Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Master Plan, rezones, Condo Law 339-y tax breaks: Part III Condominium Law 339-y

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,956

    Master Plan, rezones, Condo Law 339-y tax breaks: Part III Condominium Law 339-y

    Resident Lee Chowaniec: As has been made clear to the board at the public hearing on the project petition for rezone, I have no problem with this rezone. Mr. Fudoli, what I want to focus on is statements made by you that times change and that patio home development, regardless of tax assessment reductions favor the town by a large margin over the development of residential construction homes that are not entitled to Condominium Law 339-y entitlements.

    Years past, many residents believed that 339-y recipients were receiving tax assessment decreases of between 35-40% across the board. I am now hearing those reduction numbers vary and that the formula to determine final property assessment is complex. I have called the Assessor but have no received a call back.

    Mrs. Stempniak declared earlier that there are certain tax levies where no reduction is had; like fire. What is the percentage range of the tax breaks and how is that determined?

    Supervisor Fudoli: I don’t know; the Assessor would have to answer that. I don’t know if it’s different for the size of the house, etc. I can find that information for you.

    Chowaniec: I can understand developments getting town tax breaks that have associations and responsible for maintaining their own roads (repair/repaving) infrastructure (sewers/storm water) and snow removal. I know that well as I live in such a community.

    What I do take issue with is the reduction in school taxes paid that is part and parcel of this program. Developers and/or their reps make the claim that residents occupying patio home or townhome dwellings are for the large part downsizing ‘empty nesters’ that are older and have no children attending the school system.

    There are a number of Lancaster residents who no longer have children attending schools, or ever had children to begin with, don’t get like consideration. I don’t believe that’s a level playing field. And the public should have access to information that identifies what percent of tax assessment reduction is being had and some idea of how that determination came about.

    Fudoli: The assessor office is understaffed right now and I am sure you will get that information.

    Chowaniec: People need to receive that information because if a resident that builds a $300,000 patio home and does in fact get a 40% tax break his assessment lowers to $180,000 and he pays $3,600 less in property taxes per year. Unless that homeowner is paying $300 or more per month in Association fees, we are helping him pay for his Association fee and more. I don’t think that is fair to other taxpayers who do not get like consideration. If the town has done the math and believes it profits from 339-y developments, I will not challenge that. But it is my opinion that the school district and the taxpayer is being ripped off with the included school tax reduction.

    Stempniak: There are things in the town code that they have to pay full taxes on.

    Chowaniec: That is why clarification is needed on how and by how much the tax assessment reduction is determined. I also thought it unfair when the town grandfathered established associations from getting like consideration.

    Stempniak: It was the state that grandfathered the process, not us.

    Chowaniec: Thank you for clearing that up. But I still need to understand how you can give school tax breaks to a patio home / townhome subdivision and determine they deserve the school tax break because such developments are mostly occupied without school age children and deserve tax credits when others who no longer have children in school, or never had children, are not deserving of the same consideration.

    Fudoli: Well, here’s the thing. No one is forced to buy a home. So if you don’t want to have children and you don’t want to pay those full school taxes, you can buy a patio home and avoid that; right? You say those people never had children, well, they made a decision to either not have children or could not. But no one forces you to buy a home and pay full taxes. You have options.

    Chowaniec: We are not going to dance around this. When we hear from developers/builders on the reason most people purchase a patio home is to downsize because the children are gone and they don’t need the room anymore. Well that just great if they have the money to do so. Many empty nesters don’t have the means to spend at least $250,000 for a patio home in Lancaster. Some are going as high as $400,000.

    Fudoli: The ones they are building at Pleasant Meadows go for $160,000.

    Chowaniec: Patio homes?

    Fudoli: I’m sorry, those are townhomes. But there proves there are options to build and get those tax breaks.

    Chowaniec: I’m sorry as well as I don’t think we are on the same page here. This is not leveling the playing field. I know the state through the State Attorney General’s Office approved the 339-y program. But it was initially intended to serve New York City condominium high rises. Games were played and the program was bastardized to serve developers throughout the state.

    Fudoli: I agree with you on that.

    Chowaniec: I know the town’s hands are tied on this as it is a state mandate but the process is unfair to those who have to pay full school taxes. And the school district is losing out on a lot of revenue and taxpayers are impacted as well. I am just voicing an opinion that the school tax break is unfair.

    Stempniak: Just so you know the Association of Towns is always trying to fight this. And you are right, that law was made specifically for the City of New York.

    Chowaniec: It’s good to hear this is still being challenged. But it was many years ago when I collaborated with then Senator Elizabeth Small, and the challenge went nowhere.

