different construction cost from value? Mr. Heuser: I didn't say that. Mrs. Tillman: Ok, then let's say that the value of a new house and the construction costs of a house should be the same or obviously they could not sell it. Mr. Heuser: Construction costs of a new house has no basis on the evalu- ation that an assessor puts on it. Mrs. Lytle: You know one builder can give one price and another another price. Mrs. Tillman: Yeah , but the valuation cannot be too high or nobody would buy it. Mr. Tillman: This is why I want to get it on tape. Now last year when I came to talk to you people you said the assessment in Southold Town is 25% of the construction costs. Mr. Heuser: No, never use construction costs. Mrs. Lytle: No, I can show you the minutes. 3 Mr. Tillman: That's why I wanted it on tapes. I should have had a tape last year. Mr. Heuser: You got the minutes from last year, you ought to read them. Mr. Tillman: You people got 5 different stories going, and you change the story to fit the circumstances. Mrs. Tillman: Let's go back to the equalization rate. This is what I am concerned about first. If we don't go by the County; first of all, the equalization rate represents total Town assessments and total Town market values, they make a fraction, that makes a percentage. The equalization rate gives the percentage that the total Town assessments are of the total Town value. So, if you're going to go by that, it means that. If our taxes, our assessments, is higher than equalization rate, then we're pay- ing a higher percentage in taxes than the average in its Town. That is a mathematical fact. OK? Mrs. Lytle: That is a mathematical fact, but not a fact that you weigh with property assessment. You do not. Mrs. Tillman: Ok, you don't use equalization rate at all? Mrs. Lytle: We told you at first to forget the equalization rate. Mrs. Tillman: New York State says, you are to use the equalization rate; this is State Law, Mr. Heuser: Or the equivalent. Mrs. Tillman: Ok, then you tell us the equivalent. Mrs. Lytle: The equivalent is 25% of what the assessors consider the market value, & every piece or property of this Town is assessed on that basis. Mrs. Tillman: Now you're saying something wrong again, because now you're telling me that it's 25% of the market value. Mrs. Lytle: Yes. Mrs. Tillman: Ok, the market value of our house is $76,000; 25% of that. Mrs. Lytle: That's your $76,000.00 That's your decision. Mr. Heuser: Incidentally, before we go any further, where did you people get an assessed valuation of $92,000 in your statement here? Mrs. Tillman: From the equalization rate. Mr. Tillman: All you do is divide your equalization rate. 4 Mrs. Lytle: Here we go again, we told you that. Mr. Heuser: No, you're not assessed at that. You're assessed at $28,000. Mrs. Tillman: For what years? Mrs. Lytle said it was 25% of the market value. Is she talking about 1976 market value, is she talking about 1932 market value? Mr. Heuser: I'm talking about what's on your tax bill right now, February of 1978, yours is $11,900 is the value on the books. Mr. Tillman: That's erroneous. Mrs. Tillman: Ok. Mr. Heuser: What's this $92,000 in here? It doesn't mean a thing. That has to be changed folks. Mr. Tillman: In other words, the equalization rate means something all over the State of New York but not Southold. Mr. Heuser: No, any town. Mrs. Lytle: Each town is not the same. Mr. Tillman: Will you tell me the relationship of the equalization rate to the assessment inSouthold Town? Mr. Heuser: The young lady just told you. Mr. Tillman: What is it? Mr. Heuser: 25% of the assessed market value as set by the assessors. Mrs. Tillman: Why is the assessed value of our house $48,000 when it cost us $67,000 to build it. Mr. Heuser: Because that is on the Assessors Board. Mrs. Lytle: Why are you complaining about this assessment? Mrs. Tillman: Yes, I am complaining that 48,OOOis ridiculous because.- Mrs. ecause:Mrs. Lytle: Do you want your assessment raised? Mrs. Tillman: No, I don't. Because everybody else's assessment is 42, 32, and down. That's why. Because you're not doing it on a 100%. Because if you were our house would be $67,000. Then what are you doing it on? Mrs. Lytle: But we are doing it on a 100%. 5 Mrs. Tillman: I want the percent. Mr. Heuser: Just a minute. Do you want to change this form maybe before we proceed? Mr. Tillman: I am not changing it. That's the rate. My lawyer's. Mr. Heuser: Then I can't accept it. Mr. Tillman: I don't care if you don't accept it. I've got other rights, Article 78, that's my next step. Mrs. Tillman: How did you get 48,000? I know you multiplied 11900 x 4, that's 48,000. How did you get 1192 Mr. Heuser: That's the assessed valuation taken out of your pocket. Mrs. Tillman: Then how did you set our house for 49 rather than 48, 52? Mr. Heuser: I don't know, you'll have to ask the assessor? Mrs. Tillman: You don't know? Mr. Heuser: You would have to ask the assessor. We have to go by what. Mrs. Tillman: How do you come up with this, I want to know? Is it 25% of the 1960-1965 value? This is what my husband wants to know. Mrs. Lytle: No, not 1960-65. 1965-70. Mrs. Tillman: 1965-70. Ok. That's quite all right too. Mr. Tillman: There is something about 1960-1965. The tax assessor told me. Where is the tax assessor? Mrs. Tillman: We are asking how you determine the assessment? Mr. Heuser: How did you figure that out? Mr. Tillman: I talked to, you divide the equalization rate. Mrs. Lytle: Yes, how did you get this $92,0007 Mr. Tillman: Because that would be the market value of my house based upon the equalization rate and your assessment. Mrs. Tillman: And the equalization rate of the average rate of the person who is being taxed at, being assessed at in the Town, so that-we're being taxed at a rate that weuld put our house worth $92,000. This is what I'm saying then. So we're paying for a house that's worth $25,000 more than our house is really worth. 6 • 0 Mrs. Lytle: I don't see how you get this? Mrs. Tillman: That's the math. Mrs. Lytle: I still don't see how you figure it. Mr. Tillman: Did you get a chance to see this? (Indicating Article in Suffolk Life about equalization rates) Mrs. Lytle: Yes. Mr. Tillman: It doesn't mean a thing? Mr. Heusef: Now let's get Mr. Kelsey over here. Mrs. Tillman: Ok, in case you're interested. Mr. Heuser: Let's get Mr. Kelsey over here. Mrs. Tillman: Oh, all right. Mrs. Lytle: Mr. Kelsey? Mr. Heuser: Address your questions to the Chairlady, and then hg will address them to us. Mr. Tillman: My question is. I was told in the past that the assessment was based upon 25% of what it would cost to build a house in the time period 1960-1965. Mrs. Lytle: No, now that's. Mrs. Tillman: We are not asking you, we are asking him (Mr. Kelsey). Mrs. Lytle: You cannot speak directly to Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Tillman: Ok, then ask him. Mrs. Lytle: I don't believe it was 1960-1965. Mr. Tillman: Will you ask him, please? Mrs. Tillman: That is what he is here for. Mrs. Lytle: I would like you to make a correction about. Mrs. Tillman: Don't tell him, let him answer. Come on. Mr. Kelsey: The assessment that we have is based overall on about 25% and there are some that are over and we are trying to update all our records. There's alot of them that has not been taken. With what we're talking about now, it is in the east, I know the property. I have been there. 7 Mr. Kelsey: And I imagine you would find everyone of those--I think there are 10 lots in that subdivision, and they all have the same approximate builder's acre, the land value is all the same. I believe the upstairs in that house has not been completed. Two of the assessors went down there and they verified that complaint. Now you can ask the assessors did not go down there, and they will verify that the upstairs has not been completed yet. That is the role of the assessment. The land will have to stay the same. Mr. Tillman: My question again, which was not answered, is the assessed value in Southold Town based upon 25% of the construction, implemented construction costs in the time period 1960 to 1965? And I am asking Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Kelsey: It is based on the Village or the Town figure on 60-65, you even go a little bit higher into 1970. You take, I can't find out how much that house is offhand, but a one-family house, one-story house, with a full cellar, fireplace, and heat, square footage times, and that in that case would be $3.50 per square foot, and you know you cannot build a house today for $3.50 a square foot. You would pay a great deal more than that. Mr. Tillman: Ok, that affirms what I contended. That it is based upon the construction costs, 25% of the estimated construction costs in the 1960-1965 period. Mrs. Lytle: He didn't say 1966-1965, he said 1965-1970. Mr. Tillman: No, he said 60 to 70. Mr. Kelsey: 60 to 65 to 70. Mrs. Tillman: 65 is an average. Mr. Tillman: All right, let's take 25% of the construction costs for 19, these are xeroxed, if you'll go over to page 2. Ok, this is what a $69,000 house would cost in 1960, and these figures come from F.W. Dodge Construction Reports, they are consultants to the construc- tion industry. They have estimated that construction costs have in- creased on the average of 7% per year since 1960. Mrs. Tillman: And the average went higher earlier. Mr. Tillman: If you look at the map there, and it is all laid out before you, a $67,000 house in 1976, which was when my constructed, would cost $31,603 in 1960. Going over to the next page, page 3, in 1965, 11 years ago from 1976, a $67,000 house would cost $37,853. If you take the average construction costs between 1960 and 1965, a $67,000 house in 1976 would cost during that time period on the average of $34,000. If you take 25% of the $34,728 to get an assessed evaluation, you come up with $8,682. 8 Mrs. Tillman: Now if you want to have the years go between 1960 and 1970, you take the costs for 1965 and you can figure out that the house is worth $37,853.11 in 1965. Mr. Tillman: I can do it any years you want. Mr. Heuser: I am going to direct this to you, Mr. Kelsey. You have a new home based on present construction costs? Mrs. Tillman: Yes. Mr. Heuser: And what do you base your value? Mr. Kelsey: A brand new house now? And the assessment value as of today? Mr. Heuser: Yes, as of today. You're assessing it right now as a new house. Mr. Kelsey: That would be the currect value as far as the construction costs. That would be 100%. I would say it would be, around that 65-70 figure, and then if we figure it out, and the ramp on this end would be $3.50 per square foot, multiply that by 4, and you come up to around $15.00 square foot. You can't build today for $15.00 per square foot. In other words, we're underassessed on that property. Mr. Heuser: Do you think that a house that cost 67; no, I shouldn't word it that way. Here's a house that cost $67,000 assessed at $11,900. That where you valued it at $48,000. Mr. Kelsey: As I understand it, that's less than 25%. Mr. Tillman: Let me phrase it at, uh, I would like to ask Mr. Kelsey a question through you. Would Mr. Kelsey believe that a $67,000 house in 1976 would cost $37,853.00 in 1965? Mr. Kelsey: Well, that all depends on the location. You couldn't build a house in Fishers Island for that? Mr. Tillman: What? That includes the land, what location. Mrs. Tillman: I'm talking about the same location. The same house. Mrs. Lytle: What we're talking about is tax assessing on your property. Mr. Tillman: That's what is has been. And this is all verified by F.W. Dodge Reports. I'm not picking these numbers out of a hat. And I have the address of that consultant firm there if you want to call them up or write them. Mr. Kelsey: Let me explain something. When I said Fishers Island as an example, I'm not discussing the land value, I'm discussing the costs of transporting that lumber and material over to Fishers Island. 9 • Mr. Kelsey: And you would a lot more to build a house out here, when you have your lumberyards here, but you're paying more to have the lumber brought to the lumberyard in the City, or wherever they get it from. Mr. Heuser: Well that's all beside the point. The point as I understand it right now and as far as I'm concerned, it's assessed at $48,000, not at $92,000. Mr. Tillman: Because you choose not to use the equalization rate. Mr. Heuser: That formula had been there, no one could pick it up. Mr. Tillman: You could use whatever you want, but I am sure certain judges who are more sympathetic to some sort of logic than you people are, you know. Mrs. Lytle: Every parcel within the Town is assessed on that basis. You do not get picked out for that. Mr. Tillman: How can we have an equalization rate in Southold Town if it's not relevant at all. Mrs. Lytle: There is an equalization rate in every town in the State of New York, but they do not all use it. They only are in use in many instances in the school budget. And it is a privilege and it works out much simplier. Mrs. Tillman: It has to do with taxes. It has to do with the tax status. On the average, the average taxpayer is paying 12.28% of his value in tax. We're paying over 17% of the value of our house in taxes. The average is 12.28, we're paying 17, the difference between that higher than the average taxpayer, and the average who average our rate and somebody else's is even lower. And this is a fact. We all know it. It has been in the newspaper. This is arithmetic. Maybe you need an arithmetic course. Here's the value of our house according to New York State. Mr. Heuser: I would like to make a recommendation to you and that we cannot accept this form, regardless of Mrs. Tillman's saying, because of the assessed valuation being wrong and this figure up here being wrong. Mr. Tillman: Now I want the taperecorder on. Would you say that again? You will not accept my form? Mr. Heuser: I said at the present time. You can correct it and we will accept it. Mr. Tillman: It is correct. Mr. Heuser: No it isn't. You're not assessed at $92,000. Mr. Tillman: I'm not assessed at $92,000. But based on the equalization 10 • • rate which you choose not to use for whatever reasons, the value of my house is $92,000. Mrs. Tillman: We're being taxed as if our house were worth it. Mrs. Lytle: May I call your attention. If you read this very carefully, it says nothing about equalization rate, where it says over-evaluation. You are supposed to put what you figure is an assessed evaluation of your property at the present time, but not considering any equalization rate, nor is there any reference in this form for the equalization rate. Mrs. Tillman: But the assessed value of our property is not 100%. It is a percentage of, depending on what you so choose to use. We have to go by the equalization rate because that is the average rate used for the Town. Mrs. Lytle: There is no sense talking continually about an equalization rate. Mr. Tillman: All right, we will go on to another point. Mrs. Lytle: We explained that we do not use it. Mr. Heuser: I want to bring up this one point again. I still want to protest these figures in here. Mrs. Lytle: I agree with you. That's what I was trying to explain to her. That they mean nothing at all. Mr. Tillman: You can protest all you want, but you have no option but to accept that. Now if you don't want to accept it, I'll sue you. Mr. Heuser: You're not suing me. Mr. Tillman: I'll sue the whole bunch of you. Mrs. Lytle: You would sue the Town. Mr. Heuser: It's sort of a semi-quasi set-up. Mr. Tillman: Call it whatever you want, but the judge will be on my side. You better accept that because I'm leaving that here with you. Mr. Heuser: I say that I recommended these figures be adjusted. They're not true figures. Mrs. Tillman: They are. Mr. Tillman: Well, in your way of thinking about it. Ok, let's go on to another point. 11 Mrs. Tillman: You don't have to accept them now, but we're not changing our application. That's the way it reads. Our form. Mr. Tillman: Could we go to page one. Mrs. Lytle: Have you got that tape on? Mr. Tillman: Yeah. Mrs. Lytle: You can shut it off. Mr. Tillman: Why? You're taping it, why can't I tape it? This is why I wanted to tape a tape. Mrs. Tillman: This way we know what exactly happened. Mr. Tillman: If you can tape, my lawyer says, I can tape. This is why I wanted to tape it, because the stories change here. This is why I'm back. Mrs. Lytle: We'll get a legal re-ruling here immediately. There is no sense sitting here arguing. Where is the phone? Behind you. (Mrs. Lytle reaches Mr. Ryan, Real Property Tax, County Center, Riverhead). Mr. Tillman: I'm sorry for taking your time, but they change their story every year. Mrs. Lytle: You are not supposed to speak to those people. Mr. Tillman: I'm apologizing to them. (Mr. Kelsey leaves at this time, for a few minutes.) Mrsz Tillman: You see, they want us to change those figures, then that would change our whole thing. Mr. Heuser: I didn't ask you to change the figures. I said there're not correct. Mrs. Tillman: You said they were not acceptable and you wanted us to correct the form. Mr. Heuser: They_ are not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. You're not assessed at $92,000. Mrs. Tillman: It's one thing for you not to accept it as corrected, but another thing is that you refuse to accept the form. Mr. Heuser: I say it should be corrected. That was my thinking. Mrs. Tillman: No. We feel it isn't, you know, you will have to consider it on that basis. Either accept it or reject it yourself. Whether you want those forms. 12 (At this point, Mrs. Lytle and Mr. Ryan, Real Property Tax Service, County Center, Riverhead, are having a telephone conversation about whether or not it is permissible for a taxpayer to tape during his proceedings.) Mrs. Lytle: You may run the tape as long as you keep it in full view at all times, and there are no heated arguments. Mr. Tillman: Oh, Mrs. Lytle, my main reason for bringing the tape was, actually, last year when I came before you, you said if I didn't like the tax system here, I could move back to Huntington. .Mrs. Lytle: Could you repeat that please? Mr. Tillman: Mrs. Lytle, my main reason for my bringing the tape recorder is last year when I brought my complaint to you and acted in a very gentlemanly manner, you said if I didn't like the taxes, I could move back to Huntington. I still maintained my composure at that time. But I thought that if I played the tape I would be free from any insult- ing remarks this time. Since I am a taxpayer in the Town of Southold. You also stuck your tongue out at me, but we couldn't get that on the tape. Mrs. Lytle: I did what? Mr. Tillman: You did (in a laughing manner). It's not my machinations, I think. Mrs. Tillman: On top of that, we never did come from Huntington. Mrs. Lytle: I object. Mr. Robb: We protest this, absolutely. Mr. Tillman: I ask you to go back to last year's tape and listen. I was #8 or 9 last year. Mrs. Lytle: That doesn't make any difference, I did not stick my tongue out at you. Have you got that tape recorder on now? Mr. Tillman: I'll erase it, do you want me to erase it? Mrs. Tillman: Don't erase it. Mrs. Lytle: No, I don't want you to erase it but I want you to put on there my denial of -it. I deny that I ever stuck my tongue out at you •or at anybody else. Mr. Tillman: You told me that if I didn't like my taxes here I could move back to Huntington. And I ask you to listen to last year's tape. That's why I wanted to tape it this year. I didn't want to be insulted again. 13 Mrs. Tillman: On top of that, neither one of us came from Huntington. It took me two weeks to figure out why did they tell us to go back to someplace we never came from. Mr. Tillman: That's not our problem. Ok, all right, can we go to page 1, #1. Is that ok. Mr. Heuser: We read it. Go ahead. Mr. Tillman: Regarding the 1977's. Ok this year I was increased from a rate of 113 to the new rate of 119. Regarding the 1977-78 rate of 113. I appeared before the Board of Grievance in July of 1977 in grievance of the assessment of our home. As a result of my appeal, the Board of Assessment Review notified us that the assessed value of our residence was reduced to $%0,900. Mr. Heuser: I got it. Mr. Tillman: Ok, and we have notification of that letter, I'll submit to you. In investigation of June 78 of this year of the tax roles in- dicated that the assessment on our land and not our residence was reduced from $1,600 to $1,200, yet your notification dated August 22, 1977 specified a reduction in+ the assessment of our residence, not our land, see enclosed copy of the letter. Mrs. Tillman: You took 400 from the land. Mr. Heuser: Took it from the wrong place. I'll agree on that. Mr. Tillman: Your motive in lowering the assessment on the land and not the residence when we never questioned the assessment on the land is questionable. Mr. Heuser: I'll accept that right away. They changed their cards. They took it off the wrong one, it fact they changed the roles. $400 should have come off the property instead of off your land. Mr. Tillman: Off the house? Mr. Heuser: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: The letter is correct, the card was in error. Mr. Heuser: The total is correct but the card-- the wrong column was changed in the tax assessor's office. Mrs. Tillman: But then they went on to increase the land back to where it was. Mr. Heuser: And then it went back to what it was, absolutely. Mr. Tillman: So why didn't the house go down the $4002 14 Mr. Heuser: It did, last year. Mr. Tillman: Why was it increased $400 and on top of that added another 700, uh $600. Mrs. Tillman: The house didn't go down the $400. Mr. Tillman: No, it didn't go down the $400. Mr. Heuser: Now, wait a minute. I just said to you the house went down $400, the land stayed static. Mrs. Tillman: That's not what they did. Mr. Heuser: It was in the wrong column. Mr. Tillman: Assuming that then, why, let's go down to #2, regarding any increase in assessment from 113 to 119, so I had a $600 increase this year. But you put the 600 on top of the 113, as opposed to a 109. Mr. Heuser: They put a $1,000 on top of your 109. Mrs. Tillman: Yes. Mr. Tillman: Yes, it was supposed to go up $600. Mr. Heuser: I see what they did. Yes. They come up in error. I'm wrong. That $400 is in error, absolutely. Mr. Tillman: So, if I were going to get an increase, it should be $600 on top of the 109? Mr. Heuser: That $600, that should be back to $1,600, that should be $9,4009 $600 would be 109. Yes. Mr. Tillman: Ok. Now. Mrs. Lytle: Besides the $400, then. Mr. Heuser: $1,600. It would be $9,400, then they claimed they increased it $600, you say? Is that correct? Mr. Tillman: Ok. Now clear that correction? Mrs. Tillman: The claim is they increased us $1,000 this year. Mr. Heuser: No, no. You're talking two things now. One person talk please. Mr. Tillman: No, listen. Mr. Heuser: We're agreeing to a certain point, we're getting accomplished. Compatible. 15 • • Mr. Heuser: That $1,200 should have, we agree, should have come off your property. Mr. Tillman: Ok. Mr. Heuser: That's your land against $1,600. Reduce your property to $9,300. Mrs. Tillman: The house. M"rs. Lytle: Yes, the house. Mr. Heuser: And then if you add $600 on that, it would be $9,900. And $9,900 plus $1,600 would be $10,500--$11,500. That I agree with you 100%. Mr. Tillman: Ok. All right. Mrs. Tillman: Yeah. Mr. Tillman: Regarding an increase in assessment (#2), the erroneous 11,300 to 11,900. We're talking about that $600 increase. Mr. Watts the assessor informed us that the $600 increase in assessment was due to the fact that we had finished off the attic. The attic was not and is not finished off. Mr. Watts said that since we put curtains in the attic windows, the assessors had assumed the attic was finished. At our invitation Mr. Watts came to inspect the attic and found it to be unfinished. We were told by Mr. Watts that the only way to correct this assessment mistake was by grievance, which we now formally do. We therefore should not, and will not, accept this $600. And this was just verified by Mr. Kelsey that the attic was not finished. Mrs. Lytle: Now you're handling the case in a sensible way. Rather than the way it was started off. Mr. Tillman: Yeah, but this is piddling compared to the overall assess- ment. Mr. Heuser: Let me see your notification of increase, please. Mrs. _Tillman: It comes up to 11,500 including the $600. Mr. Heuser: $£1,500. Right folks? Mrs. Tillman: Yeah, if you lower it to $11,500 if you're taking off the $400 that they had taken off the land instead of the residence. Mr. Heuser: We're not taking off anything. We're swinging it across they way it should have been done as I spoke to your husband. We had agreed that it was $10,900 originally, the $400 was in the wrong place. So you're getting an increase of $600 on your house, which makes it $9,900, and $1,600 makes it $11,500. 16 Mr. Tillman: $11,5007 Mrs. Tillman: $11,500 because of the $600 increase. Now we're going to assess the $600 increase. I Mrs. Schwicker: Now hesclaiming that the $600 increase should not have been there because there was no finished attic. Mrs. Tillman: They took partial off this. There's another question I have about this. Last year when they came. Mr. Heuser: The assessors assessed at $600. Right? We agree on $119500, did we not folks? Mrs. Tillman: Right, well it's $119500 with. Mrs. Schwicker: It's $11,500 with that $600 increase. Mr. Heuser: Yes, with the $600 increase originally. Now you want the $600 off. Mrs. Tillman: You see, we never had an assessment of $11,500. Mrs. Lytle: Had $11,900. Mrs. Tillman: We had an assessment of $10,900. Mr. Heuser: $10,900. Yeah, that's what we're working to, $10,900 plus the $600 increase, and made it $119500. You and I had a thought on that. Now, what you want is that $600 taken off? Mr. Tillman: Yes, so that we would be back down to $10,900. Mr. Heuser: $10,900. All right, That's what I got. Mr. Tillman: That's if I accept it the way youlre calculating it. Mr. Heuser: All right, ok. Mrs. Tillman: That's if we accept the wverall assumption that the assess- ment generally is correct. But the other question I had was last summer they came and were just kind of looking around, and they asked me if the attic was finished and I told them no, and I offered to have them come in and look if they wanted to. And they said no, that they didn't want to, but I was wondering often to have them look and check because I really didn't want to be taxed on an attic that wasn't finished, and then when they filled out the form, they just sent us an increase, and no one ex- plained to us what the increase was for. If we hadn't come here and asked we wouldn't have known that they- assumed our attic was finished. I assumed that they knew it wasn't. They came last year, I offered to have them come look, and they said no. I just wonder if next year they're going to do the same thing. Are they going to tax us another $600, are we going to have to 17 • • come here again, are we going to have to go and get the form notarized? Mr. Heuser: Well, the door is always open. Mrs. Lytle: You can't tell what next year is going to bring. You may finish it next year for all we know. Mrs. Tillman: Right, but before you tax us for something, could you say, can we come look at your attic? Come look at the attic first, and if it's finished, fine, tax us for it. But don't tax us for it without even looking. You know, you're welcome to come look. It's the fact that they didn't even look, yet they taxed us for it. Mr. Heuser: Ok, how are we getting along? Mr. Tillman: Fine. I'm just going to leave you these forms, and I am getting a lawyer and it is based upon some of this documentation. Mr. Heuser: All right. Mr. Tillman: So you have them on record. I'm sorry for raising my voice. Mr. Heuser: I have a little disadvantage, I have throat trouble, I can't raise mine. Mr. Tillman: Butnot from my opinions, that's for sure. Ok, thank's alot. Mrs. Lytle: I will wager all promises. You will be notified by mail. Mrs. Tillman: Thank you. #2. Mrs. Mary Papadopoulos, Maratooka Lane, Mattituck. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 2. Mrs. Mary Papadopoulos of Mattituck. Mr. Heuser: Based on one of the parcels of property, it should be assessed at 10% of the full market value. State equalization rate. Here's where that comes ins again. 12.28. That's that chart that was in the paper, correct? It is very midleading. Mrs. Papadopoulos: I have asked them time and time again for them to give a statement on what they were doing. Mr. Heuser: Anyhow, to the assessed valuation of this, we do refer to this in a previous discussion. It is roughly 25%. Your house is assessed at $6,000 with a $24,000 value. 4 times $6,000. And if your is $40,000, your assessed at a $24,000 base, I wouldn't contend. 18 Mrs. Lytle: What is her insurance? Mr. Heuser: The lady didn't complete it. Mrs. Lytle: The form should be completed. What does she want it reduced to? Mr. Heuser: She wants it reduced to $4,000. Mrs. Papadopoulos: What about the taxes. Mr. Heuser: Your taxes are the same as they were in 1978. Mrs. Papadopoulos: But I have a house that. Mr. Heuser: Yes, but there has been no increase in your base, and there has been no increase in its evaluation. When did you buy it? Mrs. Papadopoulos: 1973. Mr. Heuser: 1973. It was valued at $24,000. Mrs. Papadopoulos: Doesn't that seem too much? Mr. Heuser: Tha rate was lower. Mrs. Papadopoulos: They doubled. Mrs. Lytle: Look at your tax bill, left-hand side, for your school tax. And that is your biggest bill. Don't let that. Mrs. Papadopoulos: How much of that is on the tax bill. Mr. Heuser: About 60% of the tax bill. Mrs. Papadopoulos: Yes, but we haven't done anything to the house. Mrs. Lytle: There is nothing we can do about that. You should attend the school board meetings and see what goes on. Mr. Heuser: The Town has no control over it. And I might point out that the $6,000 evaluation has remained static since 1973. Any increase you got in taxes was the rate of a $1,000 based primarily on school taxes. That again, you can attend the school board meetings, you can work it any way, but I don't know how far you could get. That's your prerogative. Basically, I want to be honest with you I don't think there any basis at this point for us to .. consider it for a change. We really doh1t .have any basis; there hasn't ,been any change. The evaluation remained the same, the evalu- ation or anything else. I mean you haven't had any increase in your assessed valuation. Mrs. Papadopoulos: No increase in assessed value? We thought it should be lowered. 19 • i Mrs. Lytle: In most instances, it's the schools that cause the increase. Mrs. Papadopoulos: Yes, but the $6,000 that I am assessed at now, you see, we thought we could have the assessment lowered. Mr. Heuser: It's typical to lower the assessments once it's based on the Town formula. But it hasn't changed. Ok? Mrs. Papadopoulos: Ok, thank you. #3-A.Joanne M. Burr NW1i1 P.O. Box 44, Fishers Island, NY 06390. Property located at: Private Road, Fishers Island, Town of Southold. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 3. Joanne M. Burrwall, Post Office Box 44, Fishers Island, New York. Mr. Heuser: You have two pieces of property, is that right folks? Mrs. Burr-WdEL: We have one. One. Mrs. Schwicker: There are two complaints. Let's take this one first. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Mrs. Schwicker: This will be 3-A. Mr. Heuser: There will be a 3-A and a 3-B, folks. Mrs. Lytle: Well, now, wait a second. Why can't it be 3 and 42 Mr. Heuser: Well, if we do this we are going to run into trouble with the next one, the next one will be #4. We should accept it as 3A and 3B. Mr. Lytle: Ok, I see, you mean the way they numbered them. This will be 3-A. Mr. Heuser: It's an inequality basis. Based on the fact that the assessed valuation should have been reduced from $3.50 per square foot to $3.00 per square foot. Right? Mrs. BUrr"s1111-- Read that again, please. No, from $3.50 or $3.00. We want it reduced to $3.00 or $3.50. Mr. Heusers No, it doesn't read that. It says to be reduced to $3.00 to $350. You have a"to" in there. Mrs. ftr mA&h : Oh, that's my mistake. I'm sorry. It's my error. Mrs. Lytle: You want it reduced to $3.00. Mrs. ftrr-Walll;: Or $3.00. Mrs. Lytle: Or $3.00. 20 Mr. Heuser: Per square foot. This is the average pennisula values. This is all waterfront. There assessment is for $3.50 per square foot higher than the lowest assessment on the pennisula excluding Kavanaugh, who was assessed at $1,700 for land and two-family house. Mr. Jim Wall: He used to have the assessment on a square-foot rate, then they changed it the flat rate of $1,700. Mr. Heuser: We will have to get Kavanaugh's card. Mr. Kelsey? May we have Kavanaugh's card, Fishers Island? Mr. Kelsey: "C" or a "K"? Mr. Heuser: "K." Mr. Kelsey: Is the property on the pennisula? Mrs. 4at,1a17 : Yes, it is. That'd be about 53 or 54. Mr. Heuser: Of course, they're only complaining about the price, the reduc- tions. There's nothing to do with the value of it. All right, let's see Kavanugh here. Mrs. BWa Ual - We were just saying that his didn't mean anything on the square- foot basis, so. Mr. Wall: What we're talking about is the square footage of the house. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, the square footage of the house. Well, what's in the different houses? Mrs. BWa Um ! ! : We looked at that carefully, and there was no basis for the difference in mine. Mr. Heuser: He has less square footage than you have. Mr. Wall: We're not dealing with square footage. We dealing with the square foot rate that the assessors use. In other words, if there is a $1.50 for one place and use $5.50 for another, what's. Mr. Heuser: Well they used $5.00 on you. Mrs. lWalimll: I know, what we are trying to say, sir, is the only reason we included his house because if you did a check around the pennisula, his didn't even fit into the thinking at all. That's the only reason we added his. His is so out of line. Mr. Heuser: Ok, may I ask you this question, folks? I see where they have Mr. Kavanaugh at $5.00. Mr. Wall: They did. Mr. Heuser: And they have you at $5.00. 21 Mr. Wall: Past tense. Mr. Heuser: Huh? Mr. Wall: Go all the way to the bottom. Mrs. WAUVI . That's what we are trying to say. See, what his is on the bottom there, right by your hand? It's just that that was so odd that we just really made that a . We weren't comparing ourselves with him. Mr. Heuser: The house is valued at $1,700. And you have $8,700. Mrs. BWaliii a With the house. Mr. Wall: Let's go to that one. I think what I heard you say before is, you deal on $3.50 per square foot. Your appraisers? The assessors? Mr. Heuser: Yes. Mr. Wall: Ok. We find the $3.50 per square foot basis there, but then it's $4.50 with my Mrs. Lytle: But you did not add the price for construction. Mr. Heuser: No, that!s all involvedti Mrs. BW*asl i ; You can think about it. We're just trying to show you what we're. Mr. Heuser: I understand. Yes. Mrs. Wal 4a" l : We don't want to take all your time. Mr. Heuser: Ok, folks. Let me do a little arithmetic here. Mrs. Lytle: We form our opinions, but he's the one who does the accounting. He is an accountant that's why we let him do it. Mr. Heuser: Your house then with your basis would come down to $6,100 from the $700, with the $350 base. Let's get Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Kelsey? Please? Mrs. Lytle: You cannot talk to them. Mr. Heuser: Do you want to talk to Mr. Kelsey, Mrs. Lytle. Mrs. Lytle: Go ahead, you ask. You have the card. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Kelsey, we've got Fishers Island here, and these folks have shown us where the average assessed valuation per square foot is $3.50 a square foot. Mr. Kelsey: I think we should have Henry Moisa because that ii his territory. Mr. Heuser: Ok, then let's get Mr. Moisa over here. We'll give you a rest. Mr. Moisa? 22 Mr. Moisa: Yes? Mr. Heuser: Ok, Fishers Islandl The base normally over there is from what rate, because these people are gaining, which we don't want to have to dig all out. It's $3.50 per square foot. Most of the time? Mr. Moisa: Most of the time. Normally, it is a little more because a little more is involved as far as the transportation is concerned. Mr. Heuser: Oh, all right. let's leave transportation out for a second because everybody over there would have to transport anyhow. So, these rates are all, here, what they are showing me. And their rate here is $5.00. The folks are asking for a logical explanation. Mrs. Lytle: Bill, have you one of the other cards here? Mr. Heuser: We've got Kavanaugh. Mrs. BWali. : We have the copies. These are actual copies from the files. Would you like to see them? Mrs. Lytle: Yes, please. Mr. Wall: This is for a particular area on Fishers Island. The pennisula area only. That's all. It's all alike property. Mr. Moisa: Well, at the time that we did this, of course, I was told by the assessors that had worked on there before that the rate is a little higher than it is on the mainland here. Mr. Heuser: All right. But, I agree with you there. But the point is that it is not comparable with these other bases. Mr. Moisa: Well, what some of those actually are old places. There is new or anywheres near the village of that house. Mr. Heuser: All right, Then let's see. Your house was built in 19767 Mr. Pada II&I ? : Yes. Mr. Heuser: All right, then, to be fair we will hand in our decision later on. And from my knowledge over there, there are alot of old, old houses. Would any of these fall in that category? Mr. Wall: Here's one. It's fairly new, say within the last 15 years, so, I guess we can call that. Mr. Heuser: 15 years against 2 years. We're only trying to get information. Mrs. IL-till: Could we see another thing, too, on this basis? Many of these houses have been worked on inside, which means that there house newer. Their theory may be old, and so it would, we're saying that because the wood in our house happened to come out of the same time, now in 1976, it would 23 i • maybe make parts of our house 20 or 30 years old, but there are also inside sections that are brand new. There are, you know. Mr. Heuser: I can understand what you're saying. That if they refurbished the inside of the place. I'm looking for the Kavanaugh card. Who's got the Kavanaugh card? Mrs. Lytle: Do you have it? Mr. Wall: I have it, I didn't even want it. Mr. Heuser: Ok, his house was built in 1965. Mrs. &la h: 1 ; I don't know the date of that. Mrs. Lytle: In the assessor's role. Mr. Heuser: Yes, 13 years ago. Allright, this. Mr. Wall: I think it would be fair that, that's not true. This house was not built in 1965. Mr. Heuser: His next re-assessment was in 1967. Mrs. Yeah, but it has depreciated. Mr. Wall: In my own point, what I am trying to say is, that don't throw yourself off by saying the house was built in 1965 because it is much older than that. Mr. Heuser: All right, so 3-B is the same problem, folks? Mrs. 3ikT UbJ L. Similar, yes. It is that, then there is one other point to that one, that. Mr. Wall: That one is an older house. That one there we can show other lists from there. There are a couple of houses that are in the. Mr. Heuser: This is the one that you reconstructed? Mr. Wall: No, this is an addition. Mr. Heuser: Well, this is one of the advantages of this, that it was fixed up originally. Mrs. 3fttli&Ji . We brought some pictures to show you. (Board of Assessment Review review pictures and role cards.) Mr. Heuser: What it really come down to pasically. Mrs. ASa11: Could we show you something, these houses right down in here, see right in this area here? And there is new wood? I mean you can see the new wood on the outside. That's a $1.50 a square foot. That section right in there. 24 Mrs. Wall: This area right here, it is $4.50, $2.50 and $2.50 and it has depreciated 20% down on that. I'm just trying to show you what the house looked like from the exterior. Mr. Heuser: No. You haven't got a $3.50 rate on your new part. Mr. Wall: Yeah. Mrs. Wall: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: $5.00 on your old. Mrs. Wall: Here are some of the other ones, too. Where they are $3.50 and $2. Here's the other one that I was saying. This is a $1.50 a square foot. There are 3 houses in there. Mr. Heuser: There is no basement under the extension? Mrs. Wall: No. Nothing but a hole. Mr. Heuser: Well I mean, that's why you got a lower rate on that particular than you would have on the rest of the house. Mrs. Wall: It doesn't have a foundation either on the other part of the house. Mr. Moisa: May I say this. That when you take into consideration the construc- tion of a house it makes a difference whether you have a flat roof on it or you have a peak roof. That has to be taken into consideration. Mr. Heuser: All right. It's going to resolve itself around you people & complaint about the rates. I would like to dig out that sheet of paper with the list of figures. Mrs. Lytle: I have it. Mrs. Wall: Well, if we need to give them this, we cross, what we checked off You see, the other house we listed, we use as income-producing and that's just to verify our statements. This is what we send to the IRS to show how much we were making, and. Mrs. Lytle: What did we do with those forms? Mrs. Wall: No, that's your copy. Mr. Heuser: Thank you. You don't want me to keep these pictures, do you? Mrs. Wall: You may. Mr. Heuser: With your permission, Mrs. Lytle, I would give them this and ask them to fill it out immediately when they get home and mail it back to you. Mrs. Lytle: Yes, that's permissible. 25 Mr. Heuser: This is the income, the house you have income, form. You should mail it back to the Board of Assessment Review, attention Mabel Lytle. Mrs. Lytle: Here is the list. And the sooner, the better. Mr. Heuser: I would say, if you can do it tonight, you. Mr. Wall: We will fill it out this afternoon and mail it this afternoon. #3-B. Mrs. Wall: Now would you like these photographs of? Mr. Heuser: I'm going to tell you truthfully--not particularly. No. Mrs. Lytle: You don't need the Kavanaugh card? Mr. Heuser: No, we have it. We have it written down here. That's a com- parison. Mr. Heuser: What did you do, come all the way around the hoods on the ferry? Oh you did? Mrs. Wall: We have a good car. Mr. Heuser: Well, good luck. Mrs. Lytle: Thank you for coming by. Mrs. Wall: Thank you. #4. Mr. Julius Abrahams, Colonial Road, Southold, NY 11971. (Represented by Charles Abraham). Property is located at Colonial Road, Southold, New York. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 4. Julius Abraham, Southold. Mr. Heuser: Oh, you moved from? Mr. Abrahams: We still have the house. We're trying to. Mr. Heuser: I thought you sold it. Oh, yeah, because of that marina there. Mrs. Lytle: What was the name again, please? Mr. Heuser: Julius Abrahams. Mr. Abrahams: I'm Charles Abrahams. 26 Mr. Heuser: Now, over-evaluation. The gentleman claims that his assessed value was $6,300 and it's an over-evaluation of $4090-00 which means that he wants the assessor, to have the assessment be reduced to $59200. Now one thing again, I am awfully sorry to say, is you didn't fill in your comparable figures over here. Mr. Abrahams: Well I filled in and I went over this with Mr. Moisa, he went over this with me told me not to fill it in. Mr. Heuser: But you see, what has, the bases are, the value of the property per say is you might have paid for it, but, except. Mr. Abrahams: On this particular instance, I don't think that is really pertinent because the question is the assessment per square foot on what was erroneously considered a two-story. Mr. Heuser: Ok, then that, this is not made clear here. It should have been in a little more detail. Mrs. Lytle: How much did he want to have it reduced to? Mr. Heuser: $5,200. And that is based on your square footage, sir? Mr. Abrahams: Based on the square footage. The square footage in the two-story portion, which was in error, has an area which I could get for you, was found there. Mr. Heuser: Two-story is the one with the $5.00 base. And the extension has a $3.50 base. Has the extension got a basement? Mr. Abrahams: It's not an extension. There's a basement under the whole building. Part of it is used as a garage, and part of it is storage. Mr. Heuser: But it looked like an addition. Mr. Abrahams: It's a two-story. It's a new building, it was erected in 1976. It's. Mr. Heuser: It was originally built in 1964. Mrs. Lytle: No. That's the land. Mr. Heuser: Oh, yeah. 1976. And the improvement was made on the fact that your original assessment in 1956 was when it was partially completed, is that correct? Mr. Abrahams: Yes, that's correct. Mr. Heuser: And then your new assessment was made in October 8 of 1976? Now, one question. You are, I will use the word complaining, it isnat a good word, about the rate on your $5.00 on your two-story section. 27 Mr. Abrahams: My claim here, Mr. Moisa was there, just a couple of days ago to make the reinspection, and he agreed with me that, he agreed with me emphatically. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Moisa? Mr. Abrahams tells me that you investigated the property just recently about your footage charge of $5.00, and that you made a recommendation that it might be a little out of line? Mr. Moisa: Yes. Mr. Heuser: So you go along with that? Mr. Moisas That's right. Mr. Heuser: You want it reduced to what? Mr. Moisa: Comparable to-the $3.50. Mr. Heuser: Ok. That was simple. Mr. Moisa: Until the time that it is finished. Mr. Heuser: Oh, it's not completely finished yet? Mr. Moisa: Well, I mean as far as that area is concerned. Mr. Abrahams: Well, that area, we have no plans about that area. Mr. Moisa: It's a primary check. But right now we recommended $3.50. Mr. Heuser: Reduced rate from $5.00 to $3.50 on the two-story section. Mr. Moisa: Right. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Ok, Mr. Abrahams, thank you. Mrs. Lytle: Thank you for coming in. We will write you on it. #5. Harold G. Wilkens, Sr., 17205 Soundview Avenue, Southold, NY 11971. Property located at 17205 Soundview Avenue, Southold, Town of Southold. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 5. Harold G. Wilkens, 17205 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Mr. Heuser: Is that connected with this? Mr. Moisa: They've got two separate pieces of property. Mr. Heuser: Oh, two pieces? 28 • • Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: No. It's my father and I. Mr. Moisa: They are two different applications. Mr. Meuser: Who is Harold? Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: We are both Harold Wilkens. Mr. Wilkens, Sr. : He's Jr. Mrs. Lytle: Well, which one are we actually taking? Mr. Heuser: With Harold G. Wilkens, Sr. Mrs. Lytle: Sr. All right, that's No. 5. Where about is this property on Soundview Avenue? Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : West of Mt. Bueler. Mr. Heuser: You're supposed to fill out the #B. Now what you do is. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: No, I have a letter here. Mr. Heuser: Oh, then the letter tells us. Mr. Wilkens, Sr.: It's the same thing on my application. Mr. Heuser: This is over-evaluation, isn't it. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Yeah. Mrs. Lytle: In checking it, he finds that the house has been over assessed, the garage and porch since 1969, as compared with my neighbors of similar construction. One story brick veneer house and garage and concrete patio or porch. Following is the comparison of my neighbors' property. Now, have you any of the cards there? Mr. Heuser: Go ahead and read it. The main. Mrs. Lytle: Wilkens square foot $4.25, the garage is $1.13 square foot, the porch is $.50. Hagsteinburg $4.00 house a square foot. Garage a square foot $1.25. I assume they do not have a porch, then they"re not taxed on it. Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : I did not even look into it. Mrs. Lytle: Ok. Taplin, you just have a $1.25 for their garage. Mr. Wilkins, Jr.: That's right. for their garage. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, I see. These people have two houses there? Harsten's? Mr. Heuser: No. 29 Mrs. Lytle: Oh, no, I see. It's "ich." $4.00 per square foot. And there's a question mark on the porch. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Well, Bartose is behind, making it. Mr. Heuser: Wait a minute, let me get this card. Mrs. Lytle: Mr. Moisa? Mr. Heuser: Mr. Moisa, do you have a moment, please? Hensenberg, Southold. Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : Don't :you want the other two, also. There's another one, there's something else. Something else, about the Bartose's house that's built in the same time period as his. Mr. Wilkens, Sr.: 1956. My house was built, and Bartose's built before 1954. They are both brick veneer construction, they were built by the same builder, at the same time, and yet the assessment is at a higher rate than he is. Mr. Heuser: Don't go away, Mr. Moisa. Oh, I gave them the wrong name. Here it is. Barchochevich? Mr. Moisa: Barchochevich. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Now, the rest of the letter explains it. Mr. Heuser: Thank you. Don't go away. Mrs. Lytle: You might as well sit down and relax. Mr. Heuser: Where's the porch? Over the garage? Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Yeah, this is the garage. There's a porch in here, and there was a porch in here, but now that's part of the house. They did con- struction a couple of years ago, and this is all the house now. Mr. Wilkens, Sr. : Now, that house was built the same time as mine, in fact, a year before that was built, then mine followed by that, the same building and the same construction. And I'm assessed more on the house. Mr. Heuser: May I see the card, please? You've got 2,000 more square feet than that house. Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : No. We're talking abort the form that it derives at. Mr. Heuser: I understand what you're telling me. I just want to check something else. All right, he's paying $4.25. This is your territory here? Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Uh-huh. Mr. Heuser: There is a difference in the rates. 30 • i Mr. Moisa: Let me see this, please. As far as the additions are concerned on the Barchochevich properties, we have not reviewed the areas so I see that there has not been no permits, so actually we wouldn't be conscious of the fact that there was something going on there. Mr. Heuser: We've got something there. The builder didn't get a permit thew. Mr. Moisa: Somebody must have done it. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: That was done about four years ago. It's all explained in the letter here. Mr. Moisa: And it's very hard for us to go and check every parcel in the Town of Southold to see. Mr. Heuser: The question right now, Mr. Moisa, would be base footage. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: My question is, why is my tax higher than his. Mr. Heuser: $4.00 a square foot against. Mr. Moisa: All right. You're trying to ask me a question that somebody else has done, and why they did it, I cannot say. This was prior to my time being on the Board, so I can't explain somebody else's action. See that's back in 1969, that, I don't know what Mr. Wilkens is saying in 1969, and I came on in 1976, so. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Well that house was built in 1957. Mrs. Lytle: Can you bring in any information from the detail of the construc- tion. Mr. Heuser: Not particularly. No. Mrs. Lytle: Once in awhile there's a little detail in the difference in construction. Mr. Heuser: One is brick and the other is brick veneer. One has a fireplace and the other hasn't. Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : No, they both have fireplaces. Mr. Heuser: Oh, they both have fireplaces. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: The chimney is right in between here. Mrs. Lytle: The chimney doesn't necessarily mean it's a fireplace. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Well, it is a fireplace. Mr. Wilkens, Sr.: There is a fireplace in both houses. Mrs. Lytle: Do they both have hot water? 31 Mr. Heuser: One is hot air. Mrs. Lytle: Well, that is just as well. That would make a difference. It would make a big difference. It would. Mr. Heuser: All right. We'll have to take this into consideration. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: What do you mean, the difference in the existing would make a difference? Mr. Heuser: It would make a difference in the evaluation, not the rate. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Well, which would be considered the higher evaluation? Mr. Heuser: The one with hot water, would be considered a higher evaluation. Mr. Heuser: Have you made the corrections? All right, we've got it. We keep both of these cards. Ok, so now we can go on with the other one. #6. Harold G. Wilkens, Jr. and 3oyce M. Wilkens, 190 North Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971. Property located at 190 North Bayview Road, Southold, Town of Southold. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Let's see folks. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: That's the one with the land value. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, but I don't think that's what you meant. $17,500 for the land? Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : That is what I paid for it. Mr. Heuser: Oh, for the land itself? Oh, ok. I didn't realize that it was such a big piece of property. You're assessed at. Mrs. Schwicker: $1,300 for the land. Mr. Heuser: $5,200. That is your base for your land. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: No. $1,300. Mr. Heuser: No, what I mean, the value, 4 x $1,300, the base. $59200 that they assessed your land at against the $17;100 purchase. So that's on the surface that it's based. Not compared to every body. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Not compared to somebody else. Mr. Heuser: Did somebody else do something wrong over there? 32 Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: I've got a whole list, of property of compardble size and larger. Not one is assessed. Mrs. Lytle: How about the comparable location? Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: They are all within two blocks, two or three blocks. It's all the same location. In fact that is a better location than mine. Because it has private beaches, private beach rights, wide streets, everything else. It's explained in the letter there. Mr. Heuser: Do you have 3/4 acre? Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: No, I have 1/2 acre. And I find 1/2-acre lots as loin as $500. Of better quality. Mr. Heuser: We will have to digest this when we have our meeting. Ok. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: I've put a lot of work into it. Mr. Heuser: You sure did. Mn. Vilkens Jr-.This is all of the lots within a 1/4-mile or so. Mr. Heuser: Are you familiar with that area? Mr. Moisa: Yes, sir. Mr. Heuser: Do you have any comments to make to Mrs. Lytle while you're sitting here about the comparable value of the land here? Mr. Moisa: This piece of. property is a split, portion piece of the original, because the piece was cut in half. The original assessment on it was $2,500. One piece was sold, or they improved on it or put a dwelling on it, the original portion was $1,300 with the dwelling on it, and the remaining which was left vacant land at the time was made at $1,200. And now it's assessed at $19300 because the dwelling has been put on the piece of property. We're in a situation here again that we just do not have the time to make comparables when we take the work of previous assessments, you see, made by previous people, so we held the assessment at the state of prices there because of the original assessment on our value. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: I don't have a regular straight piece of property. I've got a piece that goes out on a point there that is practically useless. It's not a rectangular or a square piece of property. Mrs. Lytle: Do you have a picture? Mr. Wilkens, Jr: No. But if you have a piece of paper I can give you a lay-out of it. Mr. Moisa: It would be on the map. 33 0 0 Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: No, it's not on the map. Basically,. Mr. Heuser: Oh, you want your land to be reduced to $500 now. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Compared on what I find. Mr. Heuser: As comparable to the average of the others. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: The others are also much larger pieces of property. Mr. Heuser: 5.2, 5.19 5.7. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: This piece is behind me on the next block. This piece is a corner lot, $800. It's a square piece of property. These are all regular-shaped pieces of property which mine is not. This is the shape of my property in here. And this becomes totally useless land up here. Mr. Heuser: This is a moot question. Please do not misunderstand me. This land is the same piece of land I have of mine in Mattituck. I've got 150' on the road and 75' in the back, yet I had to pay for the area. Do you understand my point? Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Yeah. But it isn't a rectangular or square piece of property worth more? Mr. Heuser: Area-wise. Mr. Moisa: You would take just the road-frontage into consideration. Mr. Heuser: I do not understand the point you are considering. Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : Because to me, if you want to compare this piece with the front piece of property here that is also a half an acre, which is a square piece of property, it is valued at $800. Right behind me is a .6 of an acre for $900. Now, I can't see any comparison. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, I know. It was just a matter of discussion. Mr. Wilkens, Jr. : And in all of these lots in here, some of which are .605 of an acre, $900. Here's a piece that overlooks the water for $1,100, and it's 25% larger than mine. Now there is another one here just spelled out in words here, the Litchhult house, which was built almost previous to mine, has 25% more property which is .624 of an acre and is valued at $1,000. It's a regular-shaped piece of property on a quiet street. Mr. Heuser: Ok, sir. We shall weigh every part of your discussions, both of you gentlemen. Mrs. Lytle: We will write you of our decision. Mr. Wilkens, Jr.: Thank you very much. 34 V. Mr. and Mrs. James W.B. Benkard, Private Road, Fishers Island, NY 06390. Property located at Private Road, Fishers Island, Town of Southold. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 7. Mr. and Mrs. James W.B. Benkard, Fishers Island. Mr. Heuser: Basically, you meant to check off inequality? Mr. Benkard: No. No, I did not. I meant to check off over-evaluation. Mr. Heuser: Will you check it off, please? Mr. Benkard: Ok. You have the assessed valuation of $28,300, and I have a little asterick there which converts to an alleged market value of $230,000. I was under the impression that you were using the County-wide rate of 25%. Perhaps you could tell us why the rate of 25% is used instead of the 12.8 percent. Mrs. Lytle: That was established many years ago, and everybody in the Town has been based on this rate of 25% of what the market value was at 1965- 1970. Mr. Benkard: I just wanted the basis for it. Why is the equalization rate in Southold twice what it is in the County? Mrs. Lytle: 25% is not an equalization rate. 25% is the percentage they use in arithmeticiau.. Mr. Benkard: But it works out to be the same thing. You take the market value and you apply. Perhaps in this very helpful book that you hand out, page 2, what is an equalization rate. Then it gives to you the formula. My house is worth such and such, the equalization rate is, and you take the percentage. I assume what you are doing is simply taking 25%, taking 25% of what you believe is the market value. My question is why is 25% used here, and 12.2% used in the rest of the County? I understand you've done it those years, I was just wondering what the basis for it was. Mrs. Lytle: Well, you see, that equalization rate changes every year in every place in the State. If you use that equalization rate, it changes every year. You would have to be changed every year, too. So we take a set valued figure and everybody is on that basis. The equalization rate only applies, being different each year, to the schools. Mr. Benkard: I see. Then are the school taxes in Southold approximately twice as much as they are in the rest of Suffolk County? I'm trying to see why. Mr. Heuser: We all get various bases. Mr. Benkard: I understand, but why do you tax 25% when your tentative rate is 12.287 35 Mrs. Lytle: Because that has been re-established. Mr. Benkard: Yeah, but what is the basis for it? I'm not trying to make a federal case out of it, it's just that it ends up being taxed twice. Mrs. Lytle: Well, no. Mr. Emmit: Well, how does one avoid, that conclusion though? I mean, if you're basing your tax rate at 25% and the equalization rate is 12.28%, it's roughly half of 25%. Mr. Benkard: Let's strike the word equalization entirely. Your tax rate of 25%, the tax rate for the rest of the County of Suffolk. You're, ok, strike the word equalization rate entirely, but the effective tax rate for Southold is 25%, and it appears to be for the rest of the County of Suffolk about half that. That's my problem. Mr. Heuser: Would you again raise that question to Mrs. Lytle? Mrs. Lytle: The property is assessed at a higher value than you do. Mr. Heuser: So that our tax assessor can answer you? Address it to the proper person. Mr. Benkard: I certainly will. Our question was, we understand that the equalization rate, or let us call it the tax rate for the rest of the County of Suffolk is in the range of 12 or 13%. The average tax rate here, if you will, if one of you who appraise the equalization, is 25%. We were wondering why the effective tax rate in the Town of Southold is twice what it is in the rest of Suffolk County. Mr. Kelsey: The equalization rate will be found to be 25%, and they be proved to be modifying right now and depending on the legal fees, in effect probably 1980-1981 there. Mrs. Lytle: But in 1980-1981 will not be all 100%. But I don't think that answers the. Mr. Heuser: The question that Mr. Benkard has made is, this 12.28% that they put in there for the Town of Southold is not a comparable with what you people use in the 25% basis. His question was very well put, is why is the variance between that 12.28% and the 25%. If you use the formula that was in the paper the other day, I think that threw everything out, everybody that really didn't know what they were doing. Including us. Mr. Kelsey: In fact you may find alot of them under-assessed. Mr. Heuser: Well, all right. But the question is where does this base of 25% of the market value arrive, it has been established for years. 1960-1965, in that era, and we do not find the equalization rate, it is not mandatory for the assessors to use it. 36 Mr. Benkard: But, don't the assessors have to use an equivalent rate? Mr. Lytle: May I attempt to try to clarify this. I don't think on the basis of what little knowledge I have knowing people in Huntington, you know people elsewhere. This 12% is the base of what they figure the value of the house is much higher than what we do here. You back and ask anybody that you know in the Huntington here. They're only paying the small percentage on the value of their house, but the house is valued at a much higher price than we do here. Mr. Emmit: Well that would be the case if the 12.28% equalization rate was applied. But what I also don't understand is, how if the State says that the Town of Southold's equalization rate is 12.28% would be the effective equalization rate for the Town of Southold, how can you be assessing on a 25% basis. Mrs. Lytle: There's no compulsion to use that. That only is used with the school's rate. Mr. Heuser: It is not mandatory. Mr. Emmit: I know that. But if you taxing on the basis, or, if you were assessing on the 25%, then you would end up with an equalization rate that would be closer to 25% than 12.28%, so I don't know how they get the 12.28 at all. Either the assessors. Mrs. Lytle: I'm not going to attempt to explain what the State, how the State comes to each year juat to get the equalization rate. I read it and I think I understand it, but I'm not going to try to explain it to you, gentlemen, it would take me all over the juncture. This is handed down by the State, every area is difference, but that strictly is for the school taxes. The schools use that. Mr. Benkard: That's exactly. I asked whether our school's expenses of taxes in Southold are twice what they are in other areas? Mrs. Lytle: No. They are in some places. Mr. Heuser: They're 60% of your tax bill. Mr. Benkard: I know. But they are high all over Long Island. Mrs. Lytle: In other words, you're complaining that we use the 25%? It brings it down lower? Mr. Benkard: We just didn't understand why, we looked up here and it said what is an equalization rate, and you see this lovely formula, and all of that, and then we find you are not using the equalization rate. I think it is a little misleading. Mr. Heuser: We have a legal ruling, we have a legal opinion to use the 25% basis on fair market value. 37 Mr. Benkard: And your justification here to this is the fair market value here is lower than in other areas? Mrs. Lytle: If you go back into Nassau County and buy a house, you know that a comparative house costs a heck of alot more. Mr. Benkard: Than in the Town of Southold. Mr. Heuser: I understand it to be corrected now, and I'm asking Mr. Kelsey to correct me, alot of their base is based on 1965 and up re-produced, or re-production costs, construction costs. Mr. Benkard: We're talking market value. Mr. Heuser: No, but the market value is established on maybe a 1965-1968 basis at that time. Construction costs. Mr. Benkard: I don't want to keep you here a long time, I understand, you know, it's been a good dialogue. I would be very interested to see the legal opinion that the 25% was arrived. I guess I can get that from Mr. Tasker. But, let's put that aside for the moment. Mrs. Lytle: You want to get the legal opinion? Mr. Benkard: My friend can get it from Mr. Tasker. Mrs. Lytle: You should call, Riverhead, the Real Property Tax Service, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Kelsey: Mr. Ryan, 727-4700. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, thank you. Mr. Benkard: Ok, the second point is, we've been talking about market value. It turns out now that Mr. Emmit and I are in the same position. He's paying $7,000. in taxes on a house which. Mr. Heuser: Let's, we concluded your part then? Mr. Benkard: Oh, no. No. Mr. Heuser: Well, let's stick to your case. Mr. Benkard: Ok, I'm paying $6,000 in taxes on a house that cost me $75,000, and about $5;000-$10,000 furniture. Now, the market value of my house, which was, I would think, to be equal to the price that I could get from a willing buyer or seller. That's what page 4 of your booklet says. That market value is the amount of money you received for your property. Assuming that you wish to sell it under normal circumstances. But even if you take the 25% rate, that means. Mr. Heuser: Your home is up to $113,000. 38 0 0 Mr. Benkard: Ok, now, I'm just trying to find the basis for the con- clusions that the market value of my house is $113.,000 when I paid $70,000 for it last year. Mr. Heuser: That's a good question. I guess we better get Henry Moisa over here. Mr. Kelsey: Where is the property? Mr. Heuser Fishers Island. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Moisa, I guess we need you for one minute. Mrs. Lytle: You know, this could have been something like, we had two last year. They could have been good buys. Mr. Benkard: It was sold for $60,000-$65,000 a year before I bought it. Mr. Heuser: Will you address your question again, please, to Mrs. Lytle? Mr. Benkard: Right. My question is, I understand from your booklet that was handed out to everybody, that you take a tax rate, and now I understand it is 25%, not the 12.28`/,, and you apply that against the market value of the property, which is defined as the amount of money you would receive for your property if you wished to sell it at that cost. A willing buyer, a willing seller. Now, if you take that and compute in our taxes, it comes out to an assumed market value given me by the Board of Assessor of $115,000. Now, I bought that house last year for $75,000, and bought it furnished, and I can't estimate the amount of furniture, but it was about $5,000-$10,000. It was previously sold the year before unfurnished for $60,000. I can give you numbersof comparable sales, if you will, in the area, which the Board reviewed, as the fair market value of my house is, does not even approach that $115,000. And I was wondering what the basis for this was. Mr. Heuser: I'm gonna direct this to you. This last assessed valuation was 1970. $28,300. That's still on the books. Mr. Moisa: That's right. That was based on 25% of construction costs. Mr. Heuser: Which is $113,000. Mr. Moisa: In our assessments, we do not take any sales into consideration. Mr. Benkard: Then we are dealing in a different view of this. Mr. Emmit: It's an entirely different concept. Mr. Benkard: Because construction costs is something that is only used, and there are alot of legal summations for this, when there is no other way of finding fair market value. Now, Fishers Island has had about 10 or 15 properties sold in the last 3 or 4 years out there, and by the way, 39 that's not what this booklet says. The market value is the buyer- willing buyer-seller. It's not construction costs. I might also say the house is 50 years old. I wouldn't even begin to accept the construction costs. That's a pretty fundamental Town subsidy. Mr. Moisa: Up until now, the assessment have been based on some previously stated, on the construction costs. And we're still carrying it through. If we deviate .from that, it means that we would have to do the whole Town over. Mr. Benkard: Can I ask, Madame Lytle, the assessor, through you, do you take the depreciation into consideration? Mr. Moisa: Yes. Mr. Benkard: The house is 50 years old. Mr. Heuser: It has been modernized. Mr. Benkard: Not that much. Oh, you have new. electric wiring in it and some plumbing, it's a good house. That's the way it was made. Birt quite a portion that I find is the taxing identification, if you will, Now I'm glad we came because now we know you don't determine fair market value by the way that the law says. Mr. Heuser: Again, it is, how can, several can be repetitious, but that dog-done thing can throw so many curves at a person and it can be confusing. Mr. Benkard Do you see the thing that is being turned at us now. You are assessing us 25% instead of the 12.85, you're taking fractions instead of fair market value. Are we getting hit both ways? Mrs. Lytle: We must say that we've almost. Mr. Benkard: You were quite right. You said that the recently justified, the 25%, was because you value fair mlirket value lower. Mr. Heuser: This statement of Mr. :Moisa's is based on the old assessment. It has nothing to do with your current assessments. Mrs. Lytle: No, that's what I mean. Mr. Benkard: However it was done, it seems wrong. Mr. Heuser: You did get a, they did give you a 15% depreciation in this property. Mr. Benkard: After 50 years? My wife would be delighted to hear that. But I mean. Mr. Emmit: Don't forget, too, I have a house that's 50 years old. And there was no depreciation. 40 Mr. Benkard: It's a fundamental concept. On both sides. Mr. Heuser: You are really saying that the assessment, assessment being the assessed value, right, should be $10,0007 Mr. Benkard: I don't. It depends. If you take the 25% factor. Mr. Heuser: And that would bring you up to $40,000. Mr. Benkard: And you assume the market value of this as $70,000, then you would take 1/4 of $70,000 and you'd bring it down to $17,500. Mr. Heuser: Correct. Mr. Benkard: That's based on the market value. I don't want to test this thing in Courts and all this, but it does seem to be unfair to be hit both ways on the 25% and also on construction costs rather than fair market value. Mr. Heuser: All right. I'll try to pose it, make it a fair question. $40,000 comparable to a $70,000 purchase two years ago on Fishers Island would be basically your lower assessment. Mr. Benkard: Where did you get the $40,000? I'm sorry. Mr. Heuser: The $10,000 that you want it reduced to. F Mr. Benkard: I'm thinking really in terms of my. Mr. Emmit: That that application was filed or based on that 12.28`x. Mr. Benkard: Based on that 12.28. Mrs. Lytle: That's what should have been the 25%. Mr. Heuser: So, you are in a position to change that figure? Mr. Benkard: Yes, I'll change it. I think we've reached some accomoda- tions. Mr. Heuser: All right, so that it is in your writing, change, make it to what you think you'd like it, to the $10,000. Mr. Benkard: We're now talking about the 25%. The only reason I'm changing this is really in the spirit of compromise. What we're now doing is applying, if you will, a fair market value on a set of con- structions. If that's the case, I would go to $1,700. Now, again, I'm doing this, if you will, so we're negotiating, because I still think it's an argument, a pretty good one. But I can see your point. You lived with that point for 10 years, or more than that. We're just trying to reach a point. If you think it's only fair to go by 41 fair market value, then. Mr. Heuser: All right. Have you changed your copies, sir? Mr. Benkard: No. Yes, I did. Mr. Heuser: Are you finished with your point? Mrs. Lytle: Ok, what we do, we sit again, make a final decision and we notify you by mail . #8-A. Grenville T. Emmet III and Patricia B. Emmet, P.O. Box 131, Fishers Island, NY 96390. Property located at Fishers Island, Town of Southold. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 8. Grenville T. Emmet, III and Patricia B. Emmet, Post Office Box 131, Fishers Island. Mr. Heuser: Get the card. Mr. Emmet: As Mr. Benkart said, this, we are precisely the same. Mr. Heuser: Do you have two pieces of property, Mr. Emmet? Mr. Emmet: There are two lots, and they're both adjoining, they actually form one property. Mrs. Lytle: Do they have two separate tax bills? Mr. Emmet: Yes. I was advised by Mr. Sherwood to separate. Mr. Heuser: Oh. We have two forms here. Mrs. Schwicker: 8-A here. Mr. Emmet: You got two forms together, and I've got a statement at the rear which basically summarizes on behalf of both. Mrs. Schwicker: 8-A is lot #1000-7-5-4. Mrs. Lytle: Well, we've got the equalization rate again. Mr. Emmet: We were both here under the supposition that was what you were using. Mrs. Lytle: Well. I don't know. Mr. Heuser: Well, on both of these here, I don't find the attached statement 42 0 0 Mr. Emmet: It should be the last two pages. Mrs. Lytle: Yes, it's the last two pages. Thank you. Mr. Heuser: Oh, yes. Do you want to look this over for a minute. I've got a give an answer to Mr. Martocchia's question from before. I'll be right back. (Mr. Heuser now leaves the room for a few minutes.) Mrs. Lytle: Ok. To what this boils down to, you want a reduction on the other house? Mr. Emmet: On the parcel, principally on the parcel that has the house on it. Yes. Mrs. Lytle: Well, let's see. Claims an allowance of 15% depreciation on. Mr. Emmet: No, what I am commenting on here is, Mr. Benkard, my friend here, as he's mentioned, has had a 15% depreciation allowed on his residence, the similar residence that I've got has had no depreciation allowed on it by the assessor's office. Mrs. Lytle: Has this residence been kept up? Mr. Emmet: Yes It's the same, almost comparable-type house. Mrs. Lytle: Do you have a farm? Mr. Robb: No, that's the other one, that's the second piece. This is the first piece here. That's the second piece. Mrs. Lytle: Because we don't have the. Mr. Robb: This is just the land. Mrs. Lytle: We don't have, do you have the neighbor's reduced rate. Mr. Emmet: The neighbors, ma'am? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, the one who's house had the reduced. Mr. Benkard:Oh, that. This is assuming, of course, that construction is even relevant. The one who depreciated 15% is me, Benkard. Mrs. Schwicker: This is the property we are talking about right now. Mr. Heuser: Who's got Benkard's file. Mrs. Lytle: No, I haven't. I don't think we have it. That's the question. That is why I asked what one he's on, and I don't think we have the card. Mrs. Schwicker: Mr. Benkard was No. 7. 43 Mr. Heuser: Yeah, we completed him. In fact, we asked if he was finished. Mrs. Lytle: We don't have the card. Mr. Heuser: You've got Benkard over here someplace because I passed it over when I asked Mr. Benkard if we were finished. Mr. Emmet: There's the card. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but this isn't the house you're getting the depreciation on. Mr. Heuser: No, this goes in the other file. Mrs. Lytle: The depreciation one. What's the name of the house you get depreciation on. Mr. Emmet: That one. This has been depreciated, right? Mrs. Lytle: Oh, then that's the one we're through. Mr. Heuser: All right. Turn this other card over. Mrs. Schwicker: Benkard is the neighbor. We're using this one as a comparison. We're on, this first one here is the piece of property, there is no house on that one. And that's the one we want right now. That's 8-A. Mr. Emmet: Just the land. Mrs. Schwicker: Right, just the land. Mr. Heuser: The full value of the property is $1,600. Mrs. Schwicker: He wants a reduction to $534, of $534. Mr. Heuser: What were your taxes, sir? Mr. Emmet: The total taxes on both lots. Mr. Heuser: No, I mean this particular lot. The one on the land. Mr. Emmet: ThatOs got to be a rather irrelevant amount though. Mrs. Schwicker: You're saying that the full market value of the property is $4,348? Mr. Emmet: That's right. Again, that is based on that formula, the 12.28 equalization rate. Mr. Heuser: You're valued at $2,1167 Your land. Mr. Emmet: $2,100. Mrs. Schwicker: Yeah, they rounded it off to $2,100. 44 Mr. Heuser: Ok, and since 1963. Mrs. Schwicker: And that hasn't changed. Since 1963. Mr. Heuser: But, in fact, I try to be fair when I say, yours is, regardless of what the claim is, the land for 15 years did increase in value. Mr. Emmet: That's unimproved land. Mrs. Schwicker: That doesn't make any difference. Mr. Heuser: The land has gone up in our area. Mr. Emmet: Well, I have just bought the property. I've just purchased in March of this year, or April, these two lots. Mrs. Schwicker: The land itself has increased in value since 1953 when it was last assessed. Understand? Mr. Heuser: Is that the piece of land that you paid $4,000 for? Mr. Emmet: Yeah. Mrs. Lytle: Would you sell it for $4,000? Mr. Emmet: Well, that's what I paid for it. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but you wouldn't sell it for $4,000. Mr. Emmet: Well, nobody, this property has been on the market for 3 years before I bought it, and no one else would be willing to pay the price what I paid for it. Mrs. Lytle: Well, that was back some years ago. Mr. Emmet: It was this year, it was last year, it was the year before. Mrs. Lytle: Do I understand that you want a reduction in the land, too? I thought it was the house. Mr. Emmet: Well, what I was really looking, talking about was the house. Yes. Mr. Sherwood said I should file this in the form of two separates, forms, because of their being two separate lots. Mr. Heuser: What was your feeling on the land? You know because of that 12.28, all of these figures are not relevant. So we come back now to full value of the property in your opinion is what? Mr. Emmet: $8,200. Mr. Heuser: For this lot. Just that lot. $8,200? So you're changing it to $892001 That would make it, valued at $2,100? The tail basis, at 25%. 45 Mr. Emmet: Oh, I see. No, I think it is wrong. Mr. Heuser: $2,050. Mr. Emmet: You're saying this should be $1,0827 Mr. Heuser: No. $8,200 you said it was worth. Mr. Emmet: No, the market value is to be based on what I paid for it. $4,348. Mr. Heuser: Well, why did you mention to me $8,200, sir? Mr. Emmet: I made a mistake. Mr. Benkard: He is going the wrong way. Mrs. Lytle: Oh. Mr. Emmet: So, you see, I'm saying the assessed value should be $1,082 instead of $2,100. Mr. Heuser: You're bringing it down to $49000. Your purchase price? Mr. Emmet: That's what is was. That's with the 25%. Mr. Heuser: Did you purchase it in 1977, sir? Mr. Emmet: It was April of 1978. Mr. Heuser: Someone purchased it in. Mr. Emmet: Well, it was transferred between former husband and wife, I think, between themselves. From one to the other. Mr. Heuser: Did you build a house on that later then? Mrs. Lytle: No. Mrs. Schwicker: It was purchased together with the original property with the house on it. A combined purchase. Mr. Heuser: So you purchased it for $4,000. Mr. Emmet: Right. Just the land. The statement really explains the whole thing. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, but it's easier than. And you would like a reduction of what on that, sir? Mr. Emmet: The assessed value of $1,082. 46 Mrs. Lytle: How would you described that piece of property? Mr. Emmet: Unimproved. Woodland. Mrs. Lytle: All woodland? Mr. Emmet: Yes, all. Mr. Heuser: It's nice. Mr. Emmet: You have the other card which is the other lot. Mrs. Schwicker: You don't have the right one. Mrs. Lytle: We have one that has tillable land on it. Mr. Emmet: That up, that's on the lot that has the house on it. Mr. Heuser: Ok, let's look at 8-B. Ok, this is the new one. While we're getting organized, or disorganized, how about Mr. Benkard's file. Is that Mr. Benkard, put his file in there. Mrs. Schwicker: Yeah, that was Mr. Benkard. 8-B. Grenville T. Emmet III and Patricia B. Emmet, Fishers Island. Property located at Fishers Island. 1000-11-1-1. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 8-B. Grenville T. Emmet III and Patricia B. Emmet, Fishers Island. Description of property, 1000-11-1-1. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Full market value is. Mr. Emmet: On this portions $60,652. Mr. Heuser: You're assessed at $299300. They assessed the land in 1970. Mr. Emmet: I am being assessed for this particular parcel, would be $1179200. Actually, today it's $60,652. Mr. Heuser: I also don't understand. There's something been done wrong with the property out that. Now that property was valued at $24,000 in 1969. So it was valued at about $100,000 in 1969. Mr. Benkard: Do you know what they do, they go out there, see how much it would cost to build exactly the same house again. No hody would do it. That's why the fair market value was considerably. alot less construction. Mr. Heuser: All right, $29,300 any how. And let's forget the formula now. You want to change the full market value to what? 47 Mr. Emmet: No. I want the full market value to remain the same. Mr. Heuser: The $60,652. Ok. Mr. Emmet: I want to charge the, the complainant believes the assessment should be reduced to -- that figure I'll change. Mr. Heuser: That $7,448? Mr. Emmet: Yeah, I'll change that figure to $15,163. Based on your 25%. And then the next line. Mr. Heuser: Then we change the next line again to same. Mr. Emmet: Right. Mrs. Lytle: There's no date on this as to when that new garage was put on. Do you see anything here? Mr. Heuser: I think it's on here. Mrs. Lytle: Did you anything to? Mr. Emmet: No. We haven't added anything. All of this was on prior to. Mr. Heuser: 1959. I think so. Mr. Benkard: All of the building are prior to the last. Mr. Heuser: You have a nice looking house there. Mr. Emmet: Considering. Mr. Heuser: So, we come down to an assessed value of $29,300 and would like it reduced to $15,163. Mr. Emmet: $15,163. Mr. Heuser: Based on the purchase price, right? Mr. Emmet: Right. Mrs. Lytle: You want it reduced to $15,153? Mr. Emmet: 163. Mrs. Schwicker: $15,163, from total assessed valuation. Mr. Emmet: I bought two lots together, jointly it cost $65,000. Mr. Heuser: So it includes that other lotl Mr. Emmet: That's why the other lot has a value of $49000.00. I've divided, based on the equal land. 48 0 0 Mrs. Schwicker: It was a combined purchase but there are different deeds. Mr. Heuser: Putting it down this way, say you pay $69,0007 Mr. Emmet: $659000. Mrs. Schwicker: $659000. Mr. Heuser: But you didn't take the $4,000 off. Mr. Emmet: The market value of this one is $60,000, and the other one is is $4,000. Mrs. Schwicker: They are adjacent parcels. $659000 for the house, this one here and the adjacent land. Mrs. Lytle: So why do they have a separate? Mr. Emmet: Because it's two deeds, that's why. Mr. Heuser: You purchased the land for $4,000, so it would bring the house down to $61,000. Mr. Emmet: Yeah, but, I mean, the numbers are $60,652 for the house and $4,348. Mr. Heuser: I mean you paid $61,000 for one piece and $4,000 for the other. Mr. Emmet: Yeah. Mrs. Lytle: Within, I hope, a week's time you will each get a letter. Mr. Heuser: Thank you. Have a nice trip back. Mr. Emmet: Thanks for your time. �r #9. Joseph T. Halligan and wife, 92-78 Winchester Boulevard, Queens Village, NY. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 9. Joseph T. Halligan and wife, 92-78 Winchester Boulevard, Queens Village. Mr. Heuser: He says inequality. Oh here's that darn 12.28. Mr. Halligan: I took that from what the tax commission said. You don't have any equalization rate? Mr. Heuser: No, we use the 25%. All right, you purchased it for $25,0007 Correct? Mr. Halligan: Right, it wasn't a free deal. My wife wanted to buy it and he wanted to sell it, so that's why it's that. 49 Mr. Heuser: It was assessed today at $24,500. Mr. Halligan: No, sir. Mr. Heuser: Well, I mean, basically, I'm building it up from $6,100 and multiplying it by 4. $24,500. Correct, sir? Mr. Halligan: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: All right, you wish, meaning both of us together, to change your figures? Full market value of the property? Mr. Halligan: It's all right. Mr. Heuser: And the complainant says the assessment should be reduced to what? Mr. Halligan: $3,500. Mr. Heuser: Based on this 12.28 formula? Mr. Halligan: Based on the equalization rate. Mr. Heuser: Not on the 25%. Mr. Halligan: Here's my argument. I had two cottages, they are all over 60 years of age, I presume, because that's when he built them around 1910, 1920, by a man named Baldwin, and then he subdivided his property, and these two cottages were unimproved. There was no heat and we just had water in both, that's about all they had. This year I spent $8,000 both, they filed a permit, and it was to repair the inside of the premises, and the roof was caving in so we put a new roof on, and the other $4,000 went to the two bedrooms, to this here. Mr. Heuser: Compared to what you did in 1978, they increased you $2,000 on $8,000, and that's what you spent? Mr. Halligan: I spent on much of this is. Mr. Heuser: Plus what your labor and costs. Mr. Halligan: That was free. Gene Jacobs did the filing of the permits and he did the two bedrooms, but I did this. Mr. Heuser: You purchased it for $2,500? Mr. Halligan: $25,000. Mr. Heuser: And you added $8,000? Correct. Mr. Halligan: Well, I didn't add $8,000. I added it on top of $500.00. Mr. Heuser: $4,000 on the extra bedrooms and $4,000 for R & R. 50 0 • Mr. Heuser: Would you concur if you were to put $8,000 on that? Mr. Halligan: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: $8,000 improvements. Mr. Heuser: Ok, now we're getting down to the point of the matter. The only thing important is that $4,000, Mr. Halligan. Mrs. Lytle: Uh, may I interrupt for half a second? I'm just wondering what time we should break for lunch. It's after 12:00 already. Mr. Heuser: I would say that it would be best to go home and be back at 1:00? Mrs. Lytle: We will finish this later. Mrs.Meo, from the audience: Oh, no, we have to go back to the city. Mrs. Lytle: I would like to announce, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it's just 12:00, we will finish this later. Mr. Mao: Ms, please. It's only a quarter of. And I have to get back to the city. I took the day off to get down here. Mr. Heuser: What number are you? Mr. Meo: Next. Please, I beg of you. Don't let me hang around here. Mrs. Meo: He took the day off. Mr. Heuser: All right. Mrs. Lytle: We will re-sit at 1:00. Mr. Heuser: I think this would basically increase the value of your property. Mr. Halligan: I don't think it does because we bought this, it should be on the Form. There was no heat and one was just built on logs. The other one was built on cinder blocks, the one we live in now. And that was 50 years ago, and there was no depreciation ever. I knew there was no depreciation before this but I didn't know how to protest. Mrs. Lytle: Ok. We will write you within a week. Ok. We're going to take one more case. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Go ahead. I'll be back in a minute. I've got to take my water pills. �'crc�'csYsY:'c 51 0 • sY�rlc�'c�Ys`c #10. James P. Meo, 1915 Lake Drive, Southold, NY 11971. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 10. James P. Meo, 1915 Lake Drive, Southold. Mr. Meo: I didn't fill out anything there and I have a reason for that. Mrs. Lytle: It's incomplete? Mr. Meo: It's incomplete because I didn't know. Mrs. Lytle: Just a second. You have to sign that before we listen to you. Mrs. Schwicker: There's nothing on it at all. Mrs. Lytle: If there's nothing on it, you'll have to fill it in. We can't hear you unless that is filled in. It's the law. Mr. Meo: Just hear me out, please. That's all I'm asking. I won't even sign it. I just want. Mrs. Lytle: If we hear you out, then you're just wasting your time and our time because we can do absolutely nothing. We don't make the rules. It's State law. You have to sign it and put down what you want. That's the law, it's not our rules. Mr. Meo: Where do I sign it, on the bottom here? Mrs. Lytle: Up at the top. (Mr. Meo signs the complaint.) Mrs. Lytle: I'll notarize it. (Mrs. Lytle signs her signature as a witness to Mr. Meo's signature.) Mrs. Lytle: You still have to give us all this other information. Why you are here, what you've got, what you want. Mrs. Schwicker: We have to know what your complaint is. Whether you want it for over-evaluation, or? Mr. Heuser: Well, while we're out to lunch why don't you complete this form and we'll start right at 1:007 Mr. Meo: Can I ask just one question? It has nothing to do with what we've heard here. It's, I'm in an environmental problem, and there's nothing in that application that tells you about an environmental problem. That is the reason why I. Mrs. Lytle: Then you should go to-the Environmental Office. Mr. Meo: No, please don't send me there. Because I've been there for two years, and I've had it up to here with them. I need help from you 52 • people. You see. And it all has to stem with the property itself. Mr. Heuser: Is that the one where the water runs down? Mr. Meo: You bet! It runs through the whole damned area. Mr. Heuser: You came to us once before and we referred you to Ray Dean? Mr. Meo: You referred me to Mr. Larken, of the Environmental, and I had to go to Mr.- Larkin. And I've been bouncing around from one place to another and I need help and I want to explain to you people, please be kind enough to listen to us. That's all I'm asking. Mr. Heuser: Go ahead. Mr. Meo: Now my problem is this. I own a piece of property, I bought a piece of property of one acre, maybe .9 of an acre. It was a two-acre parcel which was divided into two one-acre parcels. Now I want to add, I built a new home in the area, I went ahead with the tactical procedure of going through the Health Department on this particular house that I just built, which was two years ago. I thought everything was cut and dry. And that's where I made my mistake. I went to the Health Department, they in turn sent all the papers back to me and said, you have to go to the Environmental because this parcel has now been part of this new law that came about, and I knew nothing about it. I went to Mr. Larkin, he came down and checked my area, and he said, you know, Mr. Meo, the only way you can do this is we'll pinpoint your home. And I have these docu- ments right here, and what my main argument is, they pinned my home in an area which I didn't wantv.to' ude because it put me next to Mrs. Fisher's house. But in order not to lose the whole shooting match there I vrent along with them. Now I'm sitting on a piece of parcel of one acre and I'm probably only living off less than a half of that piece of property. Mr. Heuser: Is there any erosion? Mr. Meo: That's not erosion. That's the part I cannot touch according to Environmental. Wetlands. Now, the adjacent property from me, the whole acre is considered wetland. Now out of the two acres, we've got there, I'm living on a half an acre. One acre doesn't belong to me, it belongs to somebody else, and half of my acre I cannot even touch. Now because of this and eye my argument because I couldn't fill in any of the stuff, what I'm arguing about is that I'm being taxed for an acre of property. I'm being taxed for an acre of property which I can't do anything with. I've got rats there, I've got. Mr. Heuser: May I ask, now you are referring to the property that your house is built on? Mr. Meo:' That's it. Absolutely. 53 • i Mr. Heuser: All right. May I suggest something? It would be advisable to have that property re-surveyed by the tax assessors and see how much of the land is tillable, to use that expression, and how much is wetlands, and make an adjustment on that basis. Mr. Meo: Now, sir, I don't know your name. Mr. Heuser: Heuser. Mr. Meo: I'm sorry. Now, the other thing, Mr. Heuser, you know, the two you just pointed out, now the driveway that was put up there was up there was put up from one high point to a low point. In other words, they just told mc 'to have a straight line for my house to come down, and because of this I've got a tremendous drop. Now my whole driveway, every year, gets washed away, and they have to come in with fill. If they would have given me the right, and they won't because I've been fighting them. Mr. Heuser: You mean on the wetlands? Mr. Meo: On the wetlands. If they would have given me the right to twist my driveway in a certain way where I could make it flattened, going down. I have this problem every year. I come with more fill. And not only that, it certainly does not help me in selling my home. When people come there and see this acre of property is wetlands, and half of my acre is wetlands, it. So what I am driving at is the value of my house isn't really what it should be either. So, I'm more or less not, I'm trying to get my point across that it's not only the land that I think I'm over taxed, and as well as the house. Mr. Lytle: I agree with it. You fill in that form. Mrs. Meo: There's nothing in there that says that. Mr. Heuser: You want a reduction? Mr. Meo: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: You have asked for a reduction, and there is a space there where you can fill in why. Mrs. Meo: All right, on our drive, if we try to fill in the part that is being washed away . Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, I'm familiar with that. I know what you mean. Mrs. Meo: We'r& not. Mrs. Lytle: I will tell you what I told everybody that comes in here with these type of problems. Buyer--beware. You should learn all this before you buy property. 54 Mr. Meo: All right, may I answer your question? I did, I was aware. I bought that piece of property 9 years ago; and if I had known what was going on--this had happened only 2 years ago. I wasn't ready to build on that piece of property because I was just. Mrs. Lytle: You took title in 19737 Mr. Meo: No, the house was built in 1973. Mrs. Lytle: It doesn't show any improvements there, that's why I took that. Mrs. Lytle: Put it all in. Mr. Heuser: Mail it back to Mrs. Lytle immediately. Mrs. Meo: To here, right? Mr. Heuser: Board of Assessment Review. Fill out the card here and leave it here. Mrs. Lytle: Take a few minutes to fill it out and give it back to us. Mr. Meo: I'm over-evaluated in the land and the house. And I'll leave it up to you people. I don't want to set figures in because I don't really know them. Mr. Heuser: Well you do know what sort of adjustment you want. Mrs. Lytle: You have to give us a figure. Or we can't act. Mr. Heuser: We have to work from your figures, sir. Mr. Meo: All right, ok. Mrs. Lytle: There are certain laws. They are set laws. It not anything we have to do with. Mr. Heuser: We couldn't say, that this is what you're entitled to, here is what you're short. Mrs. Meo: Right. But my pwint is that when we try to fill in this part off the driveway, it gets washed away. We can't go into a wetlands. Mr. Heuser: All right, let me ask you something. Could you put a retaining wall at the end of your driveway to prevent the erosion? Mr. Meo: How are we going to get out? Mr. Heuser: At the entry from the road. Where the road is. 55 Mr. Meo: In other words, I come from my house and I go right into the road. Mrs. Lytle: You mean on the side, there's a curve. Mr. Meo: The side, I can't touch the side, Mr. Heuser. When you set the white sand there, and they don't want me to touch that. My cesspool is almost on my neighbor's side. Mrs. Meo: And if you see that house and driveway now, all washed away, we can't put any fill because they'll come down and take it out. Mr. Meo: I will leave this you, but I just want you to see what our discussion and idea. If you read what it tells me right here. And that's the only reason they wanted me to build, so I said ok, I'll go along with it. And I went ahead and investigated on my neighbor's one acre, and way at the bottom, you don't have to read the top, they say you've only got 10% that can be built on, so that's dead property. And that's all wet- lands, and you can't do a thing about it. Mr. Heuser: It's a very unfortunate situation. Mrs. Lytle: There is a special rate on some wetlands. Mr. Heuser: Oh, the tax. But he's not interested in, he should get a property adjustment. For the wetlands. Mrs. Lytle: That's what I mean. Mr. Heuser: But I don't know about the house right now. Mr. Meo: You don't think anything can be done on the house, sir? Mr. Heuser: I don't know at this time. Mrs. Lytle: Do you know what we do. We sit, after we get all the minutes, and we study it all out, and check it the information, and then we will write you a letter. Mr. Meo: Ok. You just want me to put a different figure here and a different at the house, is that what we would. Mr. Heuser: Do you have the form there. Mrs. Schwicker: You've got an assessed valuation of $1,300 on the land and $5,000 on the house. Mr. Heuser: No, wait a minute. Mrs. Schwicker: They made a mistake. Mr. Heuser: They've got this thing filled out wrong. Mrs. Schwicker: It's $1,300 on the land and $5,000 on the house. Which would bring it to a total of $6,300. 56 Mr. Meo: What this? Mrs. Schwicker: It's the same thing. Mr. Heuser: It doesn't increase your total. Mrs. Schwicker: So want a reduction on the land and the property, well you will have to put the figures there that you want it reduced to. Mr. Heuser: Fill this out to your satisfaction. We will be back at 1:00; if you're still here, we will discuss it. Mr. Meo: There is one more question that I am gonna direct to you. When you say I can reduce those two figures. When you say reduce, can I reduce 1/2 and 1/2 on both? Is that being out of? Mr. Heuser: You say what you want to reduce the land and how much you want to reduce the house. Mr. Meo: But I'm trying to pick a figure that is not ridiculous. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, no, don't pick a ridiculous figure. Mrs. Meo: But we don't know. We've never been in front of a Board before. Mr. Meo: I really don't know. Mr. Heuser: Listen, we're supposed to be helpful, not critical. We're trying to help you. So your house right now is assessed at $20,000. So I don't knew what you paid for it. Mrs. Schwicker: $25,200. Mr. Heuser: $25,000 for the house. Mrs. Schwicker: Oh, yeah, for the house, right. I'm sorry. The total is $25,200. Mrs. Lytle: The house is still the same value as the location. Mr. Heuser: When did you apply for the building, sir. Mr. Meo: Well, I built it two years ago. Mr. Heuser: Oh, yeah, you built it for $25,000. Mrs. Schwicker: You're being assessed for a value of $20,000 for the house. Mr. Heuser: That was wetlands before 1969. Mrs. Meo: We were told where to put the house. 57 Mrs. Lytle: You fill in what you think, and then when we sit. Mrs. Meo: I durO1 understand what you just said. We built the house two years ago. We bought the property 5 years ago, and within the 5-year period they changed the laws. Mr. Heuser: Right, the wetlands. Mrs. Meo: Now, we were told two years ago where to put our house, and I know, I think I know what Mrs. Lytle was referring to. In other words, we should have known about this when we built the houses which we didn't. When we bought the property it had remained vacant for awhile. Mrs. Lytle: I get tired of saying, buyer-beware, but all this stuff has been in the newspapers, there are maps up in Riverhead and everything. Mrs. Meo: Yeah, but when you have a piece of property, you hold on to it. Mr. Meo: Look, we're from Brooklyn and we're trying to relocate out here, and I. Mrs. Lytle: I mean as far as the law and your protection, and all this considered. The only things that we have to take into consideration. Mr. Meo: But all I'm asking is that you people help. Mrs. Meo: You talk as if we should know all these things, and we don't. That's why we're here. Mr. Heuser: Do you have any more questions? Do want to leave and then leave the form here, or are you going to be here when we get beck? Mrs. Meo: We'll be here when you come back. Mr. Meo: Would you rather when I come back, or leave than to stay with you? Mrs. Lytle: There's nothing more that we can do on that. Mr. Heuser: After the form is filled, we can review it as the folks have to go back to Brooklyn . If they want to stay till 1:00 we'll review it then. Mr:. Meo: We want to do it that way. Mrs. Schwicker: We would rather review it the proper way now. Mr. Meo: Thank you very much. Mrs. Lytle: Let's return as close to L:00 as possible, and I realize they have a long way to travel back. 58 • Mrs. Lytle: Ok. Do you have it all filled out now? Mr. Meo: I hope it's right. Will you just check it out for me? Mr. Heuser: He changed that. The piece of property with the wetlands is $500? All right. Mrs. Meo: Yeah. Mr. Meo: Can I show you this documentation? Will they help? Mrs. Lytle: I have it all here. Mr.Meo: No, you don't have this form. I want to show you, this is the property I am talking about. This is the corner of Lake Drive. Now this is the two-acre parcel that was split. He made sure that he said that I couldn't touch within 20 feet of the zero contour line. And here's the zero cnntour line. Now if you take 20 feet back, it brings this parcel down to like this, follow that. That leaves me just an area in here. Now this whole thing is an acre of property, 1. something, .9 or something. So you can see, what I'm driving is, I've got a house way up in the corner here, with a driveway that goes straight down to the street, and since this is very high I have a really slopey driveway, and I get a wash way up to here. My first thought when I was gonna put this house was to put it way down here somewhere and have like a circular driveway. And it just didn't work out. Mr. Heuser said why can't I put a block wall at the entrance of the driveway here. How, I would have to jump the block wall to get onto the street. That wouldn't help me at all. Mrs. Schwicker: I don't think that is what he meant. Mr. Heuser: I meant to put a retaining wall at the end. To prevent your erosion. Mr. Meo: Well, according to this, he's got this 20 foot that I can't touch on the zero contour. Mr. Heuser: Let me explain. Your road runs to a certain point. If you put the retaining wall across the road at the endcf the road, would not that stop the erosion? Mr. Meo: No, well how would I get my car off. Mr. Heuser: Well this way. I thought you would come in this way. Wouldn't you come in from the :main road. Mr. Meo: Yeah, but if you look at this. Here is the way we're looking. My main road, just bear with me, is down here. Now my driveway comes down like this to my house, which is back in here. Now you're saying that there should be a retaining wall down in here? 59 • . Mr. Heuser: No, no. Where the erosion takes place., Mr. Meo: Oh, no. The erosion is, what happens is, my house is high and the slope is in this direction, so when it rains, it just washes everything out and I find everything is in the street. Mr. Heuser Reverse flow. Mr. Meo. Right. And the adjacent property from that, right here, that I refer to, in this letter, is only 10% that he can build on, is this parcel right here, and this is all wetland. And there will never be, according to this letter they got from them, they could never build on that. Mr. Heuser: Did you claim $9,500 for the land2 Mr. Meo: Yes, I did. Mrs. Lytle: Are you familiar with this? Mrs. Schwicker: Great Pond, right. Mr. Heuser: Ok, $9,500 for the land. $25,000 for the house. Totals $349500. $25,200 house and property assessment. Mrs. Schwicker: $6,300. Mr. Heuser: Oh, yeah, $6,300. Mrs. Lytle: This kind of stuff breaks your heart. Mr. Meo: It has sure broken mine. Mr. Heuser: $16,000. Base. I mean that's your base assessment. Which 25% is on the property. Assessed at $169000, with an investment, which totals $34,500.00. Your evaluation is based only, with his taxes, are $16,000 of which the $6,300 is his tax base. 1/4 of it. Right. Mrs. Lytle: Well, you've got your figures. Then we will have to figure it out. We will write and tell him our decision. Mr. Heuser: Basically, you only wish a reduction on the land? Mr. Meo: Well, I think it has. Mr. Heuser: You think your property has lost value? Mr. Meo: Oh, I know it has. Mrs.. Lytle: If he wanted to sell the house, it probably wouldn't sell because of the area here. 60 Mrs. Meo: Right. Mr. Meo: Because that whole corner is wetlands and we can't build on it. Mr. Heuser: When you say over-evaluation, you say complainant believes the assessment should be reduced to $500. That's my question? Mr. Meo: That's why I wanted you to look at it. Maybe I didn't under- stand it. I thought we were talking about land evaluation. Mr. Heuser: Yeah; that it what you put down, so basically at this point you're only asking for a reduction of $500 in the assessment. Mr. Meo: All right, so how about on the house? Can I reduce something on the house. Is there a spot there? Mr. Heuser: You should have basically included the over-evaluation at the same time. Your full market value with property, if you and I concur, is $34,5007 Mr. Meo: Right. Mr. Heuser: Do you want to put that in there? Mr. Meo: $34,500. And you cross off the $500? Mr. Heuser: $34,500. Cross off the $500. The next question was what? Mr. Meo: The amount of over-evaluation claimed. Mr. Heuser: That is up to you to say what your over-evaluation is. It is not $800 that you've got there. Mr. Meo: Then it would be considerably more. Mr. Heuser: Oh, absolutely. It's what you think the property and land is worth to you at this time. Mrs. Meo: At this time. Mr. Meo: I don't know. Mr. Heuser: Don't misunderstand. We don't know. Mrs. Lytle: We don't know. You'll have to give us some figures to work with. Mr. Meo: The amount of over-evaluation. Mr. Heuser: The amount of over-evaluation. You're claiming you only want to have it assessed at $20,0007 Mr. Meo: No. 61 Mr. Heuser: So your claim would be for $141500. In other words, what you're doing is, you're putting down what you paid for the house, and what you think you can get for it today. And you're charged $14,500 more than what you paid for it. In other words, it's what you think it's worth. Take your $259000 amount. And what's the next line. Mrs. Meo: Reduced to. Mr. Heuser: The assessment should be reduced to, an "x" amount. You write it in--the difference between $34,500 and $14,500, no, $20,000. That's $5,000, right. $20,000 and 1/4 from that. Assessment should be reduced to $5,000 instedd of $500. Mrs. Lytle: Ok. We will review this, and we will return these to you with the letter. #llrA. Murray Weitman and Phyllis Weitman, 150 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold, NY 119719 by John J. Munzel, Esq. Mrs. Lytle: Are there more than one there? Mr. Munzel: I have four. Four separate claims for four separate matters. Mr. Munzel: Are you doing the Murray Weitman, first? That's one of the tough ones. Mrs. Schwicker: This would be 11-A. Murray Weitman and Phyllis Weitman, 150 BBlue Marlin Drive, Southold. Mr. Heuser: I take it you're Mr. Munzel? Mr. Munzel: That's correct. Mrs. Lytle: Is it signed properly? Mr. Munzel: It has been signed by Murray and his wife. Mrs. Lytle: You are an attorney? Mr. Munzel: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: May I see the form with reference of the attorney? Mr. Munzel: It is on the back and also on the rider. Mrs. Lytle: They are new forms. We have to watch that. Mr. Heuser: You may start, sir. 62 0 0 Mr. Munzel: Ok. There are actually three points to be taken in the Murray Weitman matter. On the first, the property was purchased back in 1970 for $17,500. There was a building permit for construction which was to have cost $65,831 to be precise. It's our belief that the assessors took the building permit request as the value of the addition to the property. There was subsequently a dispute between Mr. Weitman and the builder, which resulted in a court order, indicating that Mr. Weitman was entitled to some $18,000 off that price. So the actual cost of the improvement was $51,0009 as of which the builder actually received as opposed to $65,000+ as indicated in the building permit. Mr. Heuser: And what did the building cost now? With reduced building costs? Mr. Munzel: $51,000, is the actual cost of construction. Mr. Heuser: The adjusted cost? Mr. Munzel: Yes, the adjusted cost of construction. Now that's problem one. You will note there under the marks it indicates building permit 19739 $65,000. Mr. Heuser: Right. This is the rider here? Mr. Munzel: Yes, the same rider on all of them. Mrs. Lytle: Is this the right card here? Mr. Heuser: That's it. Mr. Munzel: The rider is a general rider. Mrs. Lytle: Now what's the complaint? Mr. Heuser: Over-assessment. Mr. Munzel: It's over-assessed, by $14,000 in actual value. Mrs. Lytle: $51,000? Mr. Munzel: We actually paid $51,000. Mrs. Lytle: Well take a round figure. Mr. Munzel: For the improvement Mrs. Lytle: $51,000 for the improvement, and you paid $68,500. Ok. Mr. Heuser: Assessed at $40,800. Mrs. Lytle: He's under-assessed, considerably. 63 Mr. Munzel: Well, if you take your 25% figure, yes. Mrs. Lytle: That's what we're doing. Mr. Heuser: That's your base. May I? Mrs. Lytle: You see, this is what you find in every body in the Town of Southold. Mr. Munzel: I understand what you said. I am just putting on the record you don't agree with it period. And then you can discuss, and. Mr. Heuser: I would like to add to Mrs. Lytle's statement that the gentleman that was in before, Halligan, he absolutely accepted the 25%. Mr. Munzel: Well, that's his prerogative. Mr. Heuser: I mean as an out-of-town realtor. Mr. Munzel: He does what he wishes. It's his money. Mr. Heuser: The assessed evaluation of your property at this time is $40,800 and which is $10,200 net. Mrs. Lytle: Actually, it should have been $68,500 by his own statement. Mr. Munzel: Ok, point #2. Let's stay with the front part of the page. The property apparently is assessed as the same as the neigh boring properties, which are both bulkheaded properties. This particular prop- erty is not bulkheaded, nor can it be bulkheaded due to the Department of Environmental Conservation. As a result, the property is, and has been, and will be subject to further erosion so that the property is no longer 144' in depth, it's somewhat less than that. I'm guessing now, probably about 20' in depth, off-hand. Mrs. Lytle: Now, as we understand it today, the gentleman may have the property re-surveyed, he gets a new deed, and no longer owns the land underwater. No matter what happens to it, it will become public land. Mr. Munzel:/ the purposes of this, I am putting it in, for whatever it is worth. We'll worry about that at another time. Mrs. Lytle: That's his choice. It is going to cost him to have that all surveyed. And that he will no longer own that. The tides change. So he takes that risk. Mr. Munzel: Ok. Point #3, turn over to the other side of the card, you will note on the second extension, apparently in view of the second floor, it deals there with the square footage of the property at $5.00 per square foot, construction costs. According to my understanding, what appears to be two floors on a substantial portion of the building, about 280 square feet as a matter of fact, is really only one floor because of the cathedral ceiling. Although the appraisers, taken from an outside view, indicate that it is a two-story. It has a cathedral ceiling. 64 • 0 Mrs. Lytle: Does it have a stairway? Mr. Heuser: It could have a stairway to the balcony. Mr. Munzel: Oh, the balcony area, no. There's nothing at all. Mr. Heuser: Now, which extension is that? Mr. Munzel: Note that Murray made on this, he indicates 4801, 16 x 30. He indicates Mr. Heuser: All right. Mr. Munzel: I think, sir, you would have to go out and inspect the property, you know the proper procedure there, and I'm quite sure that's no problem once that's taken care of. Mr. Heuser: Where's this located? Mr. Munzel: Blue Marlin Drive, just outside of Greenport. Mr. Heuser: Blue Marlin Drive? Is that you, Mr. Moisa? Mr. Moisa: Yes, sir? Mr. Heuser: Blue Marlin Drive? Mr. Moisa: No, although I can act on it. Mr. Heuser: The contention is that, on the third line down, the extension, the 30' x something, that it is a cathedral base room, and that is not floor space. The question is whether anyone went inside and saw it. Mr. Moisa: Not to my knowledge. Mr. Munzel: We can do that--that's no problem. Mr. Heuser: Have it re-surveyed with the Assessor, take the footage off? Mrs. Lytle: We only advise that when an error has, or is possible to avoid recently. And I. Mr. Heuser: Well, someone is going to have to go and look at it. Mrs. Lytle: Do you have any plans on file? Mr. Heuser: It wouldn't show the inside. Mr. Moisa: No. This dates back to 1973, and there is a possible chance there is a plan on file. 65 • Mr. Heuser: How do you spell cathedral? Mrs. Lytle: C-a-t-h-e-d-r-a-1. Mrs. Lytle: There is no other way, no possible way of doing this? Mr. Moisa: Not through this Board: Mrs. Lytle: Not through this Board, then we'll have to do it. Mr. Heuser: Is it occupied at present? Mr. Munzel: I think it is leased right now. Mr. Heuser But it's still occupied? Mr. Munzel: Oh, yes, it's occupied. Mrs. Lytle: Would there be someone there, if the assessor went down? Mr. Munzel: Yes, probably, but you would have to check with, with a phone call before. Mrs. Lytle: Wben should they go? Mr. Munzel: Yeah, call the house. Mr. Moisa: But actually you're not going to have a decision on this right away. Mrs. Lytle: No. Mr. Moisa: But you just request this? Mrs. Lytle: Yes, but it would have to be done now and between the time we make a decision. Mr. Heuser: This is the 119- Mrs. Lytle: But my point is would they have to make an appointment to get in to see that place? Mr. Munzel: Probably it would, I think, be best to call. I know Murray himself isn't here right now, in fact I believe his wife is out here but I'm not sure. Mrs. Lytle: Is somebody there otherwise? Mr. Munzel: I believe so, yes, ma'am. Mrs. Lytle: Well, we'll try to reach them and if we don't, we won't be able to do anything about it. 66 Mr. Heuser: Is Donald King- Mr. Moisa: Do you want me to hold this card? Mrs. Lytle: Yes, you hold that so you'll know what to do. In fact, you can make your own appointment. Mr. Moisa: Yes, we'll take care of that. Mrs. Lytle: And then just let us know. Mr. Moisa: All right, very good. Mrs. Lytle: Within a week. Mr. Heuser: Do you want to take Donald G. King next? Mr. Munzel: I have two Donald G. Kings. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, but what one do you want? Mr. Munzel: I don't care. Whichever one you want. Mr. Heuser: The first one is East Marion, Rocky Point Road. Mr. Munzel: Ok, let's take that one. Mr. Heuser: They're both Rocky Point Road. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, then you're going to have to give a description. r #11-B. Donald G. King, Rocky Point Road, East Marion, NY 11939. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 11-B. Donald G. King, Rocky Point Road, East Marion. Description of property: 1000-21-3-16. Mrs. Lytle: We don't need that. Mrs. Schwicker: You've got to discern which one is which. Mr. Munzel: Ok, I think, on this one, again the basic dispute here is going to be on the 25 and 12% figures that were given. Mrs. Lytle: Well, we explained that, and we will give you the explanation again. Mr. Munzel: There's no sense in repeating yourself. Mrs. Lytle: He says the basic thing was between the 12. and the. Mr. Heuser: Oh, yeah. 67 • • Mr. Munzel: Because the figures that we have. Mrs. Lytle: And if you take the 25%, how do you figure it out? Mr. Munzel: I haven't figured it out. Mrs. Lytle: I think if you figured it out, you would go home. Mr. Heuset: What is this one? Mr. Munzel: I say $23,750. Mrs. Lytle: Because if they used the other percentage, they used a higher valuation. Mr. Munzel: Yeah, sure. Well, what we're looking for is an accurate value. Mrs. Lytle: Well that's what everything is, even the one that- Mr. Heuser: How do you know? Mrs. Schwicker: Because that's why I'm giving you the figures, I just- Mr. Heuser: Ok, now. Mrs. Lytle: Did you get that? You don't get anything now. Mr. Munzel: Ok, on this one, the basic intention is the full market value of the property is $95,000. Mr. Heuser: You mean on the tax roles? Mr. Munzel: No. It's the full valuation of the property. It's the actual value. Mr. Heuser: All right, may I ask you this question? Are you basing the value of the property by the tax- Mr. Munzel: It's based upon the purchase price of the property of $78,500 plus improvements that were made, which brings the total value to $95,000 or thereabouts. Mr. Heuser: No, we're on 11-C. Mrs. Schwicker: We're on 11-B. Mr. Munzel: That's #1. No. 2 is-- Mr. Heuser: May I see, pardon- Mrs. Lytle: Just a second. Until we get straightened out. 68 Mr. Heuser: Mr. Munzel, over here, this isn't completed. Purchased property, date of purchase, amount of mortgage. Mr. Munzel: We've indicated that. We can give you that information at any time parts. Mr. Heuser: We need these, don't misunderstand me. Mr. Munzel: When we filled out a number of these, we didn't have necessarily all that information. Mrs. Lytle: Well, do you have the information now? Mr. Munzel: No, not all of it. Mrs. Lytle: We normally wouldn't act without all this information, would we? Mr. Heuser: Again, Mrs. Lytle, there is one point that I want you to read. I might read aloud to everybody. The illegality, upon information and belief, the computations of the basic value of the property together with the floor plan thereof is in error in the computation of actual living expenses. That's living space. Part III. Information regarding improve- ments are not available at the time of the filing of this complaint but will be made available upon any hearing requested by the Board of Assess- ment Review. Mrs. Lytle: Well, that's why it's here today. That's why it's in the paper so much, and why the person should give all the information- Mr. Munzel: Secondly, the breakdown of the property insofar as its actual use is concerned, I believe, I believe this indicates that this is a three- story house. Mr. Heuser: Let's see. Hello, Bob. (Mr. Robert Brown appeared at the proceedings at 1:40 p.m.) Mrs. Lytle: Well, good afternoon. Mr. Heuser: They got it down as the main building 34' x 341 , and the extension 21' x 30' and the deck. Mr. Munzel: Ok. And the main building, however, I believe they're counting that as three smallers in terms of $8.00 per square foot. The bottom floor on that particular building is more applicable here in the east wall, the entire bottom, it's really a huge, high ranch, if you want to call it that, the entire bottom floor is a basement and is not living space. Mrs. Lytle: Do you remember a stairs? 69 Mr. Munzel: Probably from the basement up to the main fluor. I would imagine they were. Yes. Interior stairs. But it is a basement. Mrs. Lytle: In other woods, were these formed as -- or-used as a regular basement. Mr. Munzel: All basement. I think that one will also- Mrs. Lytle: Living space means to both grounds. Is the basement dbnee° It's a technical question. M1 , _ _,r! Mr. Munzel: It's not a finished basement. It's not a finished floor by any means. Mrs. Lytle: Well, they may not have finished it yet, but is used as a basement. Is there a heating system in there? Mr. Munzel: Yes, ma'am. I think that one would also require an inspection. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Munzel, 34' x 34' in the main building, that's 1156 feet and that's based on one floor. Mr. Munzel: I know there was some confusion-on that and we were uncertain as to what it was. The-. I see over here it's a Mrs. Lytle: You're uncertain about the house and we're uncertain about your decision. Mr. Munzel: Well, if you'll look over on the right-hand side, you'll see the rooms-first floor is utility, which would indicate basement. The rooms on the second floor and third floor, also, is indicated on the right-hand side. Mr. Heuser: That's, the main floor, 34' x 34; and that's 1,156 feet, and the extension on there is 21' x 30' which is another 630 feet, and the extension is the value is less because us;:you say it's not as fully developed as the main building. And then you've got two decks. Also- Mr. Munzel: The purchase price is $95,000--it's up on top. Mr. Heuser: $95,000. Mrs. Schwicker: He's assessed at $5§,800. Mrs. Lytle: May I see that? Mrs. Schwicker: Mrs. Lytle, the purchase price is $95,000, and it's being assessed for $58,800. Mrs. Lytle: That's less than. Mr. Munzel: First, that's based on your 25% figure, which I don't agree with your 25% figure. 70 Mrs. Sch wicker: That has been used for about 15 years in the Town of Southold. Mr. Heuser: We'll put it this way, we'll have to answer you this way. It's not a question whether we agree with it, or whether you agree with it. Mr. Munzel: I understand your position, and all I'm doing is--and I realize we're along the lines of disagreement. He: >er: Mrs. Lytle: Your next-door neighbors on both sides were paying on the same rate. He's not being, uh. Mr. Heuser: Ok, now. $14,600. You divided that out $14,600 and came up for the assessment $58,8007 Mr. Munzel: Yeah. Mrs. Schwicker: Additions come to a total of $14,700. We've got a boo-boo here. Mr. Heuser: Add 100 feet on there. On March 26, 1978 they must have made another deck or something in there. Mr. Munzel: Yes, there was a deck added. That was part of the improvements. Mr. Heuser: Now, here's the only thing, may I recommend to you, is that this here part here is going to be a little hurtful in your decision. Mrs. Lytle: Strictly speaking, as you know, the roles are called closed. Therencan only be changed, and this is noting that this is not an error, that's not an error, or it can be changed because this Board feels if the assessment is not as it should be, but when we do not have the information about. a buildift, nobody can make a decision. So, therefore, that informa- tion will have to come next year. Mr. Munzel: Well the information, I don't know which information you're requesting specifically--you're talking in terms of square footage in the house, and the property is available for inspection by the assessors- Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but- Mr. Munzel: Excuse me, but always has been available for inspection by the assessors. It is the assessors responsibility to make the inspection or in the event that they fail to, and what the assessors usually do is they look on the outside and say, "Three stories, three stories it is." All right? It's not our duty as a landowner to invite the assessors in on each and every occasion. Mrs. Lytle: I would say, morally, if you're concerned about your taxes, you check and find out what the assessors did and what the assessors assess at. 71 Mr. Munzel: I do not argue morals. Mrs. Lytle: No, but I mean this is- Mr. Munzel: From a legal point of view I don't think it's our obligation to invite them in. If there is an error, and believe there is an error, and therefore- Mrs. Lytle: No, it's not your obligation to invite them in. They don't have to go in, and they can do it all from the outside. But then you should be curious enough to know what the heck they're gonna be charged. Mr. Heuser: May I offer a recommendation? Mrs. Lytle: Yes, you may. Mr. Heuser: As long as Henry Moisa is goingingtoifbr the one re-survey, do you want to re-survey this? Mr. Munzel: I was going to ask that. Mrs. Lytle: I don't know whether that's- Mr. Heuser: Yeah, but if we're doing it on, we- Mrs. Lytle: Yes, but I mean this is something. Mr. Heuser: Yes, this is a problem here, and this is like the other parcel of Mr. Munzel, too. They were talking about the second floor, and the way I read it right now, the footage is only on the main building, and I don't know whether that means one floor or two floors. Mr. Munzel: I think it indicates two floors. Mr. Heuser: The 34' x 34. ' Mrs. Lytle: Mr.Moisa, when you gt a chance, please? Oh, ok, I thought he had a phone in his hand, I wasn't sure. Mr. Heuser: If you can get an assessors- Mrs. Lytle: That's the other thing that you're advised not to do unless it is an absolute necessity. Mr. Heuser: Are you familiar with this property? (Charles Watts comes to the table.) Mr. `'Watts: Yes, I am. Mr. Heuser: All right, the question made by Mr. Munzel is the footage and the size. This, I shouldn't worry about this way I'm gonna worry about my thinking though, this indicates that that is only one floor. 72 • • Mr. Watts: This indicates the difference. Mr. Heuser: Ok, then the rate took care of it, so it's two floors. Mr. Munzel: Also, one of those floors is a non-existent floor as in the Weitman matter because it is a cathedral ceiling, or a portion of that floor is a cathedral ceiling which is not apparent from the outside. Mrs. Lytle: May I interrupt the conversation? We would advise to afford you, every case possible, to send the assessors out, that the taxpayer had up until Grievance Day to come in and to ask any question- what the equalization of the Board is. After Grievance Day it is a case of not agreeing, this is, if we were to send a surveyor out again, this question could have been raised before Grievance Day. Mr. Munzel: Excuse me, may I be heard on this? Mr. Brown: Sure. Mrs. Lytle: Just a second, do you get my point? Mr. Munzel: 'Umr Mrs. Lytle: You were there? Mrs.Schwicker: Yup. Mrs. Lytle: Do you agree with my statements or not? Mrs. Schwicker: Yes, I agree with, that's what was stated. Mrs. Lytle: Now, I don't know how you feel in this particular-uh, give me a chance, I was just trying to talk with my assessors, and then you can have a chance. I don't know how you feel about it. Mr. Heuser: May I express my opinion? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, just a second,- I want to find out how the assessors feel- Mrs. Schwicker: The burden of proof lies with the taxpayer. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mrs. Schwicker: To prove a reason. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, that's what we were told. Mrr,. Robb: What do you say? Mrs. Lytle: Now, Ted- Mr. Heuser: I really think we are reversing ourselves. We are slightly reversing ourselves. We agreed that Murray Weitman's property should be 73 • • re-surveyed because of the cathedral point. No one could give us a logical answer on it. It's the same area, why not do both houses? You can't do one and not the other. Am I right, counsel? Mr. Munzel: May I be heard on it before you make your decisions? Mrs. Lytle: Well, you've got a point there. Mr. Munzel: Well, first of all, I think both Mr. Dean and Mr. Weitman were down at the assessors' office, and in the matter of fact, that's where I got these photostats. They were down here discussing these very things, I believe, with the assessors. Whether or not, I wasn't present, so I don't know. But I assume f,hey discussed these things with the assessors. Therefore, I would suggest that the taxpayer with even taking your argument for argument's sake only, the taxpayer did meet his obligation by attempting to have it corrected before Grievance Day. Mrs. Lytle: You do. Mr. Munzel: It's my understanding they were both down here, they both talked to somebody in the assessors' office. Mr. Watts: Well, they didn't talk to me. I don't know-possibly one of the other assessors. Mr. Munzel: Birt they were down here and they did give me these photostats of your cards. that they could only have gotten from the assessors' office. Mrs. Lytle: Where are the cards, what photostats? Mr. Heuser: The consensus is if you do one you have to do both. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, I agree with you there. Mr. Munzel: Excuse me, ma'am. I'm referring to .these photostats in my file, which are reflections of yours. And the only place that I got them was here. And I didn't get them. Mrs. Lytle: And these are dated March 1978. That one is, but this one is the old one here. Mr. Heuser: I think that you're- Mrs. Lytle: What's your general opinion. What do you want to do. I'll with along with- Mrs. Sckwicker: I personally think that if you're going to go out on one, you should go out on both of them. Mrs. Lytle: Ok. Mr. Heuser: All right, they'll be re-surveyed, sir. 74 Mr. Munzel: Fine. Thank you very much. Mr. Heuser: Now, you've got a third one, correct? I Mr. Munzel: Yes. Mr. Heuser: You should have stayed home. Mr. Munzel: I would have loved to. Mr. Munzel: These are probably much easier. Mrs. Lytle: Mr. Wall? Mrs. Schwicker, Mr. Heuser: Mr. Watts. Mrs. Lytle: Mr. Watts, I'm sorry, I was calling you Wall instead of Watts. Mr. Watts: That's all right. Mrs. Lytle: We would like, I think, are they both here? Mr. Heuser: They got one card, you gave one of them one card. Mrs. Lytle: Here's another one for re-surveying. Mr. Heuser: Re-surveying. Mr. Watts: , Ok. Mr. Heuser: All right, this is another Donald King. Go ahead, Donald read it off. #11-C. Donald G. King, Rocky Point Road, East Marion. ini = .-Cw Mrs. Schwicker: Nob 11-C. Donald G. King, Rocky Point Road, East Marion. This is 11-C. Mr. Munzel: This is the Grants survey, I believe. Mrs. Schwicker: Location of property: 110 Front Street, Greenport. Mr. Munzel: Yes, Ok. This one again is predicated upon sales price. The recent, I'm sorry, may I? Mr. Heuser: Go ahead, in the meantime I'm supposed to read this aloud to the folks. Mrs. Lytle: Yes. Mr. Heuser: Inequality. The full market value of $1439000, again based on that 12.28 folks. 75 Mr. Munzel: Right. Mrs. Lytle: Oh. Mr. Munzel: Full market value is predicated upon a recent sale. Mr. Heuser: $143,000. But I mean, the factor below is 12.28%. Mr. Munzel: That's correct. The factor below is correct. Mr. Heuser: The full market value, so the assessed value of the property is $49,700. This is $49,700 as of February 2nd combined into one parcel of land? Mr. Munzel: Yes, there was apparently at one time an old building known as the post office, I believe that it what it was referred to at one time. We, did as a parcel of that, and that was again combined on February 9 of 1978, at least it so appears. Mr. Heuser: February 9 of 1978. Right? Mr. Munzel: All right, and that what it appears to be combined again. It's a Grants, and for the purposes of this discussion let's call one portion the Grants and the other portion the old post office. Mrs. Lytle: This is all business property? Mr. Munzel: This is all business property, is vacant and has been vacant for at least a year, so there are no rent roles. There's no. Mr. Brown: There is one in there now. Mr. Munzel: In Grants? I think they are still building on it, aren't they? Mr .. That's good. They've got somebody in there? Mr. Brown: Yeah. Mr. Munzel: Hurray: They got the whole place or just one corner?" Mr. Brown: Just one. Mr. Munzel: Oh, just one little plant? Mr. Brown: A shirt shop is in there. Mr. Munzel: I haven't been out there so I don't know. Mrs. Lytle: Mr. Wall, this is business property or wouldn't you know. Mr. Watts: It's on the tax map. 76 • • Mrs. Lytle: This is business property? Mr. Munzel: Yes, ma'am. - -ma-; ; ,( :me Mrs. Lytle: You'd have to fill this out. Mr. Munzel: Summary income - zero. Zero, zero, zero, zero, zero. This is going to be very easy to fill out. Net income, zero. Total expenses, I don't even want to think about it. Mrs. Lytle: You see, we have no way of making a decision on that. Mr. Munzel: Well, let me say this, there are three ways of valuing property. One is construction costs. Two is capitalization of earnings, in this parti- cular instance capitalization of earnings is not a fair thing because the place is empty. As a matter of fact, we've had a loss and youonwe us money. If we use that theory, and I don't think that one will fly very far. Mrs. Lythe-. No. Mr. Munzel: The third alternative, of course, is recent sale. Mrs. Lytle: Now, is this all of Grants? Mr. Munzel: Yes, this is Grants, and this is the little post office porti6qg I think it went out the back or something. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but this has been sold? Refurbished? Mr. Munzel: Yes, and I represent the present owner, Donald King, who is refurbishing it. But the purchase price of the property in which we're predicating our complaint was $143,000. It was an arms-length transaction made by antagonistic people, and hence, it's a fair market value and is pretty conclusive proof of fair market value because it's a recent sale of property and not under any force or anything like that. That's how it's an arms-length transaction. Mrs. Lytle: But you have high hopes of renting all those places in the process of being fixed up. Mr. Munzel: Everybody that buys has high hopes. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, I don't know about that but we're talking about the statistics part. Mr. Heuser: In other words, this property is $149,000? Is that correct? In round figures? Mr. Munzel: No, the property actually cost $143,0009 there is an addi- tional $5,000 of brokerage commission that was in there, and we're claiming that that is not a portion of the purchase price. It's simply an expense like of attorney's fees that don't come off. 77 Mr. Heuser: Sold for $36,500. And a mortgage of $112,000. Mr. Munzel: Yes, allright. I understand that. That's what the records indicated. The records indicate $148,000. It is our position that $5,000 of that, first let's, it's our position that $5,000 was brokerage commission. Mr. Heuser: That's why you have $143,000 down. Mr. Munzel: Yes. Now, for tax purposes it was paid out of the arrangement, the actual purchase price $143,000. Mr. Heuser: Here it comes down again, any further information will be requested by respondent. Mrs. Lytle: I gave them the forms. Did you see the forms? Mr. Munzel: Yes, I have that. Mr. Heuser: This is inequality. Mr. Munzel: Also, on part of an inequality, you've got to do a survey, as to, and have to go through the expense of an appraiser for purposes of comparable sales in the area, and I think it's a little premature to go through that expense. Mr. Heuser: What does he mean by unequal distribution of school aids? Mr. Munzel: Well, we're being taxed more than. Mr. Heuser: In other words, by your higher taxation you're paying more to the schools? Mr. Munzel: Right. Mr. Heuser: All .right, I just wanted to clarify it. Mr. Munzel: And also under the equalization, under the State. Mr. Heuser: What does that come out as? Mr. Brown: $35,705. Mr. Heuser: $359700. Close enough. $359700. Have you got the card, Mr. Robb? Mr. Robb: Yes. Mr. Munzel: Your evaluation shows $49,700. Mr. Heuser: But you're only taxed on $35,700. Mr. Munzel: You divide by 4, right? 78 0 • Mrs. Lytle: Make a note of the formula, the new rate, so you don't forget. Mr. Munzel: All right, we should also indicate on this one also. Mrs. Lytle: Make a note that I gave you the figures. Mr. Munzel: That I'm not sure on the evaluations as to whether or not you included the basement in there. Uh, there is a basement unfortunately that is totally unusable because it tends to flood at flood tides. Mr. Brown: Only- at high tide. Mr. Munzel: Yeah, only at high tide, which is only twice a day. Mrs. Lytle: I would have thought of that before I tied the strings. Fire purposes and. Mr. Munzel: For purposes, whatever, he does know that, and he bought the property. Mrs. Lytle: Thought of that before he bought it. Mr. Munzel: He knew it. He bought it. Mr. Heuser: They've got basement down "no." Mr. Munzel: But if, in fact, it is thin foundation, cement. Mr. Heuser: Cement foundation, no basement. Mrs. Lytle: Then we don't charge them for a basement then. Mr. Munzel: Ok, good, then that's fair and square. Last one. Then I'll get out of here. Mr. Heuser: What was he assessed at, Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: $35,700. Mr. Heuser: All righty. What have we got now, 11-D? #11-D. North Fork Bank and Trust Company as Executor of the Estate of Frank L. Barth, 245 Love Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok, 11-D. North Fork Bank and Trust Company, Executor of the Estate of Frank L. Barth, 245 Love Lane, Mattituck. Location of property: Front Street, Greenport. Mrs. Lytle: We had that last year, didn't we? 79 Mr. Heuser: No. Mr. Munzel: No. It was not in before. That's one of the problems. Um, on this one, there's a technical problem which you can read- Mr. Heuser: May I interrupt a second, Mr. Munzel? Inequality. Full market value of $55,000. Here we come to that factor again which we will ignore. That's the easiest way of getting around that one. Mr. Munzel: Yes. Mr. Hauser: Full market value of property is $55,000, assessed value is $28,600. Amount overclaimed is $23,000 and they want to reduce it to $5,560. Mr. Munzel: For purposes of this one, there's a technical problem here, or an apparent technical problem which I really don't think it is. I'd like to mention it as a, not, don't make any decision on it, let's get into the merits of it in case a decision is done. Ok, one way or the other. This one is presently under contract of sale only entered into yesterday. All right? My client is Eileen King, who is the contract vendee. Ok? We assume that the property is going to close, the contract price is $55,000. Subject to getting a $40,000 mortgage, which is really neither here or there, but what we're telling you, for the pur- poses of this, is we have to assume that a closing has been held, and that the value is $55,000. We do have a contract price, " a ready, able and willing buyer from a ready, able and willing seller. Ok? Mr. Heuser: Would be $7,000. Mr. Munzel: Although Mrs. King is the applicant here is not the title owner. That is the point I am making. Mrs. Lytle: Do you want this reduced? Mr. Munzel: Yes. The Pr sporty is riot actually so'd? Mrs. Lytle: The property is not actually sold? Mr. Munzel: No. It's the only way we could do it. Because we are acting on behalf of the Barth Estate. The North Fork Bank and Trust Company is the Trustee for the Barth Estate. Mrs. Lytle: Mr. Heuser, .ido you get this? Mr. Heuser: Go ahead. Mr. Munzel: If I may, let me start from the beginning. Barth died, all right? Apparently, North Fork Bank and Trust Company is the Executor of the Estate of Frank L. Barth, and as such is tied with the accumulation with disposition of all the assets of the Estate and that the responsible party. North Fork Bank and Trust Company as a representative of the Estate of Frank L. Barth entered into a contract that my client, Eileen H. King, for purchase of this property for $55,000. The contract was entered into 80 yesterday, on the 17th, so obviously title has not closed, etc. However, we have, the Barth Estate has authorized us to proceed in terms of the contract and also in terms of the form, to proceed to secure a reduction of real property assessment on the premises. We have that on the contract and that is also on the form on the rear, and that's the technical problem that I wanted you to be aware of. Mrs. Lytle: Isn't a legal question also, because the roles are closed, and they don't make changes, to my knowledge, is anybody listening to me? Mr. Heuser: I'm listening. Mrs. Schwicker: Yes, we're listening. Mrs. Lytle: No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean you folks, I was referring to the assessors. Mr. Kelsey? Mr. Kelsey: Mrs. Lytle: You heard the first part of it? My conception is the tax role is closed. At the end of the month, the end of May. Mr. Kelsey: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: If you have not received a deed, and the deed has not been conveyed to you, to put the property on the tax roles or make a change, it goes on next year? Am I right or wrong? Mr. Kelsey: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: So, although they hold a contract- Mr. Kelsey: You don't have theddetd then? Mrs. Lytle: You don't have theddeod, so it would have to wait until next year. Mr. Munzel: No, I don't have to wait until next year. I'll make an exceptixon to that. I can make the application so long as on Grievance Day, which we're doing. The contract price is only an indication of the actual market value of the property as it existed on the date of closing which I think is June 1, or July 1, whichever one. Mrs. Schwicker: June 1. Mr. Munzel: June 1. Ok. That's a month and a half later. I don't think the property has substantially increased or decreased iiia that month and a half. Mr. Heuser: $$59000, correct? Mr. Munzel: That's correct. It is not a binding valuation as a recent sale might be, but it is only some evidence, although it's pretty good evidence, from a Court's point of view, but it is not closed by any means so long as we 81 meet the deadline for Grievance Day. Mrs. Lytle: This is more than a letter construction that we've had over the years. Are you listening to me, Charlie? No, but they've all been, we've gone over Riverhead, their construction, and you can tehl me if I'm wrong, if I'm wrong I want you to say so, but from what we'r&lLgoing on, my understanding is that's it, when the roles are closed, you don't make any vhanget_umless we decide you have been incorrectly assessed or there was an -honest error, or there has been an oversight that had been put on the wrong time, etc. The assessors have no authority to make any changes now unless we give them the authority, and we have no authority to put something new on the roles. Mr. Munzel: We're not asking you to. We simply saying that we're representing the Barth Estate at this point who owned the property at that time and we're saying that on June 1 it was wrong, the assessment was wrong. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, no, that itsn't what you said. I don't arguingwith it at all, because we're just going around and around the bush. .But that is not what you said. Mr. Munzel: Well, then, that's what I meant to say. Mrs. Lytle: You talked all about being in the process of contract and who was gonna buy it, and you wanted a change because of them. Yes? Mr. Munzel: All right, I understand, I see the confusion. I was giving you, I was giving you the actual situation as it exists from a technical point of view from the certiorarirpreeda s. We represent the Estate of Frank L. Barth, who was there at the time, and the Estate of Frank L. Barth through the North Fork Bank and Trust Company as Executor takes the position that owners before June 1, 1978, your assessment was in error. Mrs. Lytle: Do you hold the signed contract? Mr. Munzel: Yes, I have it right here. Mrs. Lytle: Has the deed been filed? Mr. Munzel: No deed has been filed because they only signed a contract. Mrs. Lytle: That's it. Mr. Munzel: No it doesn't, ma'am. Please. We represent the Estate of Frank L. Barth, the record owner. Mrs. Schwicker: He is only representing the contract vendees, the owners, not the purchaser. He is representing the owner. Mrs. Lytle: He+ wants the amount changed for the present owner then. 82 Mr. Munzel: That's correct. Mr. Brown: He still owns it. Mr. Munzel: Who still owns it. Mrs. Lytle: But he wants it changed because of the sales price,taud- Mr. Munzel: That is merely an indication of the value. Mr. Heuser: All right, may I suggest something now, Mrs. Lytle? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Heuser: Using the figures that you have given us at $55,000, taking your assessed valuation, 100%, as derived at from the assessors of $28,600, you're only on the tax roles for $7,150. Mr. Munzel: Keep losing money on that 25% valuation. I would suggest, I would strongly recommend that you review that 25% which I think you are in error on. Mr. Heuser: We've used it for many years, Mr. Munzel. Mrs. Lytle: I've been on this Board for 7 years and you've been using it for 7 years. Mr. Messer: In other words, you were not assessed at $28,6007 That's just the value on your card. It is not the basis for your tax. If you iookMatlzy6ar Thxtbillysit;�msrsubitanbia*lyrrleasd. it is Mr. Munzel: Assessed value, let's see. The assessed valuation is $28,600. Mr. Heuser: That's assessed valuation, $28,600. That's not your tax base. Mr. Munzel: Only assessed valuation. Mr. Heuser: That's not the taxes. Mr. Munzel: I didn't, I don't .think I indicated it, if I did, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to. Do you have another one of these magnificant forms? Mrs. Lytle: With reference to Business? Mr. Munzel: Yes. I'm in the same boat again. Thank you very much. Ok, I will run and let these kind people go. Mr. Heuser: Thank you, sr. Mr. Heuser: He said the purchase price was $55,000 as of June 1. And it's assessed at $28,600. That's all we're interested in at this point. I can't see any reason for- 83 #12. George and Viola Breen, 829 South Drive, North Baldwin, NY. Property location: 910 Briganteen Drive, Southold. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 12. George and Viola Breen, 829 South Drive, North Baldwin. Location of property: 910 Briganteen Drive, Southold. Mr. Heuser: Do you have the card, Mr. Brown? Mrs. Schwicker: Here. Mr. Heuser: Inside of the building was reinspected by the assessors and feel that the inside of the house was incomplete. No kitchen ... on June 29, 1978. Mr. Breen: That's after tax day. Mrs. Lytle: Now, how did this come about? Well, what's happened is, I got this notice in the mail. Mrs. Lytle: Of increase? Mr. Breen: Yeah, and I then came down here and spoke to the assessors that particular morning, and then they went out a little later that morning and reinspected the building. What had happened--they had inspected it from the outside. Now from the outside we put curtains up to more or less keep down the vandalism. To make it look like it is occupied. We had placed bushes and we figured when we did move in it would look a little bit bigger. What I do is plan to finish the house off in stages, I thought, but franklki I ran out of money. Mr. Heuser: We all do, don't we? Mrs. Lytle: What did you, you were downi.there with the assessors, with this? Mr. Breen: Well, yes. I did. And then they went out, they went out several hours later, and they came down and reinspected it,fthe iheidei and then they said the house, they gave me the form, and to put down on the form that the house was reinspected and found that the house is incomplete. I don't argue with the rate of tax or anything else, it just the- . Mr. Heuser: May I ask you, Mr. Breen, you got in here full market value on taxable status $1,200. But I don't believe you meant that, did you, sir? Mr. Breen: Well, it was a mis, of the land I don't, I think I used that originally with the land. Mr. Heuser: It says $5,900 here. $1,200 is on the land. Prior to the last one. Mr. Breen: Yes, the last one was $1,200.00. - - 84 Mr. Heuser: Then you got this? Mr. Breen: Yes, then that was increased to $6,900. Mrs. Lytle: That's the figures. The $6,800. Is this what you're objecting- to? Mr. Breen: I was concerned about the part, I would like a partial thing because it's not completed yet. Mrs. Lytle: Is there anything on the cards- Mr. Heuser: Mr. Moisai oh, I'm sorry- Mrs. Lytle: Does it say whether somebody was over there, because if it was not completed, if there were curtains at the window to give the effect of completion. Mr. Heuser: He's got full assessment. Mr. Breen: I talked to, I think, the three assessors that are here, I talked to them at various times, and two of the gentlemen came and looked at the house. And, the service was very curtious and prompt-I'm not used to that service. Mr. Heuser: Thank you. Mr. Breen: -coming in. Mr. Kelsey: Actually, this notice should have read partial because it is still a partial assessment. He is not being charged the whole assessed valuation because if you see at the bottom, full completion $596.00. This should have been marked partial. Mr. Heuser: The assessed value is only on the partial completion. It is not on full completion. It doesn't include your work that still has to be done. Mr. Breen: Well, as I say, you're just, you're allowing $600 of work? Mr. Heuser: $596.00. Mr. Kelsey: $596.00 to $600.00. Mr. Heuser: But your assessment was based on your list here. Mr. Moisa: I'm not butting in here, but I went in there and reviewed that property, that's the reason Ahere for any questions. I'm suggesting- Mr. Heuser: You changed that to $596 and you rounded it off to- Mr. Moisa: Yeah, well, what we do, we round it off to the next, the nearest hundred. So we're suggesting that with the incompletion that we found there, 85 i • that we're suggesting the $600 be deleted from the assessment. Mrs. Lytle: From the 687 $600 from the 687 Mr. Moisa: That's the total on the back of your card. Yeah, that's right. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, $600 from the $6,800. Mr. Moisa: $6,800 or $6,900, whatever it is. Mrs. Lytle: It's 8. Mr. Moisa: No, that's a 9. Mr. Breen: Thank you very much for your prompt service. Mr. Heuser: Right, sir. Mrs. Lytle: You realize, the assessor, after the roles are closed, the assessor- Mr. Breen: No, he had said he had no control over it. Mrs. Lytle: You will be notified. Mr. Breen: Ok, thank you very, very much. Mrs. Lytle: Thank you for coming in. Mr. Heuser: $600 from that. Ctrs. Lytle: $600 from that would be $6,300, right? Mr. Heuser: Right. #13-A. Mary Pylko, Main Bayview Road, Southold, NY 11971. Property location: North Sound-Avenue, Mattituck, NY. Mrs. Pylko's representative-daughter, Mrs. Charlotte Zaweski. Mr. Heuser: Are these two pieces of property? Mrs. ZbNk$.4lCzi: No, one property. One of them I think you should look at -first. It's the agricultural commitment one I have filed here. I just crossed out the bottom. I'm doing, that's why I am sitting here, I'm doing that to clarify an error that I actually made. Not that one- Mrs. Schwicker: Why don't we take one at a time. Mr. Moisa: I'm standing here because I worked on that and whether you may want any clarification on that. It's in regard to the farm commitment. 86 i Mrs. Schwicker: Ok, that's No. 13, Mary Pylko. Main Bayview Road, Southold. Location of Property: North Sound Avenue, Mattituck. That's 13-A. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, this is A. Mrs. Schwicker: Make that 13-A, yes. Mr. Heuser: Now, let's see. What have we got here? Where's the card? Mrs. Lytle: There's no card for this. Mr. Moisa: The card on both. Mrs. Schwicker: Oh the card has those both on? Mr. Moisa: One is in regard to the farm commitment, if you want me to explain that a.little- Mrs.Zavd hi: Well, the farm commitment is on the other paper. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, I just want to read this-. Mrs. Lytle: Well, since Mr. Moisa is here, he can tell us about it. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Moisa, do you have a story? Mr. Moisa: This is in regard to the farm commitment. The original farm commitment application was filed with us and yesterday you came in and you said that you had not filed it with the County Clerk, so in other words, what- Mrs. Zlawdshi: I had gone there first, and then I came here. It was my mistake, actually, because I didn't understand the papers. Mr. Moisa: Right, so, she came here and filed the farm commitment with us, and we had to process it as of June the 1st, which we did, so unbeknown to us, because all the parts of the application that are supposed to be filed, that are actually made out in duplicate, one of them was left with the County Clerk and one of them was brought to this office. And, it was unknown to us, because others haven't been stamped as such, that it had been filed, so we had processed it anyway. So now, it becomes an almost illegal application because of the fact that it had never been filed with the County Clerk. So I called Mr. Ryan yesterday on this, and he said the proper way is to approach the Grievance Board with the application and they will instruct us to investi- gate whether this has been filed or not with the County Clerk, and then before you make a decision on that, we will be in touch with you and stating, which is the case whether it has or has not. But, it's been stated that it has not been filed there, so it will probably be a nega- tive answer on that as far as the filing, and then we will have to, through your instructions or your decision, we'll have to take it off the tax roles as a farm exemption. 87 Mr. Heuser: All right, stay here for a minute, Mr. Moisa. We- it says 5-23-78, industrial agricultural commitment exemption #2862. Mr. Moisa: Well, that's $28.62 exemption. Mr. Heuser: All right, what does that mean to us? Mr. Moisa: It means that that much came off of the land. Mr. Heuser: You mean, you took $2,900 off the land. Mr. Moisa: Well, we put it on what the definite figure is, d ashen round it off- Mr. Heuser: You reduce the land to $2,9007 Mr. Moisa: Yes, sir. That is what they are in line for, or their exemption would allow them that much according to the calculations. But now she would like to withdraw- Mrs. Saesici : The reason I would like to- Mrs. Lytle: What do we do again? Mr. Moisa: You instruct us to find out whether this has been filed. Mrs. Lytle: We don't have any forms for that. Mr. Moisa: Well, that's all right. You just-. Mr. Heuser: You wish that put back on the tax roles what the original value was? Mrs. ZAWOak-i: Yeah, because I didn't understand, the reason I went to the County Clerk, picked up the papers, came in and filled them out, I'm doing this for my mother, who is 73, almost had a heartattack and cannot handle her own problems. Then there's a penalty and I didn't get a proper, she wants to sell the farm because she can't take the taxes, she's, it's been a terrible burden on her. The penalty read, like, you, there's a decrease in your taxes, you'd have to take that it and then it was double the taxes I didn't understand whether it was double the decrease, double the entire tax amount, and in all good judgment I couldn't commit my mother to a con- tract that I didn't quite understand. So that's why I didn't file it with the County, I think I'd better let it go this way. Because she does want to sell the property. Mr. Heuser: Again I'm gonna face this question to both you people. You wish to increase the value of the land to back to that $2,9007 That's what you're coming in for? Mrs. 41L5ki: Yes. I guess so. 88 Mr. Moisa: That's what will happen, if we have to delete the commitment, the farm commitment. Mrs.Z"eal is Right. Mr. Moisa: If not it will stay the same as it is. Mrs. Lytle: But how can we- Mr. Moisa: Well, actually, we will have to check it out to see whether it's legal or not in the first place. Mr. Brown: Then you'll let us know what you're gonna do-. Mr. Moisa: Yes, that's what I was instructed to do, you see. Mrs. Lytle: All right, then we instruct you to do that and let us know what exactly is the name, what we're doing, uh-. Mr. Heuser: Re, what's the actual phrasing of that, agricultural what? Mr. Moisa: Individual commitment. Agricultural individual commitment. Which means each individual file can approach us for a farm exemption. Mr. Heuser: Oh, keah, I understand. Ok, that's going to be decided through the assessors. Mr. Brown: They're gonna let us know what they find out. Then we decide from that. Mr. Heuser: I mean, they are going to advise us? Mr. Moisa,: That's right. We're going to advise you as to whether this has been filed or not with the County Clerk because that is part of the law, it has to be filed. Mrs.Z&ae$1t4:: Now, actually, I never got notice, my mother never did get notice of the- Mr. Moisa: Well, you've got something else? Mrs. Uvft*—i:Yes. I got this one, I guess, on this:oneyeufititt MayMvUevhere it has been reduced to $32,400. I didn't get the one that was reduced for the agricultural-. Mr. Heuser: $32,400 was March 2, 1978. Mrs. Z4WW$Jii: That was the last notice that we received. Mr. Heuser: And the one May 23rd you did not receive? Mrs. ZAWOski: NcKo. Mr. .H9Vtetj But you did know that you were cut down on the home $2,300? 13, what, $1,200 it is. Yeah, $1,200 from $32,400? 89 Mrs. Xa4okski:Oh, I see. I didn't realize what it was. This took to me, you see, I was coming in mainly to clear up that first one, and I thought well while I was here, let's just, I'm learning, I'm getting an education, and if I ever have to do this again I'll know how to do it properly. Mr. Heuser: This one, you, this is the second one? Now this is 13-B, right? Mrs. Lytle: Which is the farm land. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, that's the farm land. Now, I have, that's the farm land. No, this is the farm land. Mrs. Schwicker: You did B first. You should take the other one there. Mr. Heuser: This is B now? That's A that you've got there. 13-A was the land deal, right? Now, 13-B is-[ Mrs. Lytle: Did you get those changes? Mr. Robb: No. Mr. Heuser: Excuse me. I didn't mean to reach in front of you. Mrs. Schwicker: You're grabbing the papers away, this is the one we just did. Mr. Heuser: No, that's the one we're gonna do. 13-B. Mrs. Schwicker: No it's not. Mrs. Lytle: Wait a second. Mrs. Schwicker: I told you, you switched the papers on me. Mr. Heuser: Which is this one now, 13-B. Ok, we switched the letters on them. Mrs. Schwicker: This should be 13-A. Mr. Heuser: No, we just changed the letters. We'll let it go that way. Mrs. Schwicker: This one here,"I am withdrawing the farm commitment that I filed-." Mr. Heuser: Well it says the same thing down here. Mr*,RT : Why did you make out a new card? Mrs. ZW&ski: Well- I just wanted to fill out that. That was a mistake. This we would like the taxes reduced. Mr. Heuser: All right, then this here doesn't belong on this. This is the one where you wanted to change the property. 90 Mrs. 3aw&sk.4: No, we're done that on that one. Mr. Heusers Yeah, but this is the one where it says-. Mrs. Zak-i: This is the one on the farm where I've got the land assessed at $28,000. Now, I don't know anything about. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok, that's 13-A. Here we go, 13-B. Mrs. Lytle: Now, what's 13-B? The farm? Mrs. Schwicker: This is here. The farm with the house, the whole bit. Right? Mr. Heuser: This is the one we just did. 13-B, yes. Mrs. Schwicker: This is the other farm. 71 acres. Mr. Heuser: That's 13-B. Correct? Let's get organized on this one. Ok, now we've come to 13-A. 13-A, no, there's something wrong here. 13-A does certainly read "I am restoring the farm commitment." Mrs. Schwicker: That's the one we just did. Now, this is the one. Mr. Heuser: But it says the same thing here. Mrs. Schwicker: No it does not. Mr. Brown: Where does it say it, it doesn't say it. This is the house. Mrs. Schwicker: Where's the card? Can I have the card, please, Mr. Robb? Mr. Heuser: 13-B. Ok, this is 13-A. All right, here you are. I've got to take a pill. Mrs. Schwicker: This one is for 71. Mr. Heuser: You see, this is the one that was reduced $2,900. And that's, agricultural commitment. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but the point is, the house is in this, too. Mr. Heuser: Two pieces of property. Mrs. Lytle: No, well, two pieces of property. What they do is they allow them a certain amount of land around the house, and the rest is farm, but it is all one piece of property. Mrs. Schwicker: Of which 35 acres is rented. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Now what's our problem on this one? 91 Mrs.Zhwe'ski: Well, I just think the assessment of $28,000 is high. She has an income of $2,000 on that. The taxes are $5979. And it's, I know part of it is zoned industrial, and I don't even know when they changed the zoning onrlthat, which hasn't done her one bit of good, outside of giving her high taxes. Mr. Heuser: In fact on this one here, you want the reduction on the land, not the house? Mrs.Zkwekki:Well the house, it is completely deteriorated. It's standing there, there isn't a pipe left in the house, everything has been broken. Mrs. Lytle: Is it occupied? Mrs.Zkyekki: No. It hasn't been occupied now, in, I think it's 3 or 4 years. It hasn't been occupied now for at least 3 years. Mrs. Lytle: How come it has gone down so much? That's too bad-. Mrs.Zkwo kki: Well, it has been rented and the tenant moved out, without, J in the middle of December when nobody even knew it. Then the next time when my mother went into the house, every pipe in the place was broken. And it doesn't, I mean, she's too old to take care of it, she can't, and it costs too much money to have it fixed. Mr. Heuser: It has depreciated 50%. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, that's what I thought. Mr. Heuser: They depreciated your house because of its condition on your tax role. Mrs. Zaweski: That must have been in March-. Mr. Heuser: The house is $4,4007 Mrs. Lytle: $4,400 from 56, it's reduced to $16,000. Mrs. Schwicker: The land is $28,000, the house would bring a total of $33,600. Mr. Heuser: How much is the house? Mrs. Schwicker: $33,600, no, I don't know. I didn't figure it out. Mr. Heuser: No, March of 1978 they've got reduced, $1,200. $329400. This is what you want. This is where you were reduced, $1,200. See? Gee, the house looked some nice. This shows how old the picture is. Mrs. Lytle: Then you did get reduced on the house? Mrs. Zaweski: Yeah, well see, I-. Mrs. Lytle: Then that takes care of it. Mrs. Zaweski: Well, what about reducing the assessed valuation on the land? 92 Mrs. Zaweski: Where she only has the income of $2,000 coming in? Mr. Heuser: Well, let's see, on the land-. Mrs. Lytle: This is the land., this is the farm. Mrs. Zaweski: There's 71 acres. How doiyou arrive at, I dont know anything about this. Mrs. Lytle: 71 acres you say? Mrs. Zaweski: 71 acres. 35 is farmland. 35 is farmland, the rest is woods and swamp. Mrs. Zaweski: 71, comes to-. Mr. Heuser: Round is off--77 acres. Mrs. Zaweski: 71 acres. Mr. Heuser: You've got 77 on this though. Mrs. Zaweski: The letter shows, that a farm, the only farm that I know that has been sold iu our area- was the Fanning farm. Mr. Heuser: She rents 35 acres. Mrs. Zaweski: That's the only income she has from the place. Mr. Heuser: This isn't Stanley Pylko's mother, is it? Mrs. Zaweski: That's his brother's wife. Tony is my mother's husband. Mr. Heuser: $3,900. It's assessed at $3,900 an acre. Mrs. Zaweski: $3,900? Now, that's an awfully high assessment for today's market. Mrs. Lytle: And she gets $1,000 an acre. Mrs. Zaweski: No! $2,000for the 35 acres. That's her rent. That's her e ntire income. Mr. Heuser: In round figures, $3,900. Do you want to talk to Mr. Moisa about that? Of the price. Mr. Moisa: Your figures are related right there on the- Mr. Heuser: No, the thing that I think Mrs. Lytle would like to ask you is you're assessing at $3,900 an acre. And, Mrs. Zaweski claims that they can't get more than $3,000 an acre. 93 Mrs. Zaweski: Lucky if we'd get that. I haven't advertised. Mr. Heuser: $28,000. Mr. Moisa: $28,000. Well, this is arrived at, 60 acres at $250, that's $15,000. :`,Mr. Heuser: Well that's woodlands? Mr. Moisa: No, this here is both, actually. This is in relation to both-. Mr. Heuser: There's no 60 acres of that property-. Mrs. Zaweski: No, there's 71. Mr. Moisa: No, there's 71. Sure. Mr. Heuser: 71, yeah. And that's what it's valued at? Mr. Moisa: That's $250 per acre, 60 acres. $15,000. Mr. Heuser: $15,000. So what's the dotifiection between that and $28,000? Mr. Moisa: Well, that's part of the $28,000. The remainder is in this figure. Mr. Heuser: Oh, that's your increased price because of the frontage on the road, right? Mrs. Zaweski: Now, 60 acres is, that's including woodland. There's only 35 acres of farmable land. Mr. Moisa: Well, in that area I ean. shew you cards that are lower assessed than that. Mrs.Zaweski: They are! Mr. Heuser: All right, Mr. Moisa, would you take the Chairlady and us through this again? You've taken 60 acres and the value of $250 an acre taxing basis, right? Mr. Moisa: That's right. Mr. Heuser: That's $15,000. So that means 4 times that is actually on the books for a $1,000 an acre? Is that correct? Mr. Moisa: That is right. Mr. Heuser: Right. And than the frontage-is 11 acres on the road, I guess? Mr. Moisa: Uh-hum. At $107no. 94 • • Mr. Heuser: Yes, at $10.00 what, a foot? Mr. Moisa: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: $10.00 a foot. Mr. Moisa: Well, actually there's 1,261 feet. Mr. Heuser: Right. That's your road footage. Yeah, that's your other $12,600. So you're on the books, as far as your acreage is concerned, for $1,000 an acre. The other is the assessment that you get on your road frontage. Mrs. Zaweski. Doesn't do any good. Mr. Heuser: No. Nota darn bit. . It doesn't alleviate the situation. Let's see now. There's 60 acres at $250. That's $15,000. And 1,261 feet with a 10' penalty, you know, assessment on the road. $12,610. Mr. Moisa: We're sapposedr�flodugeglwoanded figures. Mr. Heuser: All right, $129600. That brings you up to $28,600. $279600. Well, go ahead, tell me, you're looking at me. Mrs. Lytle: No, but I mean, any suggestions? Mr. Heuser: The only thing-you word the discussion., as well as the rest of us, the assessment of $1,000 an acre is not excessive. Mr. Moisa: Well farmland has always been handled that way. A considerable amount of years. That was adapted back in the 19601s. Mr. Heuser: Well that is something you'll have to review with the Board, Mrs. Lytle. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. How much-there's nothing I don't have to finish here. Mrs. Zaweski: Well, no, I'm doing it as a courtesy to my mother. You know, I would try, and that was it. Mrs. Lytle: Well, shall we address the letter to you or to your mother? Mrs. Zaweski: To me, not to my mother. My mother can't handle it. Mr. Heuser: What is your name and address? Mrs.Zaweski: Charlotte Zaweski, Main Road, Jamesport. Mrs. Lytle: What was the name? Mrs. Zaweski: Zaweski. 95 Mr. Heuser: It's on the letter. Just write the address below it. Mrs. Zaweski: And that's right in the front of it. Mrs. Lytle: Ok. Mrs. Zaweski: Main Road, Jamesport. Z-A-W-E-S-K-I. Mrs. Lytle: We will send a letter to you then. Mr. Heuser: Here you go, dear. Mr. Heuser: Thank you. Mrs. Zaweski: Thank you for your cooperation. Mrs. Lytle: Thank you for coming in and we will have a decision in about a week. #14. Veronica Czebotar and others, Sunset Boulevard, 9euer1yRHi11*, Wading River, NY 11792. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 14. Veronica Czebotar, Mr. Heuser: And others, right? Mrs. Schwicker: Sunset Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Wading River, New York. Mrs. Czebotar: This is just the land. Mr. Heuser: This is a big setting. He got an internal telephone service. Mrs. Lytle: I wouldn't say it's the same company, but it's the same idea. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, the same idea. Mzs. Lytle: Same idea. And that's a big corporation. Have you got the card there? 5Hr. Heuser: You see, alot of them have been thinking about putting their own generators, too. Mr. Heuser: What is it, doll? All land, right? Mrs. Schwicker: All land. Assessed value $16,400. Mr. Heuser: What do we have, 25 acres into $16,400, Mr. Brown. Mrs. Czebotar: But I am actually asking, disputing the property to the 96 west of me as far as sound frontage is concerned. So the actual dispute is-. Mrs. Lytle: The form is not filled in at all. Mr. Heuser: Right. Mrs. Lytle: The form is not filled in again. Mrs. Czebotar: Well, the way I had to see, it wasn't necessary because I was not actually disputing the rate, what I was—actually disputing was the property to the west of me, sound frontage. Their rate was substantially never changed. They have the same as I have, farm property running to the Sound, so there's so much footage from the waterfront back that they take Sound frontage, am I correct? Mrs. Lytle: But if you wanted any change at all, that's what you're here for, you'll like to change the-. Mrs. Czebotar: Well I'm not actually changing, all right, I'm not saying that your rate was wrong, but-. Mr. Heuser: Let me see what your little note says here. "My property was assessed at $16.00 per square foot. Sound frontage property 1/4 mile east owned by Stanley Krupski assessed for $7.00 a square foot. Mrs. Lytle: Sound property? Mr. Heuser: The property adjacent to the west of mine was assessed at $7.00 a square foot. I'm basing this, I feel, inequality. loading River? Mrs. Czebotar: Yes, well-. Reverend Czebotar: This isn't Wading River, this is Cutchogue. Mrs. Schwicker: Otegon Road, Cutchogue. We need some comparisons. Mr. Heuser: Oregon Road, Oregon Road. Mrs. Schwicker: Stanley Krupski would be one. Mr. Heuser: Is this near Duck Pond Road? Mr. Heuser: East of that. West. Rev. Czebotar: West. East of Duck Pond Road. In other words, I can under- stand the 400 feet to the water, and, is considered the shorefront. Mr. Heuser: Right. Rev. Czebotar: Anything beyond that would be considered farm land. Well, just east of that, they have the farm land all the way to the waterline, that's why I give- an inequality, and I can't understand that. 97 Mrs. Lytle: What is the water there? Rev. Czebotar: It's the Long Island Sound. Mr. Heuser: It's the Sound.Oregon Road to the Sound. Mrs. Schwicker: Oregon Road. Mrs. Czebotar: We are not disputing the rate. Rev. Czebotar: We have the same problem there. Mrs. Schwicker: In other words, it's comparable property and you feel your taxes are almost doubled. Mrs. Czebotar: If there might have been a split, I would know. Yeah, all right. Rev. Czebotar: We 'don't question our tax bill. Mrs. Lytle: This is personally owned property and not church property? Mrs. Czebotar: No. Rev. Czebotar: No, it's not church property. It's personal. Mr. Heuser: $69600? Huh? Mr. Brown: $6,650. Mrs. Lytle: Do you know what? I would move to have the Board- Mrs. Czebotar: I was thinking about that, too. Rev. Czebotar: We' ll take up a special collection. Mr. Heuser: $656 an acre. For tax base. Mrs. Lytle: May I see that. Mrs. Schwicker: They make a reference to Stanley Krupski and we don't have his card. Mr. Heuser: Stanley Krupski and. wife. Mrs. Czebotar: Would it help you any if I gave you photostatic copies. Mrs. Lytle: Yes. Mrs. Schwicker: Stanley Krupski. 98 Mr. Heuser: He's got 57 acres assessed at $10,800. All agricultural commitment. Mrs. Czebotar: Yes, but the sound frontage isn't, that's done separately. Mr. Heuser: Shore frontage, he's got 423 on the ocean. He's charged $7.00 a square foot. Mrs. Czebotar: He's being charged $16. Mr. Heuser: What? I thought you said it hit the water. Ads. Czebotar: We do. You see, that's not questioning why, I couldn't understand the big- Rev. Czebotar: We hit the water just like they do. Mrs. Czebotar: I don't know if I'm explaining myself very clearly. That was my only question. I wasn't disputing my rate or anything, I was just disputing- Mrs. Schwicker: That's $7 to $16, why. Mr. Heuser: Ok, yeah, that's it. Ok. That's your point. Mrs. Czebotar: Did you look at Marlake, Marlee? Mr. Heuser: We looked at that too. Mrs. Czebotar: You did, ok. That's two parcels. Mr. Heuser: That's $7.00 there. Mrs. Schwicker: Can I have that a minute, please? Mr. Heuser: We need assistance. This is, wait, I'm looking forthis- Rev. Czebotar: For something like that you'd have to take pills. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, I, I know, but what is unfortunate it's diatetic. All of a sudden I take a pill and run. Mrs. Lytle: You never say, "Teacher, may I." Mr. Heuser: No. Mrs. Schwicker: And, then you have over here, another one. $7. Mr. Heuser: And here you got $10. You changed the $7 to $16. Mr. Watts: Well, this is underassessed also. 99 Mr. Heuser: Pardon? Mr. Watts: This one is underassessed also. This Marlake property and Mrs. Schwicker: And there's another one for $18. Mr. Watts: That's the right tax bill. Mrs. Czebotar: She has a home, and I believe, that was built, there's a home, a bungalow, and- Mr. Watts: With a home on it, it's more. Mrs. Lytle: But 1,800 foot from the water? Mr. Heuser: Yeah, footage on the water. Mr. Wattb:­That's with the whole- Mr. Heuser: Now, this one here is underassessed. Stanley Krupski was re-assessed on May 31st, 1978. Mrs. Schwicker: This one is 1974. Mr. Heuser: And, Veronica's in 1978 is based at $16, and that one isn't. Mrs. Schwicker: How come? Mr. Watts: This one is in-an agricultural more than this is. Mrs. Czebotar: But note on sound frontage. Mrs. Schwicker: This is under-assessed? Mr. Watts: This one is, and Marlake is also like this. Mrs. Lytle: When was the last date of assessment on this? Mr. Heuser: 1978. Same time that Veronica's was assessed. Mrs. Schwicker: 1978. This was done after this. Mr.-.Watts: This is anagricultural. This one was done in, when this was sold- Mrs.Schwicker: Well, what about this one? Mr. Heuser: 5-31-78. Mrs. Schwicker: It was assessed last in 1978. Ok, what's the date of the assessment on this one?. Mr. Watts: That's never been done. That's an agricultural. In 1976, 1975. 100 • • Mrs. Schwicker: You mean it hasn't been done since 19757 Mr. Watts: Yeah, but I'm not even too sure with you on that. Mrs. Schwicker: Assuming that it was done in 1975, it was sold and split, it is still lower than this that was done in 1974, right? It was sold in 1974. Mr. Watts: That doesn't necessarily mean there is a new assessment. *Cause it's sold. Mr. Heuser: I'm gonna - mark your answer though. Because it's easier for me to say Veronica than that other- Mrs. Czebotar: That's, I was just gonna say, I don't hear that last name. No, that's ok. I'm used to that. Mr. Heuser: $16 a foot on the shore for Veronica's property. $7,a foot for Krupski and Marlake. Mrs. Schwicker: No, Marlake is $10. Mr. Heuser: Over here it's $7. Mrs. Lytle: It's $7, I'm holding it right in my hand. What have we got, are there two parcels? Mrs. Schwicker: I'm sorry, I'm wrong. Here is Marlake, is it two cards put together maybe? Mr. Heuser: Well what's your answer to that? Mr. Watts That's something that is to be taken into consideration. We can't give you an answer right now. Mrs. Czebotar: Do we hear from you? Mrs. Schwicker: Yes, you will receive a letter. Mrs. Lytle: Now, what kind of an answer did Mr. Watts give you? Mr. Heuser: They can't tell you now. Mrs. Lytle: They can't tell you. Mr. Heuser: The Marlake, no- Mrs. Lytle: What's that say? Mr. Heuser: 10-18-77 sold one of the parcels of land. Mrs. Schwicker: That's Krupski. Mr. Heuser: That's $7. 101 Mr. Heuser: And he's assessed at $16 a foot. Mrs. Lytle: So look. This is the farmland, though, isn't it? Mrs. Schwicker: No, she's questioning the sound frontage. Mr. Heuser: All this discussion is about is what they're taxing per foot on the Sound. Mrs. Schwicker: On the Sound, that's all. Just the Sound property. Mrs. Lytle: I know, but they get a break just the same don't they? Mr. Heuser: Who? Mrs. Lytle: Farmers. Mr. Heuser: No, they say none. Only they get an agricultural break after the rate is set up. Mrs. Lytle: Well, what is that? Mrs. Schwicker: Not on the sound, just on the farm land. Mr. Heuser: Just on the agricultural land. All right, we've got $16 here. Mr. Brown: Do you have a $10 or a $77 Mrs. Schwicker: We have a $7 here. Two $7's. Mr. Heuser: That's Stanley Krupski. Mrs. Schwicker: Kxupski and Marlake Associates. Mr. Heuser: I've got one of them. They're $7 a foot, too, huh? Ok. Mrs. Czebotar: There's one more. Mr. Heuser: There's one more right here, dear. And this here, you want? Mrs. Schwicker: We keep that. Mr. Heuser: No, no. I mean, Mrs. Lytle. Mrs. Lytle: Yes, I keep these cards. We're not even paying attention to you. Mr. Heuser: It was like it used to be home. No one paid any attention to me. Mrs. Lytle: Now, wait a second. Shouldn't we pull those cards for reference when we- 102 Mr. Heuser: I've got them down here. Mrs. Lytle: You've got all those? Mr. Heuser: We only need Marlake and Stanley Krupski. Mrs. Czebotar: We haven't gone any further than that. Mrs. Schwicker: That's all you need. Mr. Heuser: That's all you need. Mrs. Lytle: Now, what we do, we meet after we get all the minutes and make a decision and write you. Mrs. Czebotar: Thank you. Bye, bye. Rev. Czebotar: Thank you. Mr. Heuser: No. 15. Mrs. Lytle: That was 159 wasn't it? , Mr. Heuser: No, 14. Mr. Brown: No, 14. Mrs. Schwicker: This is 15 now, coming up. Mr. Heuser: We had 13-A, 13-B, 14 and 15. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, I see, you had A and B on it. Mr. Heuser: Who's 15? Mrs. Schwicker: This one's 15. #15. Dominick Proscia and Theresa Proscia, 210 North Brotherford Avenue, Massapequa, NY. Property location: Bailie Beach Road, Mattituck. Mrs. Schwicker: Dominick and Theresa Proscia, 210 North Brotherford Avenue, Massapequa. Location cf property: Bailie Beach Road, Mattituck. Mr. Heuser: One of those bungalows? Mrs. Proscia: Do you know Hamilton? Mr. Heuser: Which one? Mrs. Proscia: No. 1. 103 Mr. Heuser: The first one. You're the new owners. Mrs. Proscia: Right. Mr. Heuser: Oh, you bought it from Mrs. Schmidt. She couldn't get along with the Association. Mrs. Proscia: So I hear. Mrs. Lytle: Do you know a lady up there, first name is Rose, and her husband is retired? I can't think of their last name. Mr. Heuser: In the bungalows? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mrs. Proscia: No, I don't. Mrs. Lytle: My girlfriend goes up there every Tuesday and plays Bridge, so I know what happens. Girlfriend, did you hear that? Mr. Heuser: Another old bag-- ooh! Mrs. Proscia: I think I know about everyone in that area, but I don't know a Rose. Mr. Heuser: Ok, what's that old form say? Mrs. Schwicker: I don't think it is correctly filled out. I think it should have been over-evaluation. Mr. Heuser: Ok, let's see. Cottage 2. Land assessed at $500, cottage- Full market value of property $27,000. Again we're coming down with this 12.28, Mrs. Lytle? Mrs. Lytle: We don't use that percentage that you read in the paper. Everything has been, for a good pany years, every piece of property is based on 25% of the market value. Mrs. Proscia: Actually, those figures were given by the assessor. Mrs. Lytle: So that would be the basis. In other words, you paid $1,000 for the property - as the assessment. hMr. Heuser: These figures-- land assessed at $500, $6009 $500, $500, $600. And you're assessed at $1520? Mrs. Proscia: There are 9 cottages all total on that plot. Right. Mr. Heuser: Who has Bailie's Beach? 104 • • Mrs. Schwicker: Ok, here. Here we go. I've already got a notation on the card that they're over-assessed by $800. Mr. Watts: Mrs. Proscia did talk to us. Mr. Heuser: Oh you spoke to the assessors? Mrs. Proscia: Well I was in to, and when I heard what I was paying compared to the others-. Mr. Heuser: Oh,: all right, then you're going to be an adjustment, recommended, right? Mrs. Lytle: You came in after the day, so they couldn't finish it. Mr. Heuser: Land is assessed at $1,500. Assessors have revised it, to $800. Mrs. Proscia: $800. It is still over the others, though. Mr. Heuser: Well, here's one reason for it. The others were maybe, haven't been re-assessed in recent years, and you're getting a new assessment. Mrs. Proscia: They've all been bought and re-bought. Mr. Heuser: They were bought, and most of them were bought two years ago, right? Mrs. Proscia: Well, there was one bought after me. Mr. Watts: More footage on the road. Mr. Heuser: Oh, No. 1 has more footage on the road. Mrs. Proscia: Not than No. 4. You know, 15 feet of my property is used as a right-of-way as a driveway. 15 feet is taken away as a right-of-way. Mr. Heuser: Do you have to pay for that property, that right-of-way property? Mrs. Lytle: Somebody owns it. It has to. Mr. Heuser: The Association doesn't own it? Mrs. Lytle: Is that right-of-way in your deed? Mr. Heuser: Then you're assessed. i Mrs. Lytle: Then you pay taxes. s Mrs. Proscia: I'm thinking of putting a toll gate- I needn't realize how close I am. 105 Mr. Heuser: You can sell it right over to the Association. Mrs. Proscia: Well the Association was formed, and I understand the agreement stands for 99 years, but I don't know now what I can do about it. Mr. Heuser: Then you are being penalized- You're getting assessed- Mrs. Proscia: I didn't realize it, you know. Mr. Heuser: I didn't, ma'am, either. I thoughtthat road was an agreement with the property. Mrs. Proscia: It should have been. That's because part of it goes right and part of it goes through the community property. Right. But they have no other way in. I mean, uh- Mr. Heuser: Like you said, put a toll gate on it. Mrs. Proscia: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: All right, it should get reduced for $800. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, I know, I have a neighbor in my section who's in the same position. He didn't realize what he was doing when he bought it. Mrs. Proscia: You see the corner property has a large frontage, #4 bungalow. They have quite a bit of frontage. Most of them do. Mr. Heuser: Bedell? Mrs. Proscia: No, Toraz. Mr. Heuser: Didn't he do a beautiful job on his place? Mrs. Proscia: Yes. He's still bangingt banging till 12:00 at night. Mr. Heuser: Ok, are we satisfied? Mrs. Lytle: Ok, I will confirm that in writing. Mrs. Proscia: Right. I still' eel it is above the others. Mrs. Lytle: But you see, you have the other extra- Mrs. Proscia: Well, like No. 4 has big frontage. Toraz. Mr. Heuser: The one that goes all around the side. They only measure the frontage on the front. Mrs. Proscia: Well it's on the main road. ;Mr6 Heuser: I don't think they measure front and back. 106 Mrs. Proscia: Front and two sides, right? Oh, I see, you mean they only measure one portion. Because it's considered a corner lot. Mr. Heuser: You take it on the front. Mrs. Proscia: Oh, I see. Mr. Heuser: And your rest is considered running back from there. Ok. So you will hear from Mrs. Lytle. Mrs. Lytle: That's the way it always works when you buy a piece of property. Mrs. Proscia: Well, I tell you, I haven't seelthat, I'm still cleaning. Ok, thank you. Mrs. Lytle: Where does 15 come from? Mr. Heuser: That's the young lady we just did. Mrs. Proscia: Thank you. #16. Patricia Appelmans, Fishers Island, NY 06390. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok. No. 16. Patricia Appelmans. Mr. Heuser: Listen, could you hold the lady up a minute while I take my pill? I'm 15 minutes late. Mrs. Lytle: Yes, go ahead. Do you want to go get some water? Mr. Heuser: No, I won't, thanks. Mrs. Schwicker: Fishers Island, New York. Patricia Appelmans, Fishers Island. Mrs. Lytle: All right. Mrs. Schwicker: Can you get out of here? Mr. Heuser: I can make it. Mrs. Lytle: Why doAwe see the card, and we can see about this one while we're waiting for him to get back. Mrs. Lytle: This was raised last year, not this year? Mrs. Appelmans: And it's the first raise we've had. Mrs. Lytle: You put an addition on, that's why. Mrs. Appelmans: We put an addition on, the addition was a failure. And the structure is being threatened. This has been going on now ever since. 107 • • Mrs. Appelmans: We've been through considerable expense to have this corrected, and we are going to have considerably more expense. In the assessed value that I put down what I thought it should be, I simply omissioned the raise for that partition that was set. I have a second addition later on that has been successful and we are using it, but still I couldn't put this on for a month now. The second addition should have caused the rise, but not the first. The first one should be corrected. Mrs. Lytle: Reducing it to $2,500 would be reducing it to less than it was before. Do you want to put down, to-. Let's see. Mrs. Appelmans: It was $5,800. Mrs. Lytle: $7,100. Mr. Brown: In 1972 it was $5,800. Mrs. Schwicker: Did you purchase this in 19757 Mrs. Appelmans: 1972. I'm sorry, 1975. Mrs. Schwicker: Did you want it lower than it was when you purchased it? Mrs. Appelmans: Yes. Mrs. Schwicker: $5,800 was in 1972. And in 1975 it was $8,300. Mrs. Appelmans: Yes, and in 1974-. Mrs. Lytle: That would put down $5,800, 1971, and I asked why should we reduce to 19717 Mrs. Schwicker: On the purchase of the house, it was assessed for $8,300. Mrs. Appelmans: That was after the addition was put on. The first addition was started the end of that year 1974. It was not completed until February 1975. Mr. Brown: The sale was on then in January 19757 Mrs. Appelmans: Yes. The sale was in January 1975. We started the work on the house in October 1974. And it wasn't completed until February of 1975. Mrs. Schwicker: This was in May. And what is your claim, that the first addition was no good? Mrs. Appelmans: Well, it is lower in value, lower than last year, and then I could not sell the house. 108 Mrs. Schwicker: Do you have the use of these rooms? Mrs. Appelmans: I haven't used these rooms, even if I can arrange my furniture. All of my furniture is clustered, put in the corners. It's terrible. I can't put, my de-humidifier in there, it has been a real threat. It's really nothing that anyone would-want. Mrs. Schwicker: But you do have the use of the first and the second additions? You do have the use of both first and second additions? Mrs. Appelmans: Full use of the second addition. I don't have the full use of the first one. Mr. Heuser: May I ask you a question? Well, I wanted to raise this question, if the construction was done 1974, well it existed at the time you purchased that? Mrs. Appelmans: Yes, no, no. Yes, it was, it was started before we bought it. Mr. Heuser: And it was completed by you folks? Mrs. Appelmans: No, it wasn't completed. It wasn't completed. Mr. Heuser: But according to the card, it says, you said it was-. Mrs. Appelmans: It was purchased in January of 1975. Mr. Heuser: In 1974 the addition was made and the sale was made in 1975. Mrs. Appelmans: In January 1975. Mr. Brown: She said they were doing work on it, Mr. Heuser. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok, was the addition completed by May, by the end of May 1975. Mrs. Appelmans: Yes. Mrs. Schwicker: Thats why it was re-assessed. Mrs. Appelmans: Yes, that's right. i Mr. Heuser: In 1976 you built on it again, correct? Mrs. Appelmans: Yes, on the other side. And that has been a successful addition. But this first addition is a real blot. Mr. Heuser: I would just like to have this called to question. The claim is based on poor construction. Mrs. Appelmans: Yes. 109 Mr. Heuser: Where would it affect the evaluation? Mrs. Appelmans: Where would it affect-? Mr. Heuser: I don't want to lose you on this while I'm trying to get it across my mind. Mrs. Appelmans: They left holes in the carpet, the concrete footings. And water came in through there and they have since opened that up, all out, two or three times, and have re-tarred it, styrofoam protection, and it's still coming in somewhere. , Nobody knows where. We think it's from the water table up to the base, and it's supposed to have a poly- ethylene protection underneath the concrete slab the thing is built on. And there must be holes in that. We don't know. We can't do that without tearing the whole thing apart. What we can do now is to dig trenches around to see if we can divert the flow of water from, to lower the water table: It's going to be a colossal expense. And we've already been to the expense of putting a concrete sway around three sides of the addition to see- Mr. Heuser: Are you near the water? Mrs. Appelmans: You can see the water. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, no, not that close. Mrs. Appelmans: No, not that close. Yes. Mr. Heuser: Cause I was just placing it when I go over this. I can't imagine how your water table would be that- Mrs. Appelmans: Well, that- Mrs. Lytle: Well, that condition was there before you bought the house, though? Mrs. Appelmans: No. It's only in the addition. It does not affect the rest of the house. Mrs. Lytle: Just the addition. Mrs. Appelmans: The original part of the house is- Mrs. Lytle: But that was there before you bought that house? Mrs. Appelmans: What was there? Mrs. Lytle: The addition and the water leakage. Mrs. Appelmans: We built the addition. Mrs. Lytle: But I mean, the additions- 110 Mr. Heuser: The second addition they built. Mrs. Appelmans: We built that one, too. But we started to work on it before we bought the house, the first addition. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, well that's it. You started the work on it before you bought the house. But you didn't own the house when you started. Mrs. Appelmans: No. Mr. Heuser: Sutherland (Sullivan) didn't put that first addition then before you purchased the home, did he? Mrs. Appelmans: No. But he helped us with it. It was our expense and for our use. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, that's what throws that off. Mr. Brown: And the guy that put the addition on, he can't solve the problem either. Mrs. Appelmans: No, he gave it up. He has not. Mr. Brown: Did you pay him? Mrs. Appelmans: We still owe him $500, but he got the last $1,000 out of us. Mr. Heuser: And I, we have to try to be fair in our decision to you, that's the reason we ask these questions. On October 7, 1974, there was a permit issued to put a $14,000 addition on that house. Mr. Brown: That's on the other side. Mr. Heuser: Is that the one that you're complaining about? Mrs. Appelmans: Yes, that's the one I'm complaining about. Mr. Brown: In 1970 when? Mr. Heuser: 1974. Mr. Brown: Yes, ok. Mrs. Schwicker: That's the first addition. Mr. Heuser: And then in January you purchased the house and it is presumed that at that time you were still working on it. Mrs. Appelmans: Yes. Mr. Heuser: And then your second one was put in in 19759 which you say is ok. ill • • Mrs. Appelmans: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: That's what's confusing, see? Mrs. Appelmans: It doesn't happen often. Mr. Heuser: And they increased your assessed valuation $1,3007 On the basis of the new addition you put in. Mrs. Appelmans: We put in both additions. Mr. Heuser: Well, I mean the second one. Mrs. Appelmans: The second one, yes. Mr.Heuser: It was increased both times. Mrs. Appelmans: Yes. Mr. Heuser: When you're finished with that, Mr. Brown, can I see it a minute? Mr. Brown: Sure. Mr. Heuser: There's three rooms on the second floor. Mrs. Lytle: You see what I did, when I looked at it, -. Mr. Heuser: You thought it had an elevator in there! Mrs. Lytle: Electric heat. Ooh! Mrs. Appelmans: That's the worst part of all. Mrs. Lytle: That's why I said, ooh! Mrs. Appelmans: And I have to keep it going to keep the humidity down. It's quite an expense. Mrs. Lytle: I think we're going to have to give that alot of thought, we would all of them anyhow, and then we will write you on this. Mr. Heuser: We have a second meeting on which we revise this without applicant being here. Mrs. Appelmans: Well, then, I will excuse myself if I may? Mr. Heuser: Pardon? Mrs. Appelmans: I will excuse myself? Mr. Heuser: You sure may. Thank you. Mrs. Lytle: Yes. 112 Mr. Brown: That was 16. Mrs. Schwicker: 17. Mr. Heuser: You want to reduce it to $2,500, correct then? Mrs. Lytle: Well, let's make our mind up at our next meeting. Mr. Heuser: That's what she asks for? Mrs. Lytle: Oh. Yeah. Mrs.Schwicker: This is all one thing? Mr. Heuser: How many, sir? Mr. Schwicker: One, two, three, four, five. Mr. Schriever: They're all the same. Mr. Heuser: All righty. Mrs. Schwicker: They're all the same piece of property? Mr. Schriever: Yep, are you ready? Mrs. Lytle: No, I'm not we want to go home. Mr. Schriever: I'm here representing the owners of five parcels of wetlands, it's the south side- Mr. Heuser: Of the road? Mr. Schriever: Of the road there in Orient. Now, if you will scatter those things around, the writing inside of those is absolutely identical. Mrs. Lytle: Well we have to record them all. Have they all been filled out? Mrs. Schwicker: All signed? Make sure they are all signed. Mrs. Lytle: They've all been signed properly, that's the most important step before we do anything. Mr. Heuser: You're Mr. Schriever in other words? Mr. Schriever: Yes. Mrs. Schwicker: This is Mr. Schriever here. Mr. Heuser: This one hasn't been signed by the applicant. 113 • • Mrs. Schwicker: Because that is the applicant-Mr. Schriever. Mr. Heuser: Oh, you are this time. Then it's signed properly. Mr. Schriever: No, so I didn't have to, a, sign it. Mr. Heuser: Maybe we can discuss it in length about the whole thing, and then set them up one by one? Mrs. Lytle: Oh, alliight- Mrs. Schwicker: Do you want to take dis there and label them A, B, C, D d. E? Mr. Heuser: They're all similar, sir? Mr. Schriever: I'm, the presentation I'm gonna make is absolutely identical. Mrs. Lytle: Now, what I want to know, are the lands or pieces of parcels adjacent? Are they all in the same area-? Mr. Schriever: Yes. That's the point I want to make: I'm not gonna read this. It would take me, you know, 45 minutes to go through this thing and I don't want to, you know, it's all written out, and Mr. Heuser: No. 17 is Kathryn Latham. Mr. Schriever: What I want to do is try to guide you a little bit so-. Mrs. Lytle: But we'll have to take each one separately though because we have to make a decision on each one and we have to write a letter on each one. Mr. Heuser: May I interrupt? Mr. Schriever: Yeah, they are separate applications. Mr. Heuser: They are separate applications, but the basis is the same. Mr. Schriever: Yeah, we're arguing- Mr. Heuser: Your protest is the same, so one protest would affect every piece of property identically. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok, but let's just identify them, all right? Mr. Heuser: Yeah, you give- Mrs. Lytle: You know what we do? If they're the same, let us each have one to follow. Mr. Schriever: Yeah, that would be good then I can refer you to the Exhibits in here. 114 Mrs. Schwicker: Well, first, let's identify them for her record. With the name, and A, B, C, D, and E. Mr. Heuser: Set them up. We've got to set them up, first. Give them 179 18, 19, 20 and 21. Mrs. Schwicker: Do you want to do that? 17, 189 19, and 207 Mrs. Lytle: What's the name? 417. Kathryn Latham, Post Office Box 68, Private Road, Orient, NY 11957. Mrs. Schwicker: 17 is Kathryn Latham, Box 68, Private Road, Orient. aMr. Heuser: Do you want to number it? Mrs. Schwicker: It's 17. Mr. Schriever: They were in the order of the lot numbers here. Mrs. Schwicker: All right, wait a minute now. We want to make sure we have them in the right order here. Mr. Heuser: That doesn't make that much difference. Mrs. Lytle: Not that much difference. Mrs. Schwicker: 3, 4, ok, they're still in order. #18. Mr. and Mrs. William W. Schriever, Box 128, Main Road, Orient, NY 11957 Mrs. Schwicker: 18 is Mr. and Mrs. William W. Schriever, Main Road, Orient. #19. Clement J. Welles, Munn Road, Orient, NY 11957. Mrs. Schwicker: 19 is Clement J. Welles, Munn Road, Orient. #20. Rose 0. Silverstone, Main Road, Orient, NY 11957. Mrs. Schwicker: 207 Rose 0. Silverstone. Mr. Heuser: S-i-1-v-e-r-s-t-o-n-e? Mrs. Schwicker: That's right. Main Road, Orient. r 115 421. Mr. and Mrs. Clifford J. Van Cleef, Main Road, Orient, NY 11957. Mrs. Schwicker: No. 21? Mr. and Mrs. Clifford J. Van Cleef. Mr. Heuser: How do you spell it? Mrs. Schwicker: V-a-n C-1-a-e-f. Main Road, Orient. Mrs. Lytle: You've checked and they've all been signed? Mr. Heuser: That's as far as I can see. Mrs. Lytle: You see, if we each have one we can sort of-. Mr. Schriever: Yeah, the only thing that is different from one to the other is the binder-. Mrs. Lytle: These inserts, these typed inserts, they amount to the same thing? Mr. Schriever: They are identical. The whole thing is xeroxed copies. It's the same thing that I have here. That's why I thought it would be-. Mr. Heuser: It's a good idea. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mr. Schriever: Hopefully. I wanted to make copies for each of you, and I said well if I put a binder on each one that I make, is the same thing-. Mrs. Lytle: It's all right. Mr. Schriever: Separately. You don't each have all of the different names in front of you. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, we realize that. Mrs. Schwicker: What are you looking for? Mr. Heuser: I wasn't looking at that, I was looking for something, to see if that was signed. Mrs. Schwicker: They're all signed. I've checked that all ready. Mr. Heuser: You didn't tell me that. Mrs. Schwicker: You're damaging me. Mrs. Lytle: Wait a second. Are they all signed by the individual as well as Mr. Schriever? Mrs. Schwicker: Yes, they are. I've checked that all ready. 116 • • Mr. Heuser: The reason that isn't is it's the same gentleman. Mrs. Lytle: No, I know that, but I meant the other ones. Mr. Heuser: They've all been signed. Yup. Mrs. Lytle: He had to sign them all individually. Mr. Heuser: Shall we figure the category as wetlands? Mr. Schriever: Yes. That's what I'm gonna call them. That's what the Tidal Wetlands Act calls it, so-. Mr. Heuser: We can each look at a card. Mr. Schriever: Yeah, now if you'll go about to the middle of the booklet you will find a fold-out map, which is the tax map of the section that shows the-. That's the second one. The earlier one has, a-. Mr. Brown: Exhibit B? Mr. Schriever: Exhibit A, I think, would be better, it has the names on it, see. Mr. Brown: Ok, I see where you are. Mrs. Lytle: From the different what? Mr. Heuser: You got one, too, darling. Exhibit A. You don't want Byou want A? Mr. Schriever: Yeah. You've got it, right there. That's the first. Now if you'll look at these little strips that run down about in this area you will see the names on there. Van Cleef, Silverstone, and so forth. Mr. Heuser: Right. Mr. Schriever: Those are the five parcels that I am discussing, and for future reference you will note that the Stevenson Beach Incorporated, which is sort of a family-holding corporation that holds this property, owns a substantial part of the wetlands that's to the west of these of these parcels. They actually own three-parcels of wetlands and the beach frontage, the Sound, where the Orient-East Marion Park District is. And to% the east is property of John B. Tuthill, it's farmland. If you look, let's see, at the Exhibit B, you will see the remainder of the, the remainder of these parcels. The map unfortunately breaks in there. Mr. Heuser: Yeah. 117 Mr. Schriever: For right now, I'll tell you what these, these numbers are on here that I have added. You will see the assessed value divided by the acreage, and that acreage is from the assessment role, not the acreage that shows on the tax map but the one that shows on your IBM permit. And that is done for all of the wetlands. And I will make reference to that later. Also, if you will go over to, let's see, if you will go over to Exhibit E. Mr. Heuser: Right there, Pomorary-. G. Mr. Schriever: E. E as in easy. Mr. Heuser: I got it. Mr. Brown: There you go. Mr. Schriever: It's a picture, it's a photograph. It's a photograph of the area, and I have carefully shown on this photograph the boundary lines from the tax map as they would be transferred onto this scale in respect to the property. I'll tell you where that photograph came from, and, can we, will we be able to get these Exhibits back at all, like this map and. Mrs. Lytle: What do you mean? Mr. Schriever: Not these booklets. I don't care-. Mr. Heuser: No, no, those are going in the file. Mr. Schriever: Like this map here, there's a copy, these are on file with the assessors. They have copies, but I'll show you where that photograph came from. This is the, official wetlands map for the, for the area, as you can see from that Exhibit D, there's a list of these maps and there are pages of the list. This is just one of them. They have all the maps in a roll over there in the corner for the Town of Southold, and so, they have these maps. And this is the area that that map is cut out of, and the key down here that I didn't reproduce because it's in the regulations, but the wetlands category is IM is called inter-tidal marshland. That means marshland that is under water at high tide and out of the water at low tide. And that predominates in these parcels as you can see, as you can see from this thing, the majority of-. Mr. Heuser: I am on, this. Mr. Schriever: Now, the thing marked SM on this copy that you have, SM is called coastal shoals, bar and mud flats. Well, that is not very descrip- tive. What SM is is the creek. It's a tidal creek. You can take a, you got a shallow motor boat you can go up in the creek so long as it isn't low tide, and go back out again. Mr. Heuser: What's HM, sir? Mr. Schriever: HM is high marsh. 118 • • Mr. Heuser: High water mark or high land? Mr. Schriever: High marsh. Mrs. Lytle: Marsh. Mr. Heuser: In other words, you wouldn't consider that wetlands? Is that what you-? Mr. Schriever: No. It's all, everything is wetlands. Considered wetlands. Mr. Heuser: So is Stevenson's Beach? Mr. Brown: No. Mr. Schriever: No. There is a boundary here that, Stevenson's Beach as such is not considered wetland; however, it is protected under the regulations because the regulation covers wetlands and everything within 300 feet of wetlands, and since it isn't more than 300 feet wide-. Mr. Brown: Now, just a second, in other words, that's. This goes all the way to, and comes to just a little bit higher than this stuff here. You can walk on there. It's just a little bit higher. Mr. Heuser: Right. Do you got that clear? Mr. Schriever: The way this stuff is identified is they have the, the original photograph is of course a little better quality than this is, and they just look at the layered photographs and they say, ah, I believe, they study the map of it, and they act on it. That's how that was done. Well, anyway, the important thing as far as the argument is concerned is No. 1, that the parcels that are tidal wetlands under the meaning of the act, except for a small portion of upland, which looks sort of treed on the photograph--it's actually just weeds, and, that there is a creek down the middle. Those are the key elements. Um, now-. Mr. Heuser: To clarify something in my mind, Mr. Schriever, this photo- graph here that you gave us, I'm in the assumption that this other property running on the other side of the road, is it owned by these people? Mr. Schriever: Yes. If you look at the tax map-. Mr. Heuser: I mean, is that the-. In other words, they own property on both sides? Mr. Schriever: Right. I don't have it listed, but it is in the rings that I'm supporting. This is my property, and this is mine. This is Welles, and this is Welles. This is Silverstone, this is Silverstone. Van Cleef, and Van Cleef. 119, • • Mrs. Lytle: It is clear. Mr. Heuser: I'm just trying to clarify it. This is the south side of the road? Mr. Schriever: Right. Mr. Brown: Right. Mr. Heuser: And that's the point in dispute? Mr. Brown: The south side of the road. Mr. Schriever: Yes, we're not talking about the-, there's nothing to do with the parcels on the other side. It's interesting that if you go through the whole tax role and check all of the wetlands properties which you're identifying on the, take particularly Section 23, which is your Exhibit B. All of these wetlands properties are owned by the people who own the upland on the opposite side of the road. Mr. Heuser: Yeah. Mr. Schriever: And that is, in the, this study, this appraisal that I'm gonna refer to later, that was one of the conclusions they reached, was that the upland and the wetland seemed very closely tied together, and that, barring that the wetlands don't have much of any market of their own. They're generally sold as part of the upland. And that's been the pattern. find all the sales that have occurred in here is that wetlands have always gone-. Now, the, a, what I am attempting to do is to establish an assessed value on these parcels, which is based on No. 1, the assessment of the upland, No. 2.- the appraisal that was done by a firm called Pomaroy As- soc, Appraisal Associates. I unfortunately don't have a copy of that appraisal. Mr. Watts has a copy over here of the first book of that appraisal, and I looked at it and I copied the pertinent information from it, and I have excerpted it in here as Exhibit, Exhibit G. There is an excerpt from that which is the most pertinent one of the bunch. Actually the whole book is really an excerpt. It's a summary, and the conclusions of the study, in three other books. But these books are not, there are not enough of them available-to the public can have them, and the assessors have only gotten so far, just one. Mr. Heuser: May I interrupt at this point? Mr. Schriever: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: I'm looking at three cards, and each one has an approximate acreage of 2, 2 acres. That's Welles, Silverstone and Van Cleef. How much- of that acreage is south of the road? Mr. Schriever: It's all south. There's none of it, the parcels that are north of the road are completely separate from these. These are all-. 120 Mrs. Schwicker: These are all wetlands. These are all different property. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Mr. Schriever: What you see on the map with the lines, the photograph there, what you see bound by those-. Mr. Heuser: In other words, their main property is independent on the tax roles. Mr. Schriever: Yes, it is. Mr. Heuser: Who's got Silverstone? Mrs. Schwicker: He's got it. Mr. Heuser: Ok, sir. Now. Mr. Schriever: What I have attempted to do in this study is, No. 1- first I've tried to show that I represent all of these five people. I think you have established that. No. 2- in fact you can tell sort of by the headings that I've labeled these paragraphs-- I've described the parcels. I think you've covered that here. Mr. Heuser: Right. Mt. Schriever: The descriptions of the properties. The zoning is zoned residential, and the area of the upland section of these parcels which only run to about 100 feet back from the road is not sufficient for a house lot under the zoning act. So, therefore, to build on these would require a variance, and a number of other problems which I will refer to later. But basically they are not house lots, but in fact they are being appraised as house lots. And that's what I want to show. There's a survey done by Van Tuyl which I have and I can leave that with you, too. I didn't fasten this to the booklet because it would have made it too bulky. The survey doesn't, it just gives you some dimensions and bearings and stuff and some acreages that perhaps may give a little more accuracy than what's in the assessment role, but basically it doesn't tell you anything you don't already know. Mrs. Lytle: I think the best map is, what we had, on the wetlands. Mr. Brown: That's what one of these are, that's what this is. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, that's what the photograph was from. Mrs. Lytle: That's the best thing that we saw. Mr. Heuser: Footage on the road? Mrs. Lytle: Huh? 121 Mr. Heuser: Footage on the road. Frontage on the road - 73 feet. 85 feet. Mr. Brown: 95. Mr. Heuser: 240 feet. Mr. Brown: Mr. Schriever's- he got 260 feet. Mr. Schriever: Actually I have 250 feet, I don't know-, I mean, that's why I gave you the survey because the frontages are all here so you can correct your notes if you want to-. Mrs. Lytle: No, we were just trying to get a general idea how much footage you have. You must be getting it from the assessed rate? Mr. Schriever: Right, and that, I don't have any thing., in the way of document, that, except to tell you that if you go out to the property, there are two cement posts which I've placed on the lot lines when I was regrading them there, and those posts are 135 feet back from the Main Road, and the filled area that is the non-wetlands or upland is basically that of one of those posts. Mrs. Lytle: May I ask you approximately when you bought this? Mr. Schriever: Well, my wife and I acquired the property in 1957, or, a, no, 195-, yeah 1957. But my wife's mother had the property before that and they got it around 1926. No, .no, this, wait a minute. Excuse me, I've got a correction. That's the house. The wetlands, the wetlands were, we got the wetlands when we got the house. The wetlands were, as it says in here later on, the wetlands were set apart into these parcels in following a 1938 hurricane, when the Mount Pleasant House, which was a resort hotel then down there was so damaged in a hurricane, that they abandoned it and tore it down, and that's xahen Rose Silverstone's house was built. Mrs. Lytle: This is when this became wetland, is that what you're saying? Mr. Schriever: No, no. It's been wetlands-. Mrs. Lytle: But, when did you actually acquire this wetland? Mr. Schriever: When we bought the house. It came with the house. Mrs. Lytle: Back in 19- Mr. Schriever: 1957, or 1958, whenever it was. We got the house, we inherited the house from my wife's mother, who died at that time, and she got the house when they bought it in 1926, but the wetlands was not part of the original house property, that was acquired at about 1938. 122 Mrs. Lytle: Well, I'm not interested in the original house. What I would like to know is, when you bought or acquired by gift or however you got it, that piece of wetlands. Mr. Schriever: 195-, the same time we got the house. It was either 1957 or 1958, I don't remember. Mrs. Lytle: 1957 or 1958. Did you-. Mr. Schriever. Barbara's mother died in 1957, but how long it was after that before it was-. Mr. Heuser: You may or didn't may listen to this. I'm addressing it to Mr. Kelsey. If this is 50%, or 30%, or 60% of wetlands, you establish a basic rate for each part, which is high and which is wet? Mr. Kelsey: I haven't seEn that property. If it's strictly wetlands, it should be based on the regular-. Mr. Heuser: It isn't strictly wetlands. It's partially wetlands. Mr. Kelsey: Then I'd have to-. Mr. Heuser: All right, forget these properties, forget this property and forget this property. And with your permission, may I say this? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: If a person owns, say my property runs down to Long Creek, and 3$% of my property is inundated to high tide. You don't charge me the same rate for that property as you do for the rest of my property? Mr. Kelsey: We don't, we wouldn't charge you for waterfront either. Mrs. Lytle: Now, back when we had the hurricane-- that question came up, and alot of land inundated, and, a some of it was salt water, too. Some of it came from the inlet and some of it from Lake Lodge, and I may be crazy but I think you can get a special rate on a special width of, through the whole property, not just ours but that whole length from the inlet to Lake Lodge. It is considered a certain type of wetland. Mr. Heuser: Yeah. That's what I was directing to Mr. Kelsey. And that's the reason that I think that your tax rate on this thing is based on how much of it is high land and how much is marsh. Mr. Schriever: Of course, you know, I really don't know what it is based on. But in my opinion, it's about 10 times too high, and that is what I am trying to establish. But in fact the tax should be about a tenth of what it is. Mrs. Lytle: But this isn't all wetlands. Uh-. 123 Mrs. Lytle: $7 a foot, is charged there. Mr. Heuser: Based on the roar} frontage? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: And that's on the dry part of your land. Mrs. Lytle: This is, here, a, the east line there, this is the right part of the land, 240 feet at $7 a foot. Mr. Heuser: $196802 Mrs. Lytle: No. That's what that is based on. Mr. Schriever: I don't know what $7, how $7 compares with anything else because we don't have that on the tax bills. Mrs. Lytle: Then they, then they don't charge you for anything else extra on the basis of the depth of that. They are not charged. Mr. Heuser: They are just charged for road frontagel And the depth of the dry land, one person has 100 foot of dry land, and another has 200 foot of dry land, the rate is the same? Mr. Schriever: That's quite a difference- one that you can build on and one you can't. Mrs. Schwicker: If the rate is the same. Road frontage Mr. Schriever: That's my point. Mr. Heuser Yeah, well that can be due to the depth. In other words we ran, pardon me- Mrs. Lytle: I would say that-. Mr. Heuser: Pardon me for digressing, Mrs. Lytle, but when this fellow from the drugs store in Cutchogue came up last year? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, Terp. Mr. Heuser: And he had this irregular property, he thought he was over- assessed, but he didn't realize that he was 300 feet deep and the other fellow was 180 feet deep. 5o those are the things that you run into. It's part of the point I'm trying to make. Mr. Schriever: Right, I do very much. Mrs. Lytle: But when you look at, it-. Mr. Schriever: I'm dealing with that right in this thing very carefully. 124 Mrs. Lytle: They don't look at the property. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, they do-. Mr. Schriever: Well, that's 200 feet to the inch. With that scale there. Mrs. Lytle: Now, what is your point? What do you want? Mr. Schriever: Well, what I'm gonna attempt to show is: No. 1- that these lands are all covered under the Tidal Wetlands Acts and so I'm gonna base my argument, and­alot on that fact. Now, under the Tidal Wetlands Act it's against the law to assess a piece of property except for its present use. In other words you cannot, if a piece of property is regulated under the Act, it's against the law to assess it as a house lot if it isn't in fact a house lot, or being offered as a house lot. That is point No. 1. So, No. 2- the Act, this is all given to, let's see if I can give you the Exhibit so you can see the quotation. Mr. Heuser: How much building area have you got there, Mr. Schriever? Mr. Schriever: Well, there's about, on my parcel there's about 3/4 of an acre, but it isn't building area because the elevations, you know, abott a quarter or two above the inter-tidal marsh, which means it floods at high tides, so, you know, you can't call it a building area. Never get permission to build on it, and it's not deep enough to build on-. Mr. Heuser; And you wouldn't get drinking water either. Mr. Schriever: And in the Tidal Wetlands Act are not permissible to build on it because I don't have the setback, and I can give you, this thing is full of reasons why-. Now, if you look at Exhibit H and take the little paragraph that is set off inside, that is the quotation from the legisla- tion, Article 25 of the Law, which tells you what Law is in respect to wetlands under this Act, if you get down to the middle of that, it says basically, that if this is under land-use regulation as wetlands or adjacent to them, then the property tax valuation should be the same as if it were or should be considered as having an easement on the property, like a scenic- easement, you see. Mr. Heuser: In other words, it should be a lower rate? Mr. Schriever: Very much that. And then-. Mr. Heuser: Pardon the interruption again. We could go along with this Mrs. Lytle? Our experience has been that when wetlands atd highlands are involved, they have compensated for the wetlands, that in their assessed value. Mrs. Lytle: Isn't there a process you can go through through? Isn't there a process concerning forms and things to be filed, filing for? 125 Mr. Schriever: You're talking about these-. That is the regulations that covered right here. Mr. Heuser: What were you going to say, Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: No, there wasn't anything. I was trying to get my thoughts straight. Go ahead. Mrs. Lytle: Didn't we have one or two of them some years back. Doesn't anybody remember? Do you know of anybody that came in on on these? Mr. Schriever: I came on these very pieces of property about, well, say, well-years ago-. Mr. Heuser: Bob Say, you came in with Bob Say? Mr. Schriever: And I didn't have all this stuff at that time because it wasn't available. Mrs. Lytle: No,not Bob Say.He was one of the big farmers down east. Mrs.' Lytle: One of the big farmers down east. It didn't have to go to the Town Board. Mr. Heuser: This big farmer down east had marshy land on the back of his farm. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: He was down Orient way. Mr. Schriever: Oh, I see. And he wanted that re-assessed? Mr. Heuser: And, I forget what his name was, but he said that he wanted a reduction on that area as it wasn't tillable soil. And so forth, so on. And he had to make a special application on that, get re-valued, and re-assessed. I'm trusting my memory now. Mrs. Lytle: Now, I could go home and look up my notes. I have every book. Mr. Schriever: Well, let me make this point. Forget it. There are two points to be made in respect with this law. One is that any property that is covered by these regulations if you read these documentation, I proved this property is all covered including the upland. Any property covered by, well these land-use regulations which is this book here, shall be considered as having an easement or a right, having been acquired, by, under the General Municipal Law, and I have an Exhibit in here, or I think it's Exhibit C which is a copy of that General Municipal Law to which we refer. Mrs. Lytle: I still, Mr. Schriever, I may be way out in left field but I don't think General MuH.icipal Laws apply to the Town. 126 Mr. Schriever: It applies to the, this is, Section 247 of the General Municipal Law is the law under which these scenic easements are being issued by the Town, such the one that we had a hearing on, last Tuesday. That is the basis for those scenic easements, being, it's the legislation that allows the Town to do that. Mr. Heuser: All right, I think, that Mrs. Lytle posed a question to you before- what, none of these forms shows just what you are looking for, or what type of reduction you want. Mrs. Lytle: No. Mr. Schriever: Well, it's on the next, the next page. Mrs. Lytle: The first place, the first place. Mr. Heuser: On what next page? I don't see it. Mr. Schriever: Well, the regular place that it is supposed to go. Mrs. Lytle: To be technical, we should not have listened to you at all until you filled in on every one of these forms what your reduction, we can't act on this. Mr. Heuser: No, this isn't filled in. Mr. Schriever: I don't follow you. There's the tax that I wish. Mr. Brown: To be reduced to $80 instead of-. Mr. Schriever: Where, I mean, I think I've done it. Mrs. Lytle: You've done it on everyone of them? Mr. Heuser: Full market value of property? Mrs. Schwicker: Right. Mr. Schriever: I don't see how I can establish that. Mrs. Schwicker: He wants it reduced to $60 on this one here, $600. Mr. Schriever: Right. And that's the purpose of this writing, to try to establish how much-. Mrs. Schwicker: In other words, he wants every bit of it reduced down 10% of what their value is right now. Mrs. Lytle: Do you have a rate on which you base this? Mr. Schriever: Well, in this, in this collection of writings, No. 1 I es- tablished that this is Tidal Wetlands as covered under the Act so that it 127 has a scenic easement on it. And then I established that a scenic easement gives you a 50% tax reduction. In this case it ought to give you about 100% because you can't do anything at all with the property. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but you have-. Mr. Schriever: But nevertheless, I'm assuming it's 50%. Then I'm saying farmland is assessed at $250 an acre, and there is a sample of Demarest's farm land in there, and I established that, then I say, therefore, upland that has a scenic easement on it ought to be worth $125 an acre. And I show that, and I also demonstrate the John Tuthill's parcel there to the east is assessed at $132, which is essentially $125. I mean, I think I've established that. Now, then at that point I go to Mr. Pomaroy, his appraisal, a Pomaroy Associates appraisal, and that appraisal, there was a statical study of wetland sales over the, over, I think, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, everywhere that they could find wetlands in this area. Connecticut, I don't remember how many places. It cost umpteen thousand dollars, and was paid for by the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and the result of that study is one excerpt which is in here. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but how much is that to do with the particular case we are taking up? Mr. Schriever: It has everything to do with it. Absolutely everything. Because it says that wetlands based upon the sales that they were able to record over this area, over a period of, I think, five years, or something like that, they took every sale that they could get their hands -on, in that whole area, and they analyzed that sale and traced all that stuff back, and they were able to establish that the wetlands' value should be somewhere around 13% to 15% of the adjacent upland. That was there conclusion. I picked the highest figure, which is 15%. I take 15% of the adjacent upland, which is 125 and I get $19 an acre, and then I established on my own parcel that I have less than four acres, because of the creek, times $19, which is $76 and then-. Mrs. Lytle: First.. thoughbefore you go any further, I would like- Mr. Schriever: And then I take my upland-. Mrs. Lytle: To call your attention to the fact that you have filled all these forms in on the basis of what our tax rate, being 12.2- Mr. Schriever: No, I didn't check- that point. I did not check that point, and I don't use that point. Mrs. Lytle: Well you have it all in here, so I'm calling your attention to the fact that we use the 25%. Mr. Schriever: I asked in here and they told me 12.27%. 128 Mr. Heuser: No, they couldn't have. If they did, they didn't-. Mr. Schriever: Well, I don't know, when you ask, you go to the assessors' office, you ask a question, you record what they tell you and that's that. If it's 25%- I don't care what it is, make it 100%, wipe it out. Mr. Heuser: I don't say they couldn't, I-. Mr. Schriever: It doesn't have any bearing with my- but it's, you know, it seems to work, it fits the thing, it fits the numbers, so I had no reason to believe it wasn't true. But that is what I was told. That it was 12.2, this is the State equalization rate and I was told it was for the whole Town of Southold. Now, if I was misinformed, please don't-. Mrs. Lytle: You were not misinformed, you either did not read the papers or you have not been aware of what's been going on here for many years. That 12%, or 137, whatever it happens to be, particularly here, has only been used in the Town of Southold by the School Board. The Town of Southold assesses all their property on the rate of 25% of the full market value. And that's been going on for years. Mr. Schriever: It doesn't have any bearing on my argument, so-. Mrs. Lytle: But I question the way you have your forms laid out and what you might expect. Mr. Schriever: It doesn't affect it. Mrs. Lytle: It doesn't affect that. Mr. Schriever: It doesn't affect my argument at all. The appraisal that was done was a statistical study, it includes wetlands in New York City which are obviously more valuable than those out here, and the wetlands in Huntington, the wetlands in New Jersey, and the wetlands in, and all that was done was, there was no way to establish a pattern of value itself, so what they did, they took the ratio of the upland value adjacent upland value to the wgtland value. And they were able to show a statistical corrolation between those two, and that is where this number comes from. So it does not base at all-. Mr. Heuser: It could be a total relation, there's no doubt about it. Mr. Schriever: Well, I mean, you know, if you go to New York City, waterfront is $500 a front foot, or, what, I don't know what the hell it is, but ob- viously the wetland is going to be worth more there than it is here. Mrs. Lytle: The County has set up certain standards along with all that- maps. The Town Board has certain standards for certain types of wetlands. We have some material that we can refer to, and I think between those three, we should be able to give this some thought. What do you say? 129 Mr. Heuser: I agree with you 100%. Mrs. Lytle: And when we meet again,we give no decisions today. We meet-. Mr. Schriever: No, I didn't spring that, in fact, I had, I would hope you would read this before you-. I think this is well documented, I mean, it- Mr. Heuser: It is. It is well put together. Absolutely. Mr. Schriever: This thing is solid. You know, this is a Court case, and that's how solid it is. There's no holes you can sneak through. Mr. Heuser: The thing that would be clearer and collectively, in our minds, would be how much depth the average piece of property has above so-called marshland. ujir. Schriever: Hell, I mean obviously if it's over ten feet above the-. Mr. Heuser: I mean, the depth before you hit your marshlands. Mr. Schriever: You mean from the road2 Mr. Heuser: Yeah. Mr. Schriever: Well, I've established that, at the most it's 135 feet, that's mine, because I filled a little bit, I had a peak and I squared it off. Mr. Heuser: 135 feet by 19-. Mr. Schriever: The topsoil on this-. Mr. Heuser: Is 13,500 feet. Mr. Schriever: Huh? Mr. Heuser: Well, for example, would have 13,500 feet of dry land. Mrs. Lytle: That's dry land now. Mr. Heuser: If it's your depth. Mr. Schriever: He doesn't go out anywhere near what I do. Mr. Heuser: He's got 90- You mean the figures you gave me? Mr. Schriever: No, I said, I used the figure of 100 feet in the article here. Mrs. Lytle: When you get right down to it, it's the most important thing we need. 130 • . Mr. Schriever: I said in my case it's 135. But I said the average is about 100. Mrs. Schwicker: I meant your measurement of your dry land. Mrs. Lytle: Do you know what you can do? Mrs. Schwicker: The measurement of the dry land. Mrs. Lytle: That would be a big help between now and let's say Monday? Take one of these maps and give us the footage on all these things. Mr. Heuser: Dry land. Mrs.Schwicker: Dry land. Mrs. Lytle: We want to know how much dry land there is from the road back-. Mrs. Schwicker: Road back to the marshland. Mr. Heuser: You see, we can't visualize this sitting here. Mr. Schriever: Well I see. Well,-. Mrs. Lytle: Do you know what I mean? Mr. Schriever: Well, I can give you a-. Mrs. Lytle: Why don't you do it to one map and get it me between now and next Monday. Mr. Schriever: I can show you on this map. Mrs. Lytle: Well, but we want accurate figures. Mr. Schriever: Yeah, I know what's there, because I did this-. Mr. Brown: Why don't you use your own survey? Mr. Schriever: Yeah, here. You see this? This is not correct. The dry land actually goes about like that, then it cuts way back in here because I filled this corner. They mis-read the photograph. This line should go over, and this is 100, this line has been drawn right, is 135 feet straight back from the road. But I go back, you see, farther than the other people because they're not more than about 100, and he's maybe-. Mrs. Lytle: If you're very familiar with this map, take part of it home with you, mark it up that way, if the line is not correct, put the correct line in-. Mr. Brown: Why don't you use that one? Mrs. Lytle: And put the footage of dry land in. Then we know what we're talking about. 131 Mr. Schriever: I've got another copy of this so you can keep this. I've got, but, you see, when he drew this he didn't show, but I can from that photograph and from my own knowledge, I know what this is. It's 135 because I mean, I surveyed it. Mrs. Lytle: But give us the acaurate figures. Mr. Brown: You're the biggest. You're the deepest. Mr. Schriever. I'm the deepest, right. Now, you see, obviously, you know, I'm-. Mrs. Lytle: And then we will see what we can do. Do you have any suggestions on that propertyl Mr. Robb: No, that's good. That's the only way-. Mr. Schriever: But I'll leave you this, with you. Mrs. Lytle: We're talking generalities and we cannot do any dollars and cents with generalities. Mr. Schriever: I think this is pretty specific. Mr. Brown: You've got to get it down to a-. Mrs. Lytle: You've got to have footage. Thank you. Mr. Schriever: The footage is there, and the maps are there. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Schriever, just for quick figuring, we figured roughly, you've got 32,000 feet of dry land. Mr. Schriever: I've got about 3/4 of an acre. Right? That's what I said right in here. Mr. Heuser: Now, now. Can you hit water there? I mean drinkable water? Mr. Schriever: I don't know. There are no wells over there. Mr. Heuser: I mean, no one drilled at any time there? Mr. Schriever: Nobody has ever drilled over there. Mr. Heuser: It's more than likely you would get salt water there? Mr. Schriever: Well, you might get fresh water for a little bit, and then you'd get salt water once you started pumping on it, I mean. Here's Welles, where's the map. You can see, all the-. Here, you see, way back in this corner. He does have a little well to the stand. Mrs. Lytle: Ok? 132 • . Mr. Schriever: The whole thing is academic, and I discussed it in here, the first place, it is illegal, so that wipes the whole consideration. Whatever it's, even if that were buildable, as long as there's no building on it, and with reference to the Tidal Wetland Act, you cannot tax if there is a building on it. Under the law. Mrs. Lytlet Well, if you send me a detailed map, you can either send it to me direct to Peconic, or you can send it here. Mr. Schriever: Well maybe I can leave it here at the office. How would that be? Mrs. Lytle: That's ok. Mr. Heuser: Leave it right in the assessors' office. Mrs. Lytle: Mark it to my attention though, please, so they'll know. Mr. .Schriever: Now, do you think you would want another copy of this for any reason, cause I have one here. Mrs. Lytle: Leave us one copy. Mr. Schriever: All right, that has all of the, that has xeroxed in the back, all of the copies of the folders you got so you can check the address. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, thank you. Mr. Schriever: And I'll leave this, these are the three exhibits that are not bound. In other words, there's only one copy. Mr. Heuser: You wish to retain it, have we got a copy? Mr. Schriever: I would like to get back, the book, I have only one copy of the book and one copy of the map. Mr. Heuser: You keep that. You keep it. Mr. Schriever: I'm sure they have them here, and the thing I think you will find very interesting is to read that Pomaroy book, there's only, just, you know, 20 pages. And I think you'll find that very interesting. Mrs. Lytle: Fine. Mr. Heuser: Thank you. Mrs. Lytle: Thank you for coming in. Mr. Schriever: I don't need this map, that will give you dimensions, your road frontages. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, thank you. 133 Mr. Heuser: And then are you going to give us a depth down there. Mr. Schriever: Yep, I will get,_I have another copy that I will mark it on. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Mr. Schriever: The dimensions. All right? Mr. Heuser: Right. Mr. Schriever: Thank you. #22. William Rupprecht and Marion Rupprecht, Mattituck, NY 11952. Property location: Woodcliff Drive, Mattituck, NY. Mr. Heuser: Hi, how are you? Mrs. Rupprecht: Hi, you don't remember me, do you? Mr. Heuser: No. Remember, Patient Aid in Riverhead? Mr. Heuser: Oh, yes. You worked down there then. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok. No. 22. Rupprecht, William and Marion, Mattituck. Ok, and location of property is Woodcluff Drive, Mattituck. (At this point during the meeting, the Board is trying to locate the books for Grievance Regulations.) Mr. Heuser: Inequality. Mrs. Lytle: This is 22. Mr. Brown: Yup. Mr. Heuser: Inequality. The sample of other parcels on which complainant relies for objections, so forth, so forth and so forth, complainant believes that the assessment should be reduced $5,000. Mrs. Lytle: Be reduced $5,000? Mr. Heuser: To $5,000. Mr. Rupprecht: It would be nice if it could be reduced $5,000. Mrs. Lytle: Are those cards being pulled? Mr. Heuser: I don't think at this point, no. 134 Mrs. Lytle: I think we should have a couple of cards here for comparison. Mr. Heuser: That's up to you. Uh, I wouldn't, I don't know, I was gonna be, I was gonna be part of, I think Ed Slager's land position would have something to do with his property. Wouldn't it? Isn't he the fellow that built on that, I mean, so we don't have to pull his card. Mr. Rupprecht: He has larger pieces. Mrs. Schwicker: He has, he's built two houses. Mr. Heuser: It's that second one that I'm thinking of. Mrs. Rupprecht: He's thinking about the first one. Mr. Heuser: Right. Ed Slager and Howard Dillingan, they're just two for comparisons in that area. Mrs. Lytle: May we have the two cards we've checked, please? Mr. Heuser: Them is a very important thing that is very helpful to us. To you and to us, is to fill this in where it should be, Chairlady? Mrs. Lytle: Yes, sir. Mark the values and the value of your property. Date of purchase and purchase price. Mrs. Rupprecht: Well we purchased vacant land and just-. Mrs. Lytle: Well that's all right. Mr. Heuser: That's all right. The purchase price would be the land plus the cost of your house. Mr. Rupprecht: The date of purchase was, a, 1977-. Mr. Heuser: It was purchased March 3, 1970? Mrs. Rupprecht: Right. Mr. Heuser: The land, could that have been $4,000? Mrs. Rupprecht: No. Mr. Rupprecht: No. Where? No, no. Mr. Heuser: March 3, 1970. It was $3,400. Mr. Rupprecht: No mortgage. Mr. Heuser: Is this on the land in particular, or on the house itself that you're asking for a consideration? 135 Mr. Rupprecht: The house and the land. Mr. Heuser: The house and the land combined? Mr. Rupprecht: Yes. I can't give you a full value of the property because we have no intentions of selling it for the next 50 years. Mr. Heuser: No, but you do, you do have a-. Mrs. Lytle: May I call your attention to the fact that you did not have increase-. Mr. Rupprecht: A what? Mrs. Lytle: You had the first increase on the land in 1971, and the first increase from 1966. Mr. Rupprecht: That was from vacant land to a house. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but it was only, if I see correctly, only $100. Mrs. Rupprecht: Yeah, but we only purchased the land in 1971, 1970. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but that's what I mean, it wasn't increased-. Mrs. Rupprecht: It's the house-. Mrs. Lytle: It seems to be the house if you have any questions,- but it seems to me that that would be the spot you would have your legal questions on, the house. Mr. Heuser: Have you got that typewritten form? Mrs. Lytle: Do you agree with me? Mr. Heuser: Yeah. Do you have Slager there? Mr. Rupprecht: You see, I only have a 75' frontage on the road. Mrs. Schwicker: Slager- she has that. Mrs. Lytle: This is- Mrs. Schwicker: Slager, and we have Dillingham here. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, that's Slager. Mrs. Schwicker: Could you pass that card over when you're finished, please? Mr. Heuser: Which one? Mrs. Schwicker: Mr. Robbs. 136 Mr. Heuser: Ok, that's Slager, $5,600. Mr. Rupprecht: That's a full acre. Mr. Heuser: Hu? Mr. Rupprecht: That'a an acre- a half acre. Mr. Heuser: That's what I thought. Mr. Rupprecht: Yeah, and I'm only 1/3 of an acre. Mr. Heuser: Ok, he's got 1/3 of an acre. Mr. Rupprecht: One-third. Mrs. Schwicker: Well, that's not the problem there. The land is all right. Mr. Heuser: The land is all right. The building is $5,000, the house is $6,000. Mr. Rupprecht: The other house that you have assessed here for $5,600 must cost from- seven-years to now the cost to build that house must be three times that amount, because I bought a piece of sheetrock the other day and the price was %.00 and I paid $1.00 seven years ago. Mr. Heuser: I know, everybody says that. Let's see here. You've got a full basement, Slager's got a half basement. Mr. Rupprecht: The garage is the other basement. Mr. Heuser: I notice, sir. Mrs. Lytle: How close are you to Dillingham? Mr. Rupprecht: Right across the road. Mrs. Lytle: Right across the road-. Who is the other fellow, where is he? Mrs. Schwicker: Slager. Mr. Heuser: Uhl Mrs. Lytlea Mrs. Lytle: Yes. Mr. Heuser: Half basement, full basement. Two baths, one and a half baths, baseboard heat, hot water heat. Same thing it should have been done- Mrs. Lytle:- Hot water and baseboard don't make any difference. Mrs. Schwicker: It depends, it depends, wait a minute. Baseboard heat can also be electric. 137 Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but when it's electric they show-. Mr. Heuser: Oh, yeah, yeah. They would show it electric. You haven't got electric, no. Hope not anyhow. Mr. Rupprecht: No. Yeah. Mr. Brown: I know, I've got it all, all electric, heat, and it isn't that unreasonable. Mr. Rupprecht: Oh, it must cost him an awfully lot of money compared to hot water, or-. Mr. Heuser: I was gonna compare it with Mrs. Lytle, on this other one. Here you are, here's another one. Look. No fireplace. Mrs. Lytle: That's the difference. -Mr. Heuser: There's a fireplace. Two baths. No fireplace, one and half baths. Mr. Rupprecht: It's only 75' frontage- that drawing. Mrs. Rupprecht: The land itself is 75' long. Mr. Rupprecht: Only 75' frontage. Mrs. Lytle: Do you need answers to any more questions? Mr. Brown: I want to see the form. The form, they filled out. Mrs. Schwicker: Here. Mr. Brown: Oh, you got it. Mr. Heuser: That's Slager's house. And, let's see, it's 24' x 501 , and this is-. Mrs. Lytle: This is 29' x -. Mrs. Schwicker: Excuse me, what do you consider the full market value? Mr. Heuser: 31' x 14 x-. Mrs. Schwicker: The house and the property together, say if you were going to seel it, what would your market value be? Mr. Rupprecht: We're not going to sell it. Mrs. Rupprecht: Well, we've never given that any thought, because we-. Mr. Heuser: Is 61 for the front of your house? 138 Mr. Rupprecht: 60. Mr. Heuser: Well, they've got 61 here. Mrs. Schwicker: Just to give us an idea on what the market value-. Mrs. Lytle: Who has the form? Mrs. Schwicker: Wait a minute, we're getting an answer. Mr. Rupprecht: I didn't know, but approximately about, I'd say, I can't tell you, I'd say $45,000. About $45,000. Mr. Heuser: On the basis of their figures here, you also have, this is informative, it doesn't mean that we have made our minds up, $900 more square feet than Slager has. Mrs. Rupprecht: And that's of living area though. Mr. Heuser: It's supposed to be living area. Mr. Rupprecht: Well, you've got the basement as a living area, and there's a two-car garage and a basement, and-. Mr. Heuser: All I'm including is the main building, the extension, and the over-hang. And with you the main building and the two extensions. We get $5,968 feet and he's got $5,050. $900 feet- Mr. Brown: Mr. Heuser, the rate was there? Mr. Heuser: It would be figured because his 611 , you're 61' long, right? Mrs. Rupprecht: Um. Mr. Heuser: And he's only 50 feet long. And you're 27' and 31' wide in both areas, he's only 24' wide. Mr. Rupprecht: Yeah, but look at the size of the basement. Mr. Heuser: All right, but I'm just talking about the house-. Mr. Rupprecht: Yes, yes. Mr. Heuser: We've got to handle one thing at a time. Now, on the land you have less assessment on the land than he has. Mrs. Lytle: And the land hasn't been changed in a long while. Mr. Heuser: Your land hasn't been changed and neither has his. His is rated $600 and yours is only $500. And as I, as we pointed out, now this is only informative, as Mrs. Chairlady will tell you, even though we're discussing it we don't make a decision. 139 Mrs. Lytle: And then we meet later and we go over it all again, and then we write you a letter and tell you. Mr. Heuser: What we're trying to point out is while some of these figures are on the surface, out of line, when you figure that one must have 11000 more feet than he has in your house. Living areas. And your land is assessed for $100 less than his. It makes a different aspect to it. Mr. Rupprecht: Right, but then you go to work and take Dillingham's house across the way. Mr. Heuser: All right, we got Dillingham here? Mr. Brown: We've got it here. Mr. Heuser: You got it there. Dillingham has-. Mr. Brown: More land. Mrs. Schwicker: Than Slager, this has more land. Mr. Heuser: This one here-. Dillingham has 1,500 less foot, feet, foots, feets, living space than you people. Mr. Rupprecht: That isn't possible. That house is three stories high and the basement has living quarters. Mr. Heuser: Well, there's a basement by living quarters if he went and did that himself, sometimes the assessors don't catch it. Mr. Rupprecht: And the size of the house. Three stories. Mr. Heuser: The size of the house is 28' x 35'. Mr. Rupprecht: Three stories. Five bedrooms. Five bedrooms. Mr. Heuser: 28' x 351 . He's got three rooms on the first floor and four rooms on the second floor. Mrs. Schwicker: It's only considered a two-story house. Mrs. Lytle: What's the floor area. Mr. Heuser: That's why I say 28' by 351 . Mrs. Rupprecht: Yeah, but the area, the floor area is small, but the-. Mr. Heuser: Well it's only $4,440 feet. I've got it right here. In other words he's got 1,500 less footage than you people have. And, his land is assessed at $400 more than you. 140 Mr. Rupprecht: His $5,300, assessment. Mr. Heuser: He's got 900 feet-. Mr. Brown: He's talking about the land though. Mr. Heuser: Oh, you're talking about the land now? Mr. Rupprecht: Oh, well, yeah. I took the whole assessment. Mrs. Schwicker: The land alone is $500, his is $900 where yours is $500. Mr. Heuser: $500. Mrs. Schwicker: And the building assessment is the fact that the footage is doubled, that's alot different. I say 1,500 square feet of living space. Mrs. Lytle: Any more questions? Mrs. Schwicker: He's got a half an acre and he's got a third an acre. Mr..Heuser: Let's see, we've got- do you wish this back? Mr. Rupprecht: No, I have copies of that. Mr. Heuser: We'll make it part of our file. Mr. Rupprecht: I have a copy. You can make it part of your file. Mr. Heuser: Carrig was less than yours, I mean Dillingham. Land is higher. Do you have Dillingham there, Mr. Brown? What's his area again? Mr. Brown: $4,410. Mr. Heuser: Hu? Mr. Brown: $40410. Mr. Heuser: And this is, $4,410? Mrs. Lytle: Yes. Mr. Heuser: 1,500 more feet. And the land is? Mr. Brown: $500. Mr. Heuser: Land is $500. He's $500, land is higher. Mr. Rupprecht: He's over an acre. It's over an acre. It's 51,000. Mr. Heuser: Who, Dillingham? 141 Mr. Rupprecht: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, Dillingham. Mr. Brown: Over an acre? No, it's .51. Mr. Heuser: .5 of an acre. Mr. Brown: Dillingham is 1/2 an acre. Mrs. Schwicker: .5. Mr. Brown: .51. Mr. Rupprecht: Half acre is .4. Mr. Heuser: No, half acre is .5. .5 and 1/10th. You could get away with .4 something if you called it a builder's acre. Mrs. Lytle: What we do-. Well, we meet later, make up our minds, and then we write you, and you will be notified by mail. Mr. Rupprecht: Thank you. 4ca'c�.'c:rh #23. Carol G. White, 3 Middleton Road, Greenport, NY 11944. Mrs. Schwicker: #23. Carol G. White, Middleton Road, Greenport. Mrs. White: Right. Mr. Giovanelli: May I ask one question? Mr. Heuser: Sure. Mr. Giovanelli: How do you come up with the $45,000? Mr. Heuser: That's what you have down here. Mrs. White: That's what we paid for it. Mr. Heuser: Fair market value, sir. Mrs. White: What we paid for it. Mr. Heuser: I mean, that's the figure you had here. I was quoting that. I'm sorry. Mrs. Schwicker: $952. Assessed value. Mrs. White: The new assessed valuation is $6,100. 142 Mr. Heuser: Assessed valuation should be reduced to $3,900. Which is $1,800 less than it was in 1964. Mrs. White: That's very hard for us to figure out. How do they assess the house? Mr. Heuser: No, in 1964 it was valued at $5,700, on assessors' roles. MiS White: In 1975 it was valued at $5,700, because that's when they re-assessed. Mr. Heuser: It says 1964. Mr. White: We bought it in 1975. Mr. Heuser: In other words, let me explain something. In 1974, they had it on the tax roles at $5,700. And that's why it was still that on the tax roles when you bought it. Mrs. Lytle: The land was $900, and the building $4,800. Mr. Brown: And it stayed the same for 11 years until they bought it. Mr. Heuser: It was 14 years, in fact. Mrs. Schwicker: The land-. Mr. Heuser: Well they bought it in 1975. Mrs. Schwicker: The land has not changed. The only thing that has changed is the building. Mrs. White: Would you might tell me, I mean, why? I mean, we've, I have all the prices on all the houses on the street. We are the highest. I mean, I would just like .to know why. Mr. Heuser: All right. We go very slowly. We answer one question at a time. Mrs. White: Ok. Mr. Heuser: We have to examine this, do you understand what I mean? Mr. Giovanelli: Yes. Mrs. White: I might not, I might not have that filled out right. Mr. Heuser: Well, first of all, your over-evaluation is very much out of line. I mean, you would have to point that out. If you're gonna reduce to $3,900 when in 1964 the assessment was $5,700. Mrs. Lytle: No, we couldn't. 143 Mr. Giovanelli: How did they come up with that 1964 assessment? Now, according to the papers we got, when the house was built it was only, Mrs. White: $19,000. Mrs. Lytle: When did you buy the house? Mrs. White: In 1975. Mrs. Lytle: And what did you pay for it? Mrs. White: $45,000. Mr. Giovanelli: Now wait a minute. Let me get one thing straight. Mrs. Lytle: Well, my point is, that you want it reduced to what? Mrs. White: First of all, when we bought it for $45,000, don't forget that was including furniture and the tools in the house. Complete furniture. Everything. Mr. Heuser: Completely furnished. All right. Mr. Giovanelli: You see, this is one thing why I say it is over-valued. When we bought the house, the man specified right off that we had to pay $1,000 for all the equipment we had, not the furniture but the tools that he left in the house, which we went along with because-. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but then that wasn't included in the deed to your house. Was it? Mr. Giovanelli: Yes. It's all for the whole thing. Mrs. Lytle: I'm not talking about these papers here, but the deed, when you paid the man and when your lawyers checked the deed for the property, now what was the price in that deed? Mrs. White: Well, it was $44,000 with furniture, but the $1,000 extra was for the tools. Mr. Heuser: $44,000 with the furniture. Mrs. White: Everything, completely. Mr. Heuser: $49,000. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but where does the rest of the money come in from? Mrs. White: Real estate, #39000 for real estate fees. Mr. Heuser: It's still $49,000. 144 • • Mrs. Schwicker: $49,000 was the selling prict for the house. Mrs. Lytle: $49,000 was supposed to be the price for the house, yeucdon't pay real estate fees and all that. These figures were supposed to be taken off the deed. Mrs. White: $45,000 we paid, and 43,000 was what the real estate got out of it. The house was being, the man wanted $45,000 for the house and then we had to go through real estate fees for the house. Mr. Heuser: Let's see now, garage. 5,200. They gave you 80 feet off it because your garage wasn't finished yet. Mrs. White: That's right. Mr. Giovanelli: Oh, for the family room. Well, now, I, this is another thing I didn't understand. What does he mean by unfinished as far as the assessment is concerned? Mr. Heuser: It says here, that one garage into family room. Mrs. Lytle: Made ore garage into a family room. Mr. Heuser: Right. And then it says here, incompletion, for completion, the property, at the time they made their assessed valuation you hadn't completed it yet, is that true? Mr. Giovanelli: It's all completed though. All we have to do is paint it and put furniture in it. Mr. Heuser: All right, this statement was made on May 4th. Mr. Giovanelli: It was just as finished as it is right now. I mean, you know, unless we're going to be assessed for furniture and paint that we put in. Mrs. White: This is what we want to find out. Mr. Giovanelli: Now he's saying partial. Mrs. White: He's got only $6,100 partial. What's it gonna be when it's you know,. full. Mr. Heuser: No, I didn't say partial. Mrs. White: He did. I've got the papers right here that, where is it? Mr. Heuser: Who did? Mrs. White: The assessor. Mr. Heuser: When was this, do you know? 145 Mrs. White: Here it is, right here. Right there. It says "partial." Mr. Heuser: I'm. looking for a date. Mrs. White: I don't know. Oh, maybe the envelope has a date. June 17th? June 17th. Mr. Giovanelli: July 17th. No, June. Mrs. White: No, it had to be June 17th. Mr. Brown: July 17th was yesterday. Mrs. White: June 17th. Mr. Heuser: Who's the assessor for Greenport? Mrs. White: Mr. Kelsey. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Kelsey. Mrs. White: But I don't now if he handled all of it, I only, I think he did. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Kelsey, there's no date on here. The folks say that it was mailed in, when? Mrs. White: Wait, this ain't. I've got the wrong envelope. I'm sorry. I put it in the wrong envelope. Mr. Heuser: $6,100 partial. Now we understand $6,100 partial means. But the folks claim that at the time it was assessed that the family room was finished already. Mrs. White: Except for painting. And furniture, I mean. Mr. Kelsey: Well, then, they're getting a free ride. For another year. Because when I go back there, may I see this? Mrs. White: You've got partial. Mr. Kelsey: Unfinished garage. Apparently when they were down there, they couldn't tell if it was finished, so when we go back again in 1979, it says, $6,200 is it? Mrs. Schwicker: Um. Mr. Kelsey: That's what you'll have then. $6,200. And that will be the final tax bill for next year. Unless you make more alterations. Mr. Heuser: $5,2007 Mrs. Schwicker: $6,200. 146 Mr. Heuser: $6,200. That's what they got in there. Mrs. Schwicker: But that's a partial. Mr. Heuser: But you said it was gonna go to what? Mrs. Schwicker: It's gonna be, in 1979, it's gonna be, when they go back in 1979-. Mr. Heuser: Well, anyhow, while you're doing that we have to get some other cards out. Folks have comparable figures. Where is that form. Any particular ones you would like us to investigate that is comparable to yours? Mr. Giovanelli: Yeah, take this one right here. Mr. Heuser: What's the name? Mr. Giovanelli: Peterson's. Mrs. White: It's $900 total. Mr. Heuser: But you don't have him on the list here. Mrs. White: All right, well take, here's Paul Corrizzini. Nichols on the corner. Mr. Heuser: Who? Mr. Giovanelli: Paul Corrizzini. Mr. Heuser: Nichols we have right here, but there's no Paul Corrizzini. Where's Nichols? Mrs. White: Right next door. Middle Road and North Road. Mr. Moisa: I'll have to look this one up on the subdivision map. Mr. Heuser: How about this Tony Volinski? Mr. Giovanelli: No, we didn't get any pictures-. Mr. Heuser: We have pictures for every card. Mrs. White: Tony Volinski's is the same as ours except he has a two-car garage and that isn't attached. Mr. Heuser: I mean, we have, I might point out, that every one of these cards has a picture of the home. All right, what would be a comparable one to you people? Location, etc. 147 Mr. Heuser: Tony Volinski would be? Mrs. White: Yeah. Mrs. White: Itwas to point out that everybody on the street is paying lower than what we are. Mr. Brown: Mrs. Lytle, may I see the card please? Mrs. Lytle: Sure. Mr. Brown: Is there a dormer in the back part of this one? Mrs. Lytle: I don't know. I mean, all the houses-. Mr. Brown: You mean total taxes are all about the same? Mrs. White: Right, total taxes. Mr. Giovanelli: We're the highest. Mrs. White: We're the highest on the whole street. Mr. Giovanelli: There's another home right there that's, you know-. Mrs. White: That's a brand new home. And he's $900. Mrs. Lytle: This figure that you have here, believes the assessment should be reduced to $3,900. And you say it's over-valued at $2,500. Mrs. White: That's the best- I don't know-. I don't know how to come up with all those figures. Mrs. Lytle: We think you should give this a little thought and maybe revise the figures on the basis. Mr. Brown: You see, these figures are lower than in 1962. Mrs. White: Here's a pen. Mr. Heuser: Is that one of the cards here? Mrs. White: Yeah, right here. Mr. Heuser: Which one is this? Mrs. White: Right here, $3,900. Mr. Heuser: Let's see. This is Antone Volinski. Mr. Brown: Yeah, that's a smaller house. Tony's is same as yours. 148 Mrs. White: He's got a two-car garage in the back, that's why ours is all on one. Mr. Giovanellit I mean, I don't know how they figure their assessments out. How they come up with the figures on it. Know what I mean. Mr. Heuser: He's got the garage and the footage, and he's got 1,200 less feet of living space than. Ok. Shall we discuss Volinski first? For comparable figures2 Mrs. Lytle: That's all right. Go ahead. Mr. Heuser: He's got half as much property as you, do you agree? Mrs. White: All right, we'll agree on the property. Mr. Heuser: All right, and he's got 1,200 less feet of living area than you have. Mr. Giovanelli: Top and bottom? Mr. Heuser: Yes. Main building, extension, extension, extension and garage. Mr. Giovanelli: How many square feet do you got down there? Mr. Hauser: You've got 4,000-and you've got $2 00 and he's got 4,000. Mr. Giovanelli: Top and bottom? Mr. Heuser: Yes. Main building, extension, extension, and garage. And 24' x 321 , you're 65 feet long, and 27' wide. Mrs. Lytle: That's a pretty long building. Mr. Giovanelli: We're talking about living space. Now hold it. That's not living space. You're taking the two garages which is 40 feet. Mr. Heuser: All right, now wait a minute. We're talking about the basis. In other words, bear this in mind. You're garage has a different tax rate than your house. Mrs. White: I realize that. Mr. Heuser: And so does his garage have a different tax rate than the house. Butt' the whole thing, if you--deduct this, you have 4,600 feet of living space and he's got 3,500. Mr. Giovanelli: All right. The living space in our space we measured before we came up here, and not including the garages is 26' x 401. Now what's that come up to? Now we measured it with a tape measure before we came up here, the living space, not including the two garages, which is another 40 feet. 149 Mr. Heuser: Basically, the garages, how wide are your garages? 12 feet? Mr. Giovanelli: Either 12 or 14, I'm not sure. Mr. Heuser: 12. Mr. Giovanelli: 12. Mr. Heuser: 12' x 271. Mr. Giovanelli: Yeah I think so. Mr. Heuser: 12 x 27 should be about 400. Mr. Brown: 334. Mr. Heuser: Ok. So if you take that away from this, they claim that you have 4,800 feet of living room. Mr. Giovanelli: How much? Mr. Heuser: 4,800. Mr. Giovanelli: $4,800. How did they come up with that figure? Mr. Heuser: You've got 27' x 39' in one area, and you've got 5 x 14 on your extension, and you've got 14 x 19 on your second extension. Mr. Giovanelli: What extensions are they talking about? Mr. Heuser: Well, apparently you've got a space put in between your main house and your garage, 14' x 191. Mrs. White: Yeah, well that's when we took the, that's where the family room, that's where we took, that 's why. Mrs. Lytle: It doesn't matter what you use it for. Mrs. White: No. But then they-. Mr. Giovanelli: All right, granted, granted that we have that, that still leaves, now what did you say that was? Mr. Heuser: 4,800. Mr. Giovanelli: 4,800. Mr. Heuser: And he's got 3,500. And he's got half as much property as you folks. Mrs. White: How do you go on property, could you tell me that? 150 Mr. Heuser: If you'll tell me what you want me to answer, I don't under- stand your-question. Mrs. White: I mean, how do you price on property? Now, on living space it's $3.00 or $3.50 per square foot. How do you price on property? I mean, it's, do you know what I mean? Mr. Heuser: The land, you mean? Mrs. White: The land. I did mean the land. I'm sorry. The land value. How do they assess that? Mr. Heuser: Footage on the main road,is 75 x 120, yours is 150. $6. Mrs. White: $6. Well then I don't understand about- the other house. Mr. Giovanelli: I still don't understand how he comes up with that 4,800 square feet. Mr. Heuser: Well, all I can tell you is, here it is 27' x 391. All right, your basic house before we move any further, and then 14' x 19' which is that extension that you put in there. Mr. Giovanelli: I go along with the extension. Mr. Heuser: And then you put an 8' x 14' behind it. Mr. Giovanelli: Behind it? Mr. Heuser: Well that's what it says here. 8' wide. It's a, behind 14' x 19' is a space. Mrs. Schwicker: Is there a patio back there? Mr. Giovanelli: The patio has always been there. Mr. Heuser: It's called an extension. What's behind this 14 x 19 living room that you're talking about? Mr. Giovanelli: Right behind it? It's another garage. Mr. Heuser: No, no. Not-. Mrs. White: There's a, behind it is a back hall. Mr. Heuser: Back hall. Mrs. White: There's a bathroom. Mr. Heuser: 8' wide. Mrs. White: Yeah, but that's not an extension. That was always there. 151 Mr. Heuser: Well, sometimes they word it a little bit different, but. Mrs. White: Oh. Mr. Heuser: You see, your house is irregular, irregular base. 65' x 271. So they charged you 39' x 27' for this area. Then 14 x 19' for, is this the family room? Mrs. White: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: Then behind the family room is an 8' x 141 , if you call it the hall, or the bath, or something else, and that's all your living space. Mr. Brown: They squared it off. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, that's all your living space. Mrs. White: Oh, because that was always there. Mr. Giovanelli: No, that's right. This is the garage, this is the family room. Mr. Heuser: Right. And this is the hall or bathroom. Mrs. White: Yeah, and that was there. That went out to the garage. Mr. Heuser: Basically-. Mr. Brown: You'd have to cut that off in order to square it off. In other words. Mrs. White: I see. Mr. Heuser: All right, we explained, Mrs. Chairlady, Velinski half as much as acreage. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, no question's apparent. Mr. Heuser: Take the garage off it, that's all. That's what I did. Now, Nichola comes into it, Mrs. Lytle? Nichols has got the same acreage as they have. Nichols has the same acreage as you have. And that's a point to start off with. Mrs. White: Yes. Mr. Heuser: He's got 1,200 less living room footage. Mrs. White: What's that again? Living spaces? Mr. Heuser: Living space. And again I'm taking this garage out of it so we will do the same for you. You got 4,800 living space. He's got 3,700 living space. 152 Mrs. White: And he's got a corner lot. Mr. Heuser: Well, they only measure one part- Mrs. White: That doesn't make any difference? Mr. Heuser: They only measure one part of it. Mrs. White: I mean, a corner lot, that doesn't mean that's more expensive, I always thought that a corner lot has higher taxes. Mr. Heuser: He's also assessed higher than you on that corner lot. Assuming after your question a slight increase in value. But there again, wait a minute, Mr. Brown., I just want to get this, of course. Well, there's your answer on those two comparable pieces of property. The living area was less. Mrs. Lytle: You'd be kind of surprised how large your house is. Mrs. White: No, I haven't. Because I've been in there home and their home is bigger than my home. I mean their living room is twice the size of ours, but you can't go by that. We've only got the two bedrooms and the den. Mr. Giovanelli: Here's, he's got the footage here. Mr. Heuser: Same properties. Mrs. Lytle: You can cut up a place and make it look smaller but have as much footage. What is one big room is not as-. Mrs. White: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: Beside of that it's 3,700 square feet. How much feet does-. Mr. Brown: The main building? Mr. Heuser: Did we say, this is right, I think we advised as 4,800. Was that right? Mrs. White: Yes. Mr. Heuser: 4,800 without the garage, and they got 3,700, so they got 1100 square feet living space than you people. So those are the two comparable ones you've listed-. Mrs. Lytle: When you look at the house, there's a squareness there. Mr. Heuser: It's 28' x 441 . Mr. Brown: It's 78 I think? Mr. Giovanelli: Their house is 28, and ours is 26 x 40. 153 Mrs. Schwicker: 28 x 34. Mr. Brown: 4875. Mrs. Schwicker: With the house? Mr. Heuser: Yours is 27 x 40. Mr. Brown: By 39. Mrs. Schwicker: By 39. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, 27 x 39. Mrs. Lytle: I think you've given quite as much comparison. Don't you? Mr. Heuser: That's it. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. If you take a house and cut it up into odd shaped rooms, it would be-. Mr. Brown: Does he want this? Mr. Heuser: Right. The one in your right hand. The one on top. Mrs. Schwicker: That's it. Mrs. Lytle: We don't want that. Mr. Heuser: That's Nichols. He wants to make a comparison. That's your comparison. We'll try to satisfy your thinkings. I think we've pointed out the differences here. The ;land-. Mrs. Lytle: It matters what you pay for the room, what you put in it, and how-. Mr. Heuser: The land in both cases was more expensive than yours but the house was less because of less footage. Mrs. White: Ok. Can we go on to the next one? This is really a-. Mr. Heuser: Oh, you've got two of them here? What's this one? #24. Carol G. White, Middleton Road, Greenport, NY 11944. Property location: Landing Lane, Greenport. Mrs. Schwicker: #247 Carol White-. Mrs. Lytle: One second, who's got the form? 154 Mrs. White: It's right here. Mrs. Lytle: Ok. Thank you. All right, now you can proceed. Mrs. Schwicker: Middleton Road Mrs. Lytle: But wait a second, I didn't get the name of the whole thing. Mrs. Schwicker: Same name, same street. Mrs. White: Carol White, 3 Middleton Road, Greenport. Mrs. Schwicker: Location of property is Landing Lane, Greenport. Mr. Heuser: Full market value of the property $18,600. The assessment should be reduced to $300- lower. Assessment $3,100. And you want it reduced to $2,8007 Mrs. White: Right. I certainly do. Mr. Heuser: You want it reduced $300? Mr. Giovanelli: Right. Mr. Heuser: Which? Mrs. White: Either way- whichever's the cheapest. Mr. Brown: In other words you want to go from $2,800 to $300, or to be reduced by $3007 Mrs. White: Reduced by $300. Mr. Heuser: That isn't the way you worded it. Mrs. White: Oh, wow-. Mr. Heuser: It should be reduced to $300? Mrs. White: That's what I thought-. Mr. Heuser: But that isn't what you mean. "By" $3007 Mr. Giovanelli: Right. Mrs. White: Well, it could be either way because I'm paying $675.52. Mr. Heuser: No. Mr. Brown: What do you got it for, $2,8007 155 Mrs. Schwicker: $3,100. Mr. Heuser: $3,100. Mr. Brown: You want it to go to $3007 Mrs. White: Oh, I see, oh, that's just-. Mr. Brown: In other words, to take off $300 to make -. Mrs. White: $2,800. Mr. Heuser: Do you want to change it, dear? You better fire your book- keeper, that's all. Mrs. White: He's the bookkeeper. Blame him. He told me what to write. I didn't know. All right, now, would you take a look at this house please? It's a mobile home. I cannot sell it for the simple reason that a bank will not take a mortgage on it because it depreciates every year. This is what, you can call Southold Savings Bank, this is what the man told me there. All right. I have no waterfront property there. It's 110' x 1151 . Down the corner from me is waterfront property, here is the house. They are paying the same tax, and they are waterfront, and there is a dock in front of their house. Now, you explain that to me. Mr. Heuser: Little by little. Mrs. White: What do you mean little bit at a time? Mr. Heuser: May I, may we have your form back? All right, who's the guy down the house from you? Pollock? Mrs. White: Pollock. I don't know his first name. Mr. Heuser: Pollock on Beach Road. Mrs. White: Beach Road. Mr. Heuser: You rent this mobile home? Mrs. White: Yeah, we rent it. Yes I did. Can't do anything else with it. Mr. Heuser: There's a mortgage on that. Mrs. White: Yes. Yes, there is. Mr. Giovanelli: Yes, there is a mortgage. Mrs. White: A private mortgage. A bank won't take it. Mr. Heuser: Oh, I get it. 156 Mr. Heuser: In other words, if you sell the house off. could you, you can sell the mortgage with it? Mrs. White: No. No, she won't take it because she's about 80 years old. That's in the agreement that if I ever sell it we'd have to pay her. Mr. Heuser: At least you were able to get a cheap rate. Mrs. White: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: Did we give you all the information you need? I'm talking to the young lady. Mrs. White: Yes. There's no seller, there's no-. Mrs. Schwicker: They're paying the same taxes as she's paying for the mobile. And they have a dock in front of their property. Mr. Heuser: Have you got the card there, Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: Yes, sir. Mrs. White: You see, when I bought this house, I-. Mr. Heuser: I mean the, their mobile home card. Mrs. White: The taxes on it were half because he was a veteran. A disabled veteran. That's why-. Mr. Heuser: $3,100. $3,100. Now you want that reduced $300, right? In other words to $2,800. Mr. Giovanelli: That's right. Mr. Brown: In other words what you're saying there, is this the half? Mrs. White: That's the whole tax. Mr. Brown: Yeah, but he's paying for-. Mrs. White: No, not him. We're talking about the mobile home. Tilly Scavoni owned the mobile home. And this is what I am saying. He was only paying-. Mr. Heuser: Where's Pollock? Ok, that's Pollock. Just lay it down right there. Says land is assessed higher than yours. Mr. Giovanelli: His whole land is worth more than our whole property. Mrs. White: In fact the house right next door to theirs, $60,0009 the house that was. 157 Mr. Heuser: Do you remember when you put that trailer on your property? Mrs. White: 1969, I believe. We didn't put it there. We bought it. Mr. Heuser: In other words, in 1967 there was only land. Mrs. White: Yes. I believe in 1969-. Mr. Heuser: And the property was sold to you in 19727 Mrs. White: Yeah, we bought the whole thing in 1972. The trailer, too. Mr. Heuser: Oh, the trailer was on it. Mrs. White: Oh, yes, the trailer was on it. $16,500 I paid for the whole thing. Mr. Heuser: Your comparison is not out of line except they have not increased your assessed valuation in comparison with this house, is fair. But fair. But fair the way you look at it. Co you understand what I mean, Mrs. Lytle? Mrs. Lytle: Yes I do. It's strange. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, I know it. Mrs. Schwicker: Right. Well we said that from the very beginning. Mr. Heuser: He's got waterfront, right? Mrs. White: Sure he does. And a dock in front of the house. Mr. Heuser: Does he have a boat? Mrs. White: Probably. Mr. Giovanelli: Yes. Yes he does. Mrs. White: He's got all kinds of vehicles in the yard. It was always packed. Mr. Heuser: Mrs. Lytle, that's something we will have to discuss, not their property, but you will have to discuss this other thing. Mrs. Lytle: With the assessors. Mr. Heuser: Do you want to explain? Do you wish to elaborate on that. You're the chairlady. Mrs. Lytle: I. I was wondering whether we should do it now. 158 Mr. Heuser: You're the boss. Mrs. Lytle: Well, what do you think? I'm not the boss in that sense. What do you think? Mr. Heuser: Inequality there. That's all I'm gonna say. Mrs. Lytle: It's an inequity. But whether we do that now or whether-. Mr. Heuser: The inequity is in favor of the other man. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, but basically, it's not affecting your property value other than that his, now, uh, let me finish, other than his is favorable. Mrs. Lytle: Is this what you want? Mr. Heuser: That's all I can say because we are not assessors. Mrs. White: What I'm gonna say, you mean, by looking at this you think this house is worth almost $700 taxes for that box? It's a mobile home. I mean, just take a look at that house, please. That's just a trailer, that's all it is, on a foundation. There is no garage. There is no cellar. Mr. Giovanelli: It depreciates every year. The bank- Mrs. Lytle: Do you know anybody else in the Town that has a trailer? Mr. Heuser: I can see you r point. Except that I'd have to ask this question. That has been in effect since 19717 Why hasn't anjbody­ _ broaght this�,up­for over-evaluation? Mrs. White: I always thought it was over-assessed, but I didn't have the nerve. Mr. Heuser: Oh, you shouldn't feel that way. Mrs. Lytle: 8 years. Mr. Giovanelli: Oh, we got homes right on pur street that-. Mrs. White: Right on Middleton Road that are only paying, Chet Konarski is paying only $588 for a home and land. And, I mean, this is just a trailer. Mr. Heuser: And what are you paying for this? Mrs. White: 600-. Almost $700. 159 Mrs. White: $675.52. Mr. Heuser: We've got the answer. I mean, done to the best of my ability, that this thing is unfavorable to them, not as far as their property is concerned, but as far as the other guy's property is concerned. Mr. Giovanelli: Now, you're saying we come up here as assessors. Now you're gonna jack his price up because we brought this up to your attention. Right. Which isn't fair either. Mr. Heuser: No. You didn't bring it to our attention. That's what the assessors did. Mrs. Schwicker: We're not assessors. Mr. Giovanelli: No, I know you're not. Mrs. Schwicker: You're talking to us. Mr. Giovanelli: Yeah, I know you're not, but the assessors are gonna get word of this, right? So in other words it goes right around in a circle, right? Mrs. White: In other words you're not gonna have-. Mr. Heuser: In other words what you said to us tonight is dnly.ibetween us. We don't recommend anything except decision as far as you're concerned. Mrs. Schwicker: In other words they think we're gonna tell the assessors to go and charge them more. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, no. No. Mr. Heuser: No. Never get that impression. Mrs. White: Well then they're gonna re-assess then. Mrs. Lytle: No. Mr. Heuser: This is Pollock's property. Mr. Giovanelli: That's just a comparison that we brought up. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, I see. I didn't realize they just brought him in as -. Mr. Heuser: All right. The thing now is that we will have to, Mrs. Chairlady? Mrs. Lytle: Uh-. Mr. Heuser: We don't need that. Give it back to them. We've got an exact copy of that. 160 Mr. Giovanelli: Yes, we do. Mrs. White: Then you'll get back to us and tell us one way or the other? Mr. Heuser: I would suggest that at this point that we are going to review the trailer. And give them an answer on it. Mrs. Lytle: We will write you, in fact we write everybody else. And as you can see we have gone into comparison so we have some ideas on what to do. Mr. Heuser: We try to be fair in our comparison with that other property, too. Where we told you about the footage, etc. Mrs. White: Ok. I appreciate your time. Mr. Heuser: That's what we're here for. Mrs. White: Thank you very much. #25. Genevieve L. Richards, Estate of Joseph A. LaColla, Sr. Property location: Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Mrs. Schwicker: Are you coming for a reduction of the taxes? Mrs. Richards: Yes. Mrs. Schwicker: You are applying for a reduction? Mrs. Richards: Yes. Mrs. Schwicker: I'm gonna have to excuse myself from the Board because I know this woman personally. Mr. Heuser: Ok. (Mrs. Schwicker excused herself from hearing this particular proceeding.) Mrs. Lytle: Now wait just a second. Mr. Heuser: You can read this part off though. Mrs. Lytle: Now just a second. There's a form for you to sign, isn't there? Mr. Heuser: No. I excused myself last year. Mrs. Schwicker: He did last year and he didn't have any forms. As long as it is recorded that I excused myself. That's what they said last week. Mrs. Lytle: That's what we do. Ok. 161 Mr. Heuser: No. 25 here. Mrs. Schwicker: Do you want me to read it off? Mr. Heuser: Yeah. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok, I'll do that, but then I-. Mr. Heuser: You just read it off. You're just looking to get out of that too. (Mrs. Schwicker returns to read the complaint.) Mrs. Schwicker: Ok. Genevieve L. Richards and the Estate of Joseph A. LaColla, Sr. Main Road, Southold. Mr. Heuser: Estate of who? Mrs. Schwicker: Joseph A. LaColla, Sr. Mrs. Lytle: Spell that last. Mrs. Schwicker: L-a-c-a-1-1-a. Mrs. Richards: C-o-1-1-a. Mrs. Schwicker: Oh, c-o-1-1-a. (Mrs. Schwicker excused-herself from hearing this proceeding.) Mr. Heuser: Ok. Oh, it says here. Mrs. Lytle? Mrs. Lytle: You'll have to give us a lot more information before we can act on this. Mrs. Richards: But there was nothing pertinent-. Mrs. Lytle: Who owns the property? Mr. Heuser: Who's Genevieve Richards? Mrs. Richards: There's eight people that own the Estate, heirs. Mr. Heuser: Who is Genevieve Richards? Mrs. Richards: I am. Mr. Heuser: Ok, go ahead. Mrs. Richards: And that's another property which I own separately from the Estate. 162 Mrs. Richards: I'm an heir for the Estate, so is Mrs. Oliver. Mrs. Lytle: It is this one we're talking about, it's part of the Estate? Mrs. Richards: No. It's separate, from the first one. Mr. Heuser: But is that also part of the Estate though? Mrs. Lytle: Well, then why does it say it on it? Mrs. Richards: The lady out there said it was perfectly all right to put it on one folder. Mr. Heuser: In other words, you've got two claims? Mrs. Richards: Two claims. Mr. Heuser: Oh, then we'll have to have two folders. One for you and one for the Estate. Mrs. Richards: One for the Estate and one for me personally. Mr. Heuser: We can handle yours while someone else writes one out for the Estate. Mrs. Lytle: Now wait a second. This is already made out. Mr. Heuser: All right. We can handle the Estate first? Mrs. Richards: But the reason for the reduction is the same for both. Mrs. Lytle: It doesn't make any difference. Each is a separate parcel of property. Mr. Heuser: Now, we'll have to have two forms. Mrs. Lytle: Now, one thing, right here. You've made it out for the Estate but you have not given us any information at all as to, a-. Mrs. Richards: I've checked illegality, and on the other page there is nothing pertinent to the checking of the illegality that I've checked. Mrs. Lytle: Is there a tax bill for this property? Mrs. Richards: Of course. Mrs. Lytle: Well, then that should give us all of the information. The tax bill. Mrs. Richards: I don't. You're misunderstanding me. I checked illegality there, and on this page here, it says information to support claim. But it's not pertinent to what I've checked. Illegality. 163_ Mrs. Lytle: But you haven't checked anything. Mrs. Richards: Yes, I did. Mr. Heuser: I see it here. Property cannot be identified. Mrs. Lytle: But she has a tax bill so it can be. Mrs. Richards: Of course, I do,, ;but it cannot be identified now anymore. Mr. Heuser: Why? Mrs. Richards: Because the line of demarcation, the boundary lines have been destroyed, plowed under, by Lizza Industries Inc. who have been given the authority to do so by the State Department of Transportation, New York State. Now I, and they had the use of my property. Mrs. Lytle: How recently, how recently have you paid the taxes on it? Mrs. Richards: May 31st, I guess. Mrs. Lytle: Well, then you should have a bill that must have some identi- fication. Some idea. Mrs. Richards: Don't they have the records right here? Mrs. Lytle% They do. Mrs. Oliver: We do have a bill but we didn't bring them. Mrs. Richards: We do have a bill, but I don't think that's pertinent to the reason that I checked, although you're welcome to it if it's of any help. But do you understand that I'm being-. 1Mr. Heuser: Yeah, go slow, madam. Mrs. Richards: In effect, there's an illegality here that I'm being taxed for property that has been taken from me. And I don't have the use of it. Mr. Heuser: When was it taken from you? Mrs. Richards: Approximately 3 years ago. Mrs. Lytle: How recently have you paid the tax bill. Mrs. Richards: May 31st, 1978. Mrs. Lytle: Well, why did you pay a tax bill on the property that was taken from you. Mrs. Richards: Well, because-. 164 Mrs. Lytle: Is there a reason? Mrs. Richards: Well, yes, because I have to pay my taxes, right? Mr. Heuser: If this isn't your property you don't have to pay on it, dear. You say it's not your property. Mrs. Richards: Right. Mrs. Oliver: We haven't had the use of it. The State has had the use. Mr. .Brown: They haven't had the use of it. Mrs. Lytle: See if Mr. Watts can-. Mr. Brown: Let me see if I can help you out a little bit, all right? Mr. Heuser: Go ahead. We would appreciate it. Do you know where the new bridge is, down in- Mrs. Richards: Mill Creek. Mr. Heuser: Oh, where they put that road through? Mr. Brown: : No, just the bridge. The first bridge. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, yeah. Mrs. Lytle: First bridge. Mr. Brown: Ok, you got the first bridge. And here's the creek, right here. Mrs. Lytle: Where the antique place is? Mr. Brown: The who, yeah, right. Ok. Here's the antique place right here. Ok, and then you have the water. This is the water, and this is the new bridge. They live right over in here. They're saying, that Lizza Industries has taken a piece of it. That's what I'm assuming. Is that right? Mrs. Richards: 28 feet deep. Mr. Brown: All right. Oh, I mean, this is, I'm just trying to explain what you're trying to say. Mr. Heuser: That's condemnation. Now, you weren't compensated for it? Mrs. Lytle: When were you notified of the condemnation? Mrs. Richards: Never. Mrs. Oliver: When were we notified of the condemnation? 165 Mr. Heuser: That had to notify you. Mrs. Richards: They didn't. That's another illegality which has nothing to do with this though. Mrs. Lytle: I think we should find the card on this file. Mr. Heuser: You've got a card right here, dear. Mrs. Richards: I didn't think they- Mrs. Lytle: I didn't realize this was what it is. It can get very complicated. Mrs. Richards: It is very complicated. Mr. Heuser: It is. Is that 16 acres roughly? Mrs. Richards: Yes, the parcel, on the Estate, but not mine. Mrs. Lytle: There's the house. Mr. Heuser: Once again, we're not, we're coming back to something. This card for 16 acres. That's the Estate? Mrs. Richards: Yes. Mr. Heuser: And is that where they took the property away from? Mrs. Richards: That, and me, my property also, which is separate and apart from the Estate. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Brown, have the young lady fill out another form for herself while we investigate this. Mr. Brown: You will have to fill out one of these things. Mrs. Richards: All right. Although-. Mr. Heuser: Now this house that's on here. Is that part of the Estate? Mrs. Oliver: Can I see that? Is that the-. Mrs. Richards: Yes, yes, that's on the Estate. Yes. Mr. Heuser: All right. Then we've got the right card for the right thing. 16 acres with this house on it. And has this been taken partly by the State also? In the area? Mrs. Oliver: The property along side of the bridge. Mr. Heuser: I mean this also? 166 Mrs. Richards: In addition to mine. Right. Except for the part deeded in my name. Mr. Heuser: _ You can't stand in the way of public domain, but I think you had to be compensated for. Mrs. Lytle: Normally, you're notified. Mrs. Richards: You're talking about compensation by the State? Mr. Heuser: You can't, your person cannot stand in the way of public domain. Mrs. Richards: I understand. Mr. Heuser: But also, by the same token, I'm not legally, but the State they, you would think there would be some type of compensation involved. Mrs. Richards: Yes. But what does that have to do with the taxes being reduced for the amount of property that we do not anymore, any longer have. Mr. Heuser: Nothing at all. All you got to do is go to the assessors and have it re-assessed, re-appraised. Mrs. Lytle: But you've got to have something to show the property-. Mr. Brown: Are they just using this, in other words, what I want to word is, do you. Mrs. Lytle: While they are doing that bridge. Mr. Brown: Once they get all done are they gonna leave and leave the property as is, or are they-? Mrs. Richards: No, no. They've taken in fee. They've taken in fee. 11 feet deep on the Estate's and mine, 28, 17 =more feet temporary easement which I thought to have deeded back to me, which they have not done so yet. But in three years we have not had the use of that property. Mrs. Lytle: Would you folks have any notification or anything like that? Mr. Watts: That the Estate has taken the property over? Mrs. Lytle: The fact that the State takes property and don't notify you at all. AMr. Watts: Not as far as I know. Let me check it. Mrs. Richards: There was no paper signed, nothing. Mr. Watts: We haven't received any such notice. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, thank you. 167 Mr. Heuser: Now, Mrs. Chairlady? Mrs. Lytle: Yes. Mr. Heuser: At this point, you, the assessors, or I, in my personal opinion have no autln rity over this. This is a legal matter. Mrs. Lytle: I was just gonna say. I think you need an attorney. Mrs. Richards: I have to go through the expense? Mrs. Lytle: We have no record of, from the State of it having been-. Mrs. Richards: Could you verify that in writing for me? Mrs. Lytle: I don't think we have the authoity to. Mrs. Richards: Somebody here must. Mr. Heuser: What you could verify is that you couldn't handle it on the basis of information furnished. Mr. Brown: Then the assessors would say, you would go to the assessors and say, whatever you have, and if they say no, then you can-. Mr. Heuser: I don't think the Assessors will touch it either. Mrs. Lytle: I've already asked these questions and they have no record. Mr. Brown: Yeah, they have no record of anything. Mr. Heuser: Unfortunately, I think it's a legal matter and I think it has to be handled-. Mrs. Richards: Could I have something in writing to the effect that the Southold Town Assessors have nothing in writing and have not been notified by the State. Could I have something in writing so I could prove that. Because if it is a legal matter and I have to go through the financial , expense of it, I want something to verify it. Mrs. Lytle: Well, you would have to go to an attorney anyhow to have this re-assessed. So you make that statement to the attorney, and the attorney checks this-. Mrs. Richards: Right, but I would like to have that-. Mr. Heuser: May I suggest something? You personally could talk to Taaker and get his opinion, and then you could inform this lady. We're not legal minded if you understand? Mrs. Richards: I understand that. 168 Mrs. Lytle: I wouldn't know how much weight that would be carrying on-. Mr. Heuser: Well, explain to Mr. Tasker that be any objection to you giving that particular information. Mrs. Lytle: Well, we can't do that now, that will have to be done at a later date. Mr. Heuser: And you will be notified through Mrs. Lytle. Mrs. Lytle: That's the only thing we can do. Mrs. Richards: Say that again, what is it that -. Mrs. Lytle: I will consult with the Town Attorney as to the advisability of notifying you that we have never received a, rather the assessors have never received any instructions or information concerning the change of ownership of your property, or any part of your property. Mrs. Richards: If it should be assessed at a reduced rate, it that retro- active for the time that they've had the use of my property and the Estate of my father? Mrs. Lytle: I would have to also consult the Town Attorney. Mr. Heuser: I see, we went fromthere to here, we're not being evasive on that, but there are certain legal things that, you know, that we have to converse. That can be handled through Tasker. Mrs,-Lytle: That's what I say. You will have to consult with an attorney at the same time. Mrs. Richards: Would that necessitate my getting my own personal attorney? Mrs. Lytle: I think if you want to find out what's happened. Mr. Heuser: If you get Mrs. Lytle-s answer, then you can be governed by that and make your own rules. According to what Tasker tells Mrs. Lytle and she tells you . As far as we are concerned. Mr. Brown: The Board, as to what we can do, there's nothing. You know. Mr. Heuser: Did you get that other card now for the young lady? Mr. Brown: Yeah, right. Mrs. Lytle: What's that say, 25? Mr. Heuser: Yeah, yeah, 25. 26 is coming up now. That's a pretty messy thing. 169 Mrs. Richards: That's not of our making. It's a-. Mr. Heuser: No, no. Mrs. Lytle: No. There's no knowledge or no notification from anybody, why you can't-. Mr. Heuser: It's so difficult to think that the State would come along and come across your property. I don't say they didn't because I've ridden over it myself, you know. Mrs. Lytle: Oh, and we can see the mess, but, I, didn't think they were using the land, a, while they were just doing it or if they were taking it over. I don't know. Mrs. Richards: It has been taken in fee. Mrs. Lytle: Well how do you know it's been taken off? Mrs. Richards: Because they negotiated, they came three years ago and tried to negotiate about that. I have never signed any papers for it at all. Mrs. Lytle: Have you anything in writing in writing from them? Mrs. Richards: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: Well that's what you should have brought with you today. Mrs. Richards: Yes, it's right here. Mrs. Lytle: And whether they, which would show whether trey were taking it over or whether they were buying it from you, or what they're doing. Mrs. Richards: Yes, but you misunderstand me. I understand the right of eminent domain, but if I, as a property owner, have a Court legality going on d)out the property that is being taken, so forth and so on, and they still have this right, as you say of eminent domain, and go ahead anyway, I still should be reimbursed, or on my taxes, at least because they've still had three years of the use and destruction of my property which I have not been paid one cent for. Or the Estate of my father. Now, three years is a long time for them to have the use of my property and me to be paying the same amount of taxes on it, which is just one of the things that they've done. Mrs. Lytle: Well that's what happening, the State's taking it over and I think between you and the State. Mrs. Richards: Correct. But the State has nothing to do with the taxes. In reducing the taxes. Mr. Heuser: No, no. We won't dispute that either, but neither did we 170 because we have no legal notices that have come either. That's the reason we are recommending it to be handled through Mr. Tasker. Mrs. Richards: Would it be more feasible if I brought in some, well, this is the last day for grievance. Mr. Heuser: Want to finish that so we can get it out, and then we'll go along with you. Mrs. Lytle: Is this all the property here? Mrs. Oliver: Yes, she has propertyadjoining the Estate. They took off the Estate property, then they- Mrs. Lytle: This property of your own did they take over too? Mrs. Oliver: Yes. Mrs. Richards: Both of those. Mr. Heuser: The E g-ate and this lady's here. Mrs. Richards: Two parcels. Mrs. Oliver: 'They took,77- feet. Mrs. Lytle: Well, all we can do is ask Tasker about that too then. Mr. Heuser: It's the same problem. Right? Mrs. Richards: Yes. Mr. Heuser: We should have a separate form, that's all. What's that in the name of, Miss? Mrs. Richards: Genevieve Richards. Mr. Heuser: No Estate? Mr. Brown: No Estate, no. Mrs. Richards: No Estate, no. Mr. Heuser: , With your permission can we just put down there the same as, same thing? Mrs. Lytle: Same thing. Exactly ame thing. Mr. Heuser: Same as above. Mrs. Richards: You see, they destroyed our survey markers, stone markers, so we can't, that's why I marked this here "property cannot be identified," because-. 171 Mr. Heuser: You mean by the markers, yeah. Has to be re-surveyed. Mrs. Richards: Which is another big expense for me. Mr. Brown: They charge $1.50 to put posts. Mr. Heuser: Who? Mr. Brown: The surveyers. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, I know it. Mr. Brown: Wow! Mrs. Richards: Oh, sure. The poor middle class person doesn't like to have to #26. Oki Genevieve L. Richards, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Mr. Heuser: Genevieve L. Richards, Main Road, Southold. Business? Mrs. Richards: Yes. And residence. Mr. Heuser: Hu? Mrs. Richards: Zoned business. Mr. Heuser: Oh, zoned business and residential. All right, property, it's the same thing. It is signed, Mrs. Lytle. That will go into the category*as the other. Mrs. Lytle: May I have the number. Mr. Heuser: #26. Mrs. Lytle: May I have your phone number just in case I have a question. We will write you. But just in case Mr. Tasker asks me a question that I can't answer. What is your phone number? Mrs. Richards: 765-1638. Mrs. Lytle: 765-1638. Mrs. Richards: And there is another number, if I can't be reached , is 765-2150. Mrs. Lytle: 2150. Normally I would write you the information, but just in case Tasker should ask me a question that I can't answer right away. Mrs. Richards: Fine. 172 Mr. Heuser: Ok. Mrs. Richards: Thank you very much. Mr. Heuser: We're only too glad. Mrs. Richards: Well, it's a thought any way. Mr. Heuser: Well, you don't, we haven't got your answer yet. cic�'c #27. Robert H. Gammon and Elsa D. Sinnema, 70 Woodside Lane, Laurel, NY. (Mrs. Schwicker returns to the table for this proceeding.) Mrs. Schwicker: Robert H. Gammon? Mr. Gammon: That's correct. Mrs. Schwicker: And Elsa D. Sinnema? Mr. Gammon: That was her maiden name. Her name is Gammon also. That's my wife. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok. 70 Woodside Lane, Laurel. Mr. Heuser: Isn't that the place with the bad water? Mr. Gammon: That's right. Mr. Heuser: I though we recognized you. Mr. Gammon: I was gonna say, I don't know how many of you do recognize me, the only thing changed about me is possibly my hairstyle. Mrs. Lytle: You're not sitting straight. Mr. Gammon: That's because I'm a year older. Mrs. Lytle: That was the way I recognized you. Let's look at the card. Do you remember the water situation, with the Board of Health on this? Mrs. Schwicker: uh-hum. Mr. Heuser: You've brought the land up again? Mr. Gammon: Yes. Right. Mr. Heuser: To refresh my memory, they gave you a $1,000 off last year? 173 Mr. Gammon: Right. I'll be glad to read you this statement which I prepared, and I'd like to make a comment after I read this statement. Mr. Heuser: Oh, this here one? Mr. Gammon: Yeah, right. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Mr. Gammon: There's a statement attached to it. It say% a Certificate of Occupancy for the foregoing property is still contained in restrictions to the effect that the water on this property is unfit. I crossed out pregnant women because that's not accurate. It's infants under the age of six months. There was no restriction of record when the land was pur- chased. Also, there still exists a serious drainage condition in the streets of the neighborhood due to improper construction of surface water facilities. Nothing has been done to rectify this condition although many requests have been made for relief of the situation. Both of these con- ditions have a direct bearing on true value. These grounds were made a basis on the appeal for 1977-78 assessment, resulting in a reduction of same. The assessment as reduced by the board has not been increased to the amount from which the said appeal was taken, namely, $10,000. Notwithstand- ing the fact that there has been no appreciation in value in the past year, nor any improvements made, such increase is groundless, capricious and without factual basis and in effect acted as a reversal of the prior deci- sion made by the board. In addition to the foregoing, there are numerous instances of inequities of assessment in the neighborhood where no, this carbon is, no consideration has been given to representative living space and arbitrary methods employed do not reflect true value of property involved. These facts can be readily established by referring to the assessment role. Now, I'd like to also say that perhaps on the basis that this statement seems rather strong, but I'd also to take this opportunity to commend everybody in this office. By that I mean the assessors, and the people that I have had an opportunity to deal with. They've all been very, very obliging and they've all been very, very cooperative. I have had no reason at all for complaint. I understand the fact that they've got to adhere to certain rules and regulations that are prescribed and set forth for them, to follow, so I'd like to commend you all because I have had opportunity rather recently; my grandmother died and left me substantial property and I had to deal with other facilities, and I think Southold in general is to be commended. I know that these people on occasion probably do take alot of abuse and are subject to alot of critism. But I am not one of the ones to criticize you, because I have had no reason no criticize them at all. The fact that I might disagree, shall we say, with their assessment of my property, does not mean that I disrespect them or in any way have any malice, one way or the other regardless of how this decision goes, and I want that put in the record so that there's no misunderstanding about the thing. Now, one of the things I had explained to me while I was down here was the fact that they have different methods that they employ as far as assessing square footage of property. It just so happens that I'm unfortunate enough to have selected a ranch, which is $3.50 a square 174 foot as opposed to two-family. Now in my neighborhood, there exists another, the other thing that's rather amusing and interesting to me is of the 14 properties that are in my subdivision, 9 of them contain more square footage than mine does, and in two instances they contain sub- stantially more square footage than mine does, but yet so I am told, I'm the luckiest boy on the block because I own the most valuable house in the neighborhood. However, in looking around and considering everything I don't personally feel this way because I have, you know, a wife and kids and so on and so forth, and I know one of the first things that my wife gives consideration to, is how many bedrooms does it have, does it have a living room and a dining room. She's not particularly concerned with-is it a ranch, is it a two story, so on and so forth. She's inter- ested in living space, and I think most people today are and I thinly that the method that is employed now again I'm not blaming it on the assessors, I'm blaming it on the system as it exists today. I think it's archaic and I think it should be changed because of the fact that I think, not only because of economic conditions changing drastically within the frame- work of the Country, but people's way of thinking about things has changed drastically in the Country. Now, I know for instances, I don't think any more that a ranch house is worth as much as it was, we'll say 10 years ago, because I, for instance as a prospective buyer, the things that I look at from now on when I go to buy a house is, how much is it going to cost me to heat it, that's number one. Now anybody that's even familiar with the general basics know that a two-story is easier to heat. Number two- how much land am I gonna use and how much land am I gonna deprive myself of when I have ground covered by a ranch, this means now in essence what I've done is decreased the value of my land because I have covered alot of it with the house. Therefore I can't plant my gardens, I can't plant my shrubs, so on and so forth. In other words, If I have 2,000 square feet of that land covered and another person, for instance, like on my block, he has 3,000 square feet but he has only 1,500 on each floor, which is a total of 3,000 in essence. He's got 500 square feet more of usable land than I do, and as a prospective buyer another thing I would look at is the heating. It's much more expensive to heat a ranch than it is to heat a two-story building because of the fact you have long runs. I know, because I physically built this house myself. So, if these are some of the inequities, the reason I mention this is these are some of the inequities, like, you have one here for instance, they have 3,098 square feet. I've only got 2,200 square feet, but yet I'm paying more. My assessment is more than him. and I've got another- Mr. Heuser: 2,200 square feet of what, sir? Mr. Gammon: 3,000 square feet of living space. I have 2,200. Mr. Heuser: We have down here 7,700 square feet of living space. Mr. Gammon: Not me. It can't be. Mr. Heuser: Are you Robert H. Gammon? Mr. Gammon: That's me. 175 • • Mr. Heuser: 29' x 501 , 13' x 221 , 19' x 221 . Mr. Gammon: That must be the garage included in that. Mr. Heuser: No, no, the garage is separate. The garage is 543 square feet. Mr. Gammon: Well, how can that, well, I'm not arguing the point, but right here, according, I took all of these figures right off the record when I was down here, and it's 2,250. Mr. Heuser: No. Yours is 7,715. Mr. Gammon: No, it can't be. 7,000 square in that house? Mr. Heuser: Oh, oh. Wait a minute. I apologize. 2,200. Mr. Gammon: Yeah, right, I'll tell you what you have. That's the assess- ment, and then when you take the land value on top of it it comes to $109000. I was gonna say, my God, I've got a big house. Mr. Heuser: 2,200. Mr. Gammon: I'd walk out of here if I had that kind of house and I was paying these taxes. I'd be lucky. Mr. Heuser: All right. May we interject at this point? Mr. Gammon: Yeah. Mr. Heuser: You're primary thing is the fact that your land was raised at $1,000. Mr. Gammon: Right, right. Correct. Mr. Heuser: That's the only thing we have to investigate, why it was raised. Mrs. Lytle: Your reduction was immediately reinstated. May I ask, what is your immediate beef? Mr. Gammon: My immediate beef is, that number one, I don't legitimately-. Mrs. Lytle: Excuse me, may I interrupt? Mr. Gammon: Now wait a minute. Have I given you the right copy? Mrs. Lytle: Property cannot be adju-. Oh, wait a second, my error. I've got the wrong copy. Mr. Gammon: That's not mine, and I didn't think so because I pencilled it. 176 Mrs. Lytle: Which is the one with the $1,000? Mr. Heuser: That's it. Mrs. Lytle: Have you got a notification that it was increased? Mr. Gammon: Yes, I did. As a matter of fact I think I have the-. Mrs. Lytle: Well I don't want you to, but I mean, was there any statement or any reason given on the notice? Mr. Gammon: Here it is. There's the notice and you can review it. Mr. Heuser: Here's something again to make a note of. You see this figure here? Look what it should be. Total land and buildings, $9,000. Mrs. Lytle: What's the date? Mr. Heuser: That's the new one. Whoever makes those damn things out doesn't look at them. Mrs. Lytle: In other words our reduction-. Mr. Heuser: Was reinstated. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, was reinstated and we have no reason why. We can't say why it was reinstated or what. Mr. Heuser: We should find out why. Mrs. Lytle: That's what I say. We'll find out why. When was the assessment-. Mr. Brown: Do you want to find out now, we know what the problem is. Mrs. Lytle: We want to know why it was reinstated. Mr. Brown: You want to know now, ok. Mr. Heuser: Mr. Kelsey? This gentlemen gave us legal documents last year that his water supply was not properly, wasn't that good enough, for his pregnant, a for his children. On that basis we reduced his land value $1,000. He had reports to show that. They went and increased it again this year. Why? Mr. Kelsey: Everybody else in that subdivision has been re-assessed. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, but he's the only one with that problem. Mrs. Schwicker: He's the one that came up with the documentation. 177 Mr. Kelsey: I'm sorry. You wouldn't get a, property get approval on that subdivision unless the Board of Health ok'd the water. Now, let's say if Mr. Gammon's water is bad, the guy next door, he must have bad water, also. Mrs. Lytle: There's a restriction with-the Building Department. Department. Mr. Gammon: As a matter of fact, there were two restrictions, if you'll allow me to have, this one is a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Kelsey: If it was bad as it was they have approved it. They shouldn't have allowed you to build there. There again, that's not my department. Mr. Gammon: May I make a statement? To the gentlemen? Mrs. Lytle: Not to the gentlemen. No. I'm sorry. Mr. Gammon: Oh, all right. The statement that I want to make is this. This was imposed on Southold Town by Suffolk County because by my under- standing of it, at the time that the subdivision drove the testholes, the parts of nitrates that they deemed as they deemed as being acceptable was one thing. Now in the interim, there was another set of standards put up. Now, whether it was a slip up on the part of Southold Town or on the part of Mr. Worlecki, who was the developer, I don't know. I have no way of knowing this. But from what I understand according to law, if the property is not sold within a certain length of time addi- tional testholes are supposed to be driven. In other words those test- holes were only good for a certain length of time and then they have to re-drive them. Now this was not done because I had a copy of the file map with the testholes throughout the subdivision that had been driven and there was no update on that filed map. It was the or*ginil one with the testholes, which means that no new testholes were driven in the interim. So I was totally unaware of the fact that this condition existed. So, Mr. Robert Villa of the, he's the Chief of General Engineer Services in Suffolk County in the Board of Health, stated, as a matter of fact, made the Town of Southold put .this restriction right on this Certificate of Occupancy and on the Health Certificate. Mr. Kelsey: I was just gonna see if maybe I could get Mr. Moisa to come in here because I believe he might have been on the Planning Board at the time. Maybe he'll have a better explanation. Mr. Heuser: Ok. Mrs. Lytle: What did he say? Mr. Heuser: To get Mr. Moisa to come in here. Henry Moisa was on the Planning Board at the time. 178 Mrs. Lytle: As it reads here, they put a new restriction on the land. Mr. Heuser: It's right here. ''sirs. Lytle: That's what I say. It reads they put a new restriction on the land. »Mr. Gammon: And the thing to me, personally, is I don't care what formerly you utilized to arrive at the value of the place, something is only worth what a willing purchaser will pay for it. And I, knowing women as I do, having been married to one 19 years, I know that when you say anything to do with pregnancy or babies, it's an adverse nature and they get excited. And it's a negotiating point. Mr. Houser: Are you familiar with that,Mr. Moisa? Mr. Moisa: What's that, Laurelwood? Mrs. Lytle: Yeah. Mr. Moisa: Well somewhat. Yes. Mr. Heuser: All right. This gentleman's property was, his taxes were reduced last year because of the fact that he had certificates that the water was not suitable for a pregnant wife or for an infant, and he has been forced to prove it, and the deed proves it. I mean, the certifica- tion proves it. Now, this has been increased to what it has been before. The question that we are putting to you people is why? Mr. Moisa: Because of the simple fact that originally, to approve by the Planning Board, if you want to go back to that time when I was probably a member of it at that time, I don't know what year that was approved actually, but you do, it has to be certified by the Board of Health that the water is potable for one thing, and I think you'll find that we have the subdivision map there that there has a stamp with the Board of Health on there, of the Board of Health on there approving that subdivision. Mr. Heuser: There's two certificates here, both claiming that the water is not-. Mr. Moisa: Well that could be at a later date than what that is. Mr. Heuser: That's the basis of which the allowance was made. The question that we have on this, that Mrs. Chairlady has here, is why it was raised again? Mr. Moisa: Well for the simple fact to keep it comparable with the rest of the properties in that subdivision. Mr. Heuser: But the water wasn't comparable, is that correct? 179 • Mr. Moisa: Well that you don't know because you don't have tests on each and every one. Mr. Heuser: The statement tells us that. We have no other complai4s from them. Mr. Moisa: But I mean as far as the other lots are concerned, you don't know whether that water is for the same test-. Mrs. Lytle: But wouldn't-. Mr. Moisa: As this one is. Mrs. Lytle: Well, wouldn't when they wanted to build the Board of Health do the same thing tothem, as they did to this gentleman? Wouldn't they have to resume the tests? Mr. Moisa: I presume that probably so. I don't know what the reading has been on other, I know there has been new houses constructed, and we haven't had any complaints from anybody else. Mr. Gammon: Madam Chairwoman, if I can-. Mrs. 'Lytle: Has, do you know •.nything about your neighbors on each side of you? Mr. Gammon: Yes, I do. The one next to me, Lewis Nardellello has the exactly same problem I do. Now as far as the rest of them. No, they do not have the problem. Lewis Nardellello does. And he is my immediate neighbor. And he and I are the only ones that have the problem in that area, and the assessor was entirely correct in his assumption about the fact that that is an earlier than this was. It is earlier, there's no question about it. Mr. Heuser: The property adjacent to this gentleman has the same problem but the rest haven't. Mr. Moisa: There's a testwell there, testhole there. Mr. Gammon: Now as I say, my contention is that, in my ernest judgment, with the restriction like this in black and white, it's something that I can't hide, and I have no intention of hiding it because I have no reason to, but in the event I should go and to re-sell the property, as I say-. Mrs. Lytle: It's a detriment. Mr. Gammon: It is. Definitely. Knowing women, I've been married to one for 17 years and I know, when you talk about babies or pregnancy or any- thing like that, the minute there's any kind of an adverse, it's a nego- tiating point, as far as true value of the property is concerned. 180 Mr. Heuser: Let's accept that and move on and, a-. Mrs. Lytle: What are those showing? Mr. Heuser: Testholes. We were just showing testholes. Mrs. Lytle: Ok. Mr. Gammon: Ok, fine. Thank you very much. Mr. Heuser: Mrs. Lytle will give you a response Mrs. Lytle: Within a few days. Thank you for coming in. , #28. James N. Bailey, 993 Memorial Drive, Apt. 303, Cambridge, MA 02138, and Lars and Yvonne Thunell, 324 East 41st Street, Apt. 603, New York, NY. Mrs. Schwicker: James N. Bailey, and Lars and Yvonne Thunell. Mr. Brown: Oh, they're all together? Mrs. Lytle: What is this, three people on the same piece of property? Mr. Heuser: Is this all one piece of property, folks? Mr. Bailey: Yes. Mr. Heuser: Oh, because the way it's made out here, there's three names and-. Mrs. Lytle: They haven't signed it. We do all the signing before we proceed. Mr. Heuser: In other words, I would take ' it Mr. B iley is representing you two people? Is that correct? Mr. Bailey: No. Maybe I can explain. We are friends, having met five or six years ago, and we, last summer, rented a house on Fishers Island and at the end of the summer we decided that we were going to buy the house. Mr. Heuser: Oh then you three bought it. That's all I wanted. Mrs. Lytle: We didn't know whether one was representing the other two. Mr. Bailey: No, no. Mrs. Schwicker: Ok. James N. Bailey and Lars and Yvonne Thunell. The location of the property: Widerpool, Wilderness Point, Fishers Island. 181 Mr. Heuser: De you got the card, Mr. Brown? Mrs. Lytle: You've got the card. Mr. Heuser: It's getting late. Mrs. Lytle: This is one gentleman and man and wife, right? Mr. Bailey: Yes. Mrs. Lytle: Are you with any associates in Ohio? Oh, Boston, Massachusetts, Cambridge Associates. Mr. Heuser: You see like I see. We're back to this wrong equalization rate again. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, the first thing we will tell you is that throughout the Town, the entire township, the equalization rate that we use, the rate that we use, is 25% of the market value. Now the equalization rate that you used, we do not use it on this type of work. That is used mainly for the school budget. This is the policy of the Town of Southold for a good many years. It simplifies it because it's always the same, and it's much easier for everybody to figure and understand. So, whatever you want it assessed, your figures to assess, is 25% of what we consider the market value. Mr. Heuser: $50,000. In other words the assessment here, you want it reduced $25,200 to $6,1407 Mr. Bailey: Yes. Mr. Heuser: Markett value this here, $509000. Purchase price $62,000 with $12,000 cash. Mrs. Lytle: These are all people on Fishers Island in this? Mr. Bailey: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Heuser: This must be all the people that live there? Mr. Bailey: It's 25 and I think the number of trailer residents is 300 and something. Mr. Heuser: The last time I was out there doing their audit work they had 92 pupils in that school. Mr. Bailey: It's down now to 72. Mr. Heuser: Big building. Mrs. Lytle: You have a terrific list here for us to compare. 182 • • Mr. Heuser: Any particular one you want us to review? Mrs. Lytle: That's what I was just going to say. I'm going to give you this, and you pick out a few that are near your particular piece of property, or near. Mr. Heuser: Comparable there, too. Mrs. Lytle: We'd be here another week with that. Mr. Bailey: Maybe I could make a quote about the list which would perhaps be useful to you. The idea behind the point of the fist was when we purchased this house, we looked into the real estate taxes and they seemed a little high to us, and then we checked on some other similar houses around the town, and we seemed to see that others seemed to be assessed at a much lower value relative to what they recently sold for. So then we actually did it more extensively, actually up to 25 pieces of property. Mr. Heuser: Pick any two out that you wants personally. We won't make that decision. We want you to make it. Something that you consider is comparable and nearby to your place. Mr. Bailey: Well-. Mr. Heuser: Just check it off. Mr. Bailey: These. Mr. Heuser: Are they reasonably close to your property? Mr. Bailey: Well, there isn't anything reasonably close to-. Mr. Heuser: I see you're on a private road, yeah. Mr. Bailey: There isn't anything there that has been sold very recently. Mr. Thunell: At least for property sold within the last two years. Mr. Brown: These houses will look something like yours, that's what we're trying to get. Mr. Heuser: That's what we're trying to get. A piece of property that is comparable to yours. Mrs. Lytle: The big house like yours and a private set-up like yours? Mr. Bailey: Well, one that is similar to ours in terms of on the water and decent size house. Mr. Heuser: That would be advisable, to pick something like that out. Yes. 183 Mr. Bailey: Although, I have a question. The one that I have checked-. Mr. Brown: Who owns it now, Blank? Mrs. Schwicker: We'll get that card. Mr. Bailey: Maybe I might explain a little logic, we could try to look at alot of them. What we were interested in, and we learned more about how the assessment works today, but we're still not sure if it's compared at least to us, we were interested in finding what other houses paid in taxes relative first to their most recent sale price and then we tried to relate the assessed value to the most recent sales price, and when you total all those up and you average all those out, it averages out to 12%, the assessed value as a percentage of the sales price, the most recent sales price, and*. Mr. Heuser: Right. Mr. Bailey: And we looked at ours relative to the most recent sales price, looked at the assessed value, and it came out to 40.6% of the most recent sales price in our case. Mr. Heuser: Ok, I get your point. I follow you here. Mr. Bailey: And, well, some of those on that list are as high as 30% of the most recent sale price, we're the only one that is at the 40% level, which makes-. Mr. Heuser: May I interrupt at this point? The only increase on this property is since 1971, and is for $500 increased land value, and your building and everything else stayed static. So, from 1971 to 1978 your assessed value was only raised $500. Mr. Bailey: Yeah, I guess what I am suggesting though is relative, the category to which we came under on the grievance list is inequality, and-. Mr. Heuser: I get your point. Mr. Bailey: It's seems a cost relative to other properties at least similar in sales price that it was inequal, or unequal. Mrs. Lytle: You can't always compare the sale price. The first fellow might get a marvelous bargain and the other fellow might get a very high cost. Mr. Heuser: Isn't that piece of property out there, it was owned by DuPont? Mr. Bailey: Yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Heuser: He sold it. He sold it to a man that he appeared before us, he sold it for $800,000, if my memory serves me correctly. 184 Mr. Bailey: Right. Mr. Heuser: And all he could realize on it was$600,000. He paid $800,000 for it. Mr. Bailey: Well, I guess though that's why we took 25 pieces of property rather than one, because you're right, of course, if you take one, you know, you-d- Mr. Heuser: Well, that's why we asked you to pick out what you thought. Mrs. Lytle: And you find that problem more so in these large houses, than on the small ones. Mr. Heuser: Do you have a comparable card there, Mr. Brown? Mr. Bailey: The other factor which maybe I should also explain which was at least in our minds, is that-. Mr. Heuser: Go ahead, sir. We're listening. Mr. Bailey: The house, while it is a very large house, has been, the last two owners of the house have not put any repair money into it for approi- mately 25 years-. In particular the previous owner the one that we bought it from, rented it out every summer without really putting any money into it, and the house, we like the house of course, but, but it, you know, it has deteriorated fairly significantly even thous it's an old, you know, very large house. It has deteriorated pretty significantly to the point that summers-. Mr. Heuser: Cynthia Blank, the one that you picked out, is assessed at $26,800. HoM ars- better grammar. You're assessed at $25,200. You can bear that in mind-if you want to write it down. Cynthia's house has a full basement, you have a part basement, they've got two fireplaces, you have two fireplaces. They have four bathrooms, you have five bathrooms, and then helhas hot-water heat and you have steam heat. Mr. Bailey: I could actually comment on each of those, you know, where you're detailing that. For example, our half basement is completely unusable because it's been flooded most of the-. Mr. Heuser: It see your location here. Mr. Bailey: Secondly, our heat, one furnace, is, has been inoperable on and off for a long period of time. It's about 50 years old, the house is shut. We shut it last winter because we didn't want to operate it for the winter. And thirdly, two bathrooms has been inoperable since we pur- chased the house. We have recently been trying to make one to operable, the two bathrooms have been inoperable. Mrs. Lytle: Were they inoperable when you bought the house? 185 Mr. Bailey: Yes, ma'am. And then we bought them obviously on that basis. Mr. Heuser: You say the basement is flooded, sir? It has been flooded? Mr. Bailey: It has been flooded. Mr. Heuser: How about the heating system. What effect does that have on that? Mr. Bailey: It has had a negative effect. And in particular this last weekend. We spent most of the weekend trying to figure out how to have a comfortable weekend. Mr. Heuser: I'll tell you basically, I mean, we have to try to move along, as you know it is getting late. Of the two homes there, the two pictures here, your house certainly looks much more well preserved than Cynthia whatever her name is over here. Mr. Bailey: Blank. Mr. Heuser: Blank, yeah. Mr. Bailey: Well, I guess it's quite interesting to look at the other house because we actually looked at the other house, as something we thought about renting and then buying, and-. Mrs. Lytle: Did you look inside. Did you see the interior? Mr. Bailey: Yes. It's a beautifully, I mean it was owned by an architect before and it's a beautifully maintained house, which has been owned by an architect, I think continuously for a substantial period of time. Mr. Heuser: Is this house also on the water, similar to you? Mr. Bailey: Yes. Yes, sir. It's on the other side of the Island, it's right on the water. And has a private beach. We have no beach. Mr. Heuser: You've got alot of rocks there. Mr. Bailey: Exactly. But the sand has-. Mr. Heuser: Can we digress for a minute. Mr. Bailey: Sure. Mr. Heuser: They sent me over there to audit the Ferry District, and I was told to take my wife along. They wanted me to stay there for a week. So they gave us a state trooper's house, and the summer you have two troopers, in the winter you only have one. So, we're staying in this trooper's house, and on one side of the road was 40 houses, and in the house we was in, there was only one of them. We wondered what it was. We found out we were 186 living in the Commanding Officer's house. He wouldn't associate with anybody else! Mr. Bailey: That's good. I didn't know that. Mr. Heuser: That's why the house was put aside for. Mr. Thunell: Typical of how old our house is, take the garage. There's no way you can close the garage doors. It's just impossible, so it stays open in the winter-. Mr. Bailey: The siding is coming off, for example, it's assessed, but I'm not sure, about $1,000-. Mrs. Lytle: Well, were those conditions all there when you bought the house? Mr. Thunell: Yeah. Mr. Bailey: You're absolute right. Mr. Thunell: That's why we bought it for the price that we bought it for. Mr. Heuser: With the anticipation of renovating it, I presume? Mr. Bailey: Well, over a long, we're young people obviously, and we baven't got slot of money now but over a long period of time we hope to paint it and put it back in shape. Mr. Heuser: I'm looking for something, Mrs. Lytle, can I turn it over for a minute? Mrs. Lytle: Sure. Mr. Bailey: One other factor with respect to the land so that that's clear while we're here. The property has 3.48 acres. Of that 3.48 acres, approximately 2 to 2-1/2 are tidal wetlands. Mr. Heuser: May I once again interrupt? You have, there is a $50,000 mortgage on this property? Mr. Bailey: Yes, sir. Mr. Heuser: All right. In 1977. And yet, don't, this is not intended to be sarcastic or anything else like that, we're not built that way, there's a $50,000 mortgage they're giving you on the house which, you, needless to say is 80% of what you have, of the house maybe worth over $60,000. The assessed valuation on that house is $26,800. Go ahead, I get $60,000. Mr. Bailey: It would be $60,000 that's with the, approximate, the 35-. Mr. Heuser: 25-. 30 odd percent. 187 Mr. Bailey: No, it's more than 30. Almost 40%. Mr. Heuser: Yeah, of your assessed valuation. Mr. Bailey: You mean, if you took $62,000, if you took $62,000 as the value, you-. Mr. Heuser: No, this is the one. It's $25,200. Mr. Brown: You gave me $26,800. Mr. Heuser: $25,200. Mrs. Lytle: How did you get a mortgage on this then? Mr. Bailey: The mortgage I can explain to you at least the logic that the bag on the mortgage was that, that, in this case, because the house was owned jointly, because all three of us signed the mortgage applica- tion. They were dealing basically with three incomes, so that they-. Mr. Heuser: So if they don't get one, they'll get the other. Right? Mr. Bailey: Right. The security is even better than the average. Mr. Heuser: Frankly, we don't make a decision now. We listen to your particular problem, the Chairlady does, she writes notes on it. She investigates it as we did this one particular one, and we might do another une. And then, you ought to finish that. Or should I tell them? Mrs. Lytle: No, go ahead, you started. Mr. Heuser: No, I won't tell them. You tell them. Mrs. Lytle: At a later date we will have a meeting and we will go over all these things very carefully, make our decision and notify you in writing. We hope it will be not more than a week. If we get too many hard ones like this, it would take longer. Mr. Bailey: If it would be helpful to you, I could maybe detail some of the physical problems of the house which we have to cope with, just so you know why we think it's value is lower than it's-. Mr. Heuser: Well, the point that, we would appreciate you're doing that, sir, but at the same time, the last time it was appraised was in 1976, now possibly, just say it hasn't deteriorated that much in two years. Mr. Bailey: Well, it depends. It has a significant leak in the roof which we have been struggling with this last weekend. Mrs. Lytle: How much did you actually pay for the house? Mr. Bailey: $62,000. 188 Mr. Heuser: Of which $12,000 was cash. So you want it reduced to $6,140? Mr. Bailey: Well, just so you know our logic and maybe our logic is wrong, we took the equalization- Mr. Heuser: The wrong factor? Mr. Bailey: Utilized, too;- although the interesting thing to us when we took the assessed value as a percentage of the average purchase price of these 25 other properties we looked out, they actually came out to 12% which was quite interesting, so that's why we thought the 12% sounded appropriate, but 25, maybe-. Mr. Heuser: The fact that .the other particular one that you mentioned as " Cynthia Blank, has a, roughly, 25% of her purchase price, too. Mr. Bailey: Yes, she paid $135,000 and we paid $62,000. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, thank you very much. We will notify you. Mr. Heuser: Are you flying back tonight to Fishers Island? Mr. Bailey: No. We're driving back to New York. #29. Fred E. and Susan Johnson Pivko. Box 1019, Mattituck, NY 11952. Mrs. Schwicker: I've got to be excused. I know these people. I'm excusing myself from the board. Mr. Heuser: You shouldn't know so many people. (Mrs. Schwicker excused herself from this proceeding.) Mr. Heuser: This is No. 29. Pat's absent, I guess, you can read it if you want. Mrs. Lytle: You go ahead. You've got the card. Mr. Heuser: Pivko, Fred and Susan Johnson. Right? Three people? Mrs. Pivko: Two. Mr. Heuser: Oh. Mattituck. Camp Mineola Road. Pivko, Fred E. and Susan Johnson. Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck. Mr. Brown: Fred and Susan. Mrs. Lytle: Is it all signed? Mr. Heuser: Yes, it's signed. 189 Mrs. Lytle: There's a letter here from their lawyer. That strip of property, the price affect. Mrs. Pivko: It was kind of forced on us. Mr. Heuser: $100. Mr. Pivko: Yeah, but we didn't want the property. Mrs. Pivko: It was forced on us because of the sliver, and according to what we were told by the Planning Board, slivers are not allowed on the map. It's 20' x 150' or something, whatever it comes out to. I don't know. $,700 square feet or something like that, and since we said then we don't want it because we know it will be added to the property and taxes, we just don't feel we need it. Mrs. Lytle: But the Planning Board said you had to have it? Mr. Pivko: They said the Town could not own a sliver of land. Mrs. Pivko: Do you have the maps? Mr. Heuser: Where's Henry Moisa? Mr. Moisa: Right here. Mr. Heuser: Henry? No this is from Wickham. Mrs. Pivko: They eere the attorneys for Mrs. Kirchgessner. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but. Where's the Town in with her piece of land? Mr. Heuser: Hu? Repeat it. Mrs. Lytle: This other lady owned the piece of land? Mr. Heuser: And she turned it over to the Town? Mr. Pivko: She turned it over to us for access to a right-of-way. Mrs. Pivko: There was this sliver along side. Mrs. Lytle: Yeah, but how did the Town get into it? Mrs. Pivko: She had to apply for a subdivision. She had two lots, one behind us and one was a right-of-way. And when she subdivided the road, right-of-way was intended to be something like 551 and the Planning Board decided that was too wide, that it would have to be cut down to 351 leaving a 20' strip that had to go somewhere. So there's a big lot behind us about an acre and a half, she wanted to make two lots out of it, they subdivided that, and the house, the end of the right-of-way got a 190 sliver 20' x whatever, and we go the extra 20' x whatever, and we were told_ithad to go to us, and we had to take it, and Henry Raynor said, don't worry about it, they'll never pick it up on the tax roles. You'll never pay taxes on it. Mr. Pivko: Southold Town cannot own a sliver of land, so we had to take it, and we didn't want it. Mr. Moisa: Actually the assessors will pick it up because we'll get a deed on it, this land has been deeded to you. Yeah. Mrs. Pivko: Of course. And we knew this, and it's, right now it's a dirt road on the other side of-. Mr. Moisa: What I would suggest if you can get any information on this I would suggest you could attack the Planning Board because I wouldn't know what their action on that was. They would have a resolution. Mr. Heuser: From your previous experience though, can it be mandatory to say that someone has to take a piece of property? Mr. Moisa: That never come up, and anytime previous, I-. Mrs. Pivko: They told us, you've got to take it because we cannot have a sliver, as they called it, on the map. And this is what-. Mr. Heuser: The right-of-way, sir? Mr. Pivko: Well, actually right now it's a dirt road. Mrs. Pivko: There's a dirt road right-of-way right now where this 20' strip is. And it goes all the way up. There was an area of 55' in the middle. Part of it was untouched but then the other half is the road that we have now inherited. This 20' strip. Mr. Heuser: Road. Mrs. Pivko: Yeah. They've plowed in a new road. There's a new road plowed. The old one is supposed to come ours. That's what happened. Mrs. Lytle: I thought you said there was break in the new road-. Mr. Heuser: Right here. You don't know the Camp Mineola area here. Mrs. Pivko: Evidently, the family Kirshgessner did at one time, do you understand, owned that whole area. So there was a strip, they say of 55' in the middle there and now evidently they're plowing a new road that is already going in to the Aslanian's property. It was Peter Kirshgessner's. They just told us we've got to take it and we said we don't want it, and when the deed did come through, Gail wrote that note and said, you know-. 191 Mr. Pivko: This is the new map that we received. Mrs. Pivko: They were going to put a 55' road right here for access to-. Supposedly the road was supposed to go up to Morris' property when they, the problem as a subdivision there. Mr. Heuser: Well, I'm gonna say this, Mrs. Chairlady. Sure will have to be straightened out with Mr. Wickham. I mean, to give these people a fair decision. Mrs. Lytle: Now I can see that right off. This is an easement, this road. Mrs. Pivko: Well it's been plowed up. Mr. Heuser: Here's the road here. This is the road here. You see, this piece of property back here-. Mrs. Lytle: Well, who does this piece belong to? That's the one they're giving them? Mr. Heuser: That's the piece of property here., it's narrower than this part here. So they weren't going to leave the road 20' wider here than it is here. That's the reason. Mrs. Pivko: Right. So that would be the sliver that happens to-and evidently the man who has the house two lots behind us got the same thing. Mrs. Lytle: This is the sliver here? Mr. Heuser: That's it. That's what the people control-. Mrs. Pivko: There's another fellow that-. Mrs. Lytle: It's not actually an access road. Mrs. Pivko: There is a road now. Mr. Pivko: There is a dirt road there now. Mrs. Pivko: It's not ours this road. It's not our access. Mrs. Lytle: No. That's why I just wanted to make sure that-. Mrs. Pivko: As a matter of fact it does us absolutely no good. Mrs. Lytle: Well, I think that means a letter to Mr. Wickham. Mr. Heuser: I'm not being facetious or anything else, This says Fred E. Pivko and wife, and down here it says Susan Johnson. Mrs. Pivko: Susan Johnson Pivko. 192 Mr. Pivko: She uses her maiden name. Mr. Heuser: Oh. Mrs. Pivko: I use my maiden name. Mr. Heuser: All right, and we say and wife then. Mrs. Pivko: I don't like that, because I'm Susan. Mr. Heuser: You're chauvinist. Mrs. Pivko: Yes. Extremely. I have a personality and I wish to remain so. Mrs. Lytle: I'm afraid in this your personality won't count. Mrs. Pivko: I disapprove of that. Mrs. Lytle: You hadn't so far. Mr. Pivko: Did you want to hand on to those maps or did you want us to keep them. Mr. Heuser: No, there you are mademoiselle. Mrs. Lytle: The only thing, I think, the simpliest way I'd like to have a copy of this map, and mail this back to youg and then the copy will be very simple to explain to Mr. Wickham what we're talking about. Mr. Brown: Why don't you take the new one then? Mr. Heuser: That's the old one. Mrs. Pivko: That's all adjusted though. This one has the sliver in it. Mr. Pivko: Take both of them. I think both of them would be better. Mr. Heuser: Then this is one we should have. Mr. Brown: And get both of them made up. Mr. Pivko: I think it makes a better presentation. Mrs. Pivko: I don't, you know, there's no way you can tell me that somebody is gonna give me a piece of property and not be taxed. Mrs. Lytle: We will sit down and write a letter and explain to him and get an answer. I think this is rather different. And we will get this back to you. Just when, I can't say at this time. Mr. Pivko: No problem. 193 s Mrs. Lytle: Normally, we try to have an answer in a week. Now whether we will in a week, I doubt it will be a week. Mr. Heuser: Ok? Mr. Pivko: Ok. Mrs. Lytle: Ok, I thank you for coming in. Mr. Pivko: You can alladjourn because it's over. We're the last ones. Mr. Brown: You're it. Mrs. Lytle: Are you really? Mr. Pivko: Yes. Mr. Heuser: Last ones. Hearing of the Oral Proceedings ended at 9:25 p.m. 194 4649. Vantage Petroleum Corp., Main Road, Laurel, NY 11948. Property location: Breakwater Road, Mattituck, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation and Inequality. 4650. S & E Realty Co. , Main Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935. Property location: Main Road, Cutchogue, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation and Inequality. 4651. Nicholas Kouros, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952. Property location: Main Road, Mattituck , NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation. 4652. John G. Schramm, Hedge Street, Fishers Island, NY 063909 by George C. Stankevich, Esq., Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Property location: Hedge Street, Fishers Island, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation and Inequality. 4653. Theodore Banforth, Private Road, Fishers Island, NY 06390. Property location: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY. Reason for Complaint: Inequality. 4654. Morgan Richner, Private Road, Fishers Island, NY 06390, Property location: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation. 198 #55. Chemical Bank, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971. Property location: Main Road, Southold, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation. #56. Alina Wiederman, Cedar Beach Park, Southold, NY 11971. Property location: Cedar Beach Park, Southold, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation. �hksY�lc9c 457. Elizabeth A. Porterfield, 400 East 55th, New York, NY. Property location: West Shore Drive, Southold, NY. Reason for Complaint: Inequality. #58. Jane L. Bonnert, Smith Road, Peconic, NY 11958. Property location: Smith Road, Peconic, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation. #59. James Tsoros, Henry's Lane, Peconic, NY 11958. Property location: Henry's Lane, Peconic, NY. Reason for Complaint: Over-evaluation. #60. Southold Savings Bank, Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY 11971. Property location: Youngs Avenue, Southold, NY. Reason for Complaint: Building to be removed from tax roles. 199 461. Vera Mayer, Private Road, Fishers Island, NY 06390, by Koeppel, Sommer, Lesnick and Martone, P.C. Property location: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY. Reason for Complaint: Inequality. X662. Vera Mayer, Private Road, Fishers Island, NY 06390, by Koeppel, Sommer, Lesnick and Marton, P.C. Property location: Private Road, Fishers Island, NY. Reason for Complaint: Inequality. sY�hY 4c� sYs'cs�'c4c�'c�k�'c�c42�Ya'c9c4c�e�r�h'c The Chairlady declared the day closed at 9:25 p.m. as there were no other complaints to be heard. A meeting,, tentatively.-for.Tuesday, July 25, 1978, has been scheduled for reviewing all of the above. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski Secretary to the Supervisor RECEIVED AND FI1. BY rf HE SOUPHOLD OVIN CLARK 200 DATE Z�a s/V HOUR Town Clerk, Town of Southold