    Another perspective

    Bill Tuyn, president of the New York State Building Association, addressed the board to make clear what the position of the industry is. First and foremost, this is a state law, not a municipal law. And it has been proven in the courts that municipalities have to follow state law according to taxation and to ensure the project qualifies.

    I would refrain from characterizing it and calling it a ‘break’. The position of the industry is one that says that it is important for communities to understand it is a problem to compare development patterns by comparing (?) rates simply because every thousand dollars of assessed valuation is the same as every other thousand dollars of assessed valuation.

    Communities are now looking at tax rate generated by development pattern per acre. The issue is that condominiums, patio homes and townhouses… comparing them to single family homes, I would say this is state wide and not universal, there are certainly portions of the State of New York where some communities have issues with large lot development trying to file and get a condominium status 339-y approval; if they qualify.

    The way it is utilized in Western New York, to my knowledge, a development pattern is altered to allow a cancer worm of development. In that regard, very often, to qualify (for 339-y) the Homeowners Association has to have common facilities to qualify, which typically are private infrastructure. So, those communities are not getting town services. They are paying in some cases substantial homeowner fees to take care of the infrastructure; but they are not getting town services.

    When in 2006 we had that surprise October storm, communities that were hard hit with downed trees and the cleanup costs. If you lived in a patio home development all those public firms that were hired would not go on patio home property; or townhome properties, or anything with private infrastructure. They would clean up town streets but would not go into private communities. Those homeowners had to have a special assessment to pay for that cleanup on their own. They did not get benefit of the town services.

    With respect to the school district, I think Lee (Chowaniec) brings up a very good point and one that needs to be made aware of. But, what he fails to look at is not on a hundred thousand dollars of assessed valuation taken and just compares one to the other. Instead you have to compare the development pattern and you will find communities per acre are getting much more tax revenue coming in; even the school district. The argument that they are getting away with something…the argument is that the school district is benefiting. It’s all perspective. The school district is actually collecting more in money in taxes per acre. But they are not getting school children because that form does not accommodate that demographic.

    People who have children don’t choose to live in those communities. Children are not prohibited but statistically there are very few children in the development. Yes, the school district is benefiting. Those are the kind of things we are finding. Those are the kind of things I ask you to think about so you don’t go down the road of unintended consequences; thinking you’re hurting yourself down the road.

  2. #2
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,155
    This property on Pelham Rd was purchased for $253,465. in 2011.
    It's assessment is $152,000.


    it looks like the only items that they pay full tax on are the Garbage - $134.52, Cons. water - $1.00, Frontage - $40.00 and 1 of the 3 Erie Sewage dist 4 charges - $180.

    They saved-
    Library tax - $47.13
    County - $476.99
    Town - $248.72
    Highway - $173.12
    Police - $148.92
    Cons water - $22.43
    EC sewer - $6.55
    EC Sewer - $42.13
    Light - $11.04
    Fire - $168.71

    Condo status saved the owner more than - $1345.74 in county/town tax
    Condo status saved the owner more than - $1684.48 in school taxes


    Here's the school tax bill-


    Georgia L Schlager

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,872

    Question How could we have made choices that werent available in the past ?

    [QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec;1567086]
    Years past, many residents believed that 339-y recipients were receiving tax assessment decreases of between 35-40% across the board. I am now hearing those reduction numbers vary and that the formula to determine final property assessment is complex. I have called the Assessor but have no received a call back.
    Yes whenever we ask questions(from past admins - we never received straight, concise answers - just rude responses like, "You people just dont want anything - you people are trouble makers - Gad Flys" - Thank you Councilman D.Stempniak !

    Mrs. Stempniak declared earlier that there are certain tax levies where no reduction is had; like fire. What is the percentage range of the tax breaks and how is that determined? Never answered - instead of blowing smoke - answer the question - Thank you Councilman D.Stempniak !

    Supervisor Fudoli: I don’t know; the Assessor would have to answer that. I don’t know if it’s different for the size of the house, etc. I can find that information for you. If your approving them -shouldn't you know ?

    Chowaniec: I can understand developments getting town tax breaks that have associations and responsible for maintaining their own roads (repair/repaving) infrastructure (sewers/storm water) and snow removal. I know that well as I live in such a community. Do home owner associations actually pay for all these things ?

    What I do take issue with is the reduction in school taxes paid that is part and parcel of this program. Developers and/or their reps make the claim that residents occupying patio home or townhome dwellings are for the large part downsizing ‘empty nesters’ that are older and have no children attending the school system.

    There are a number of Lancaster residents who no longer have children attending schools, or ever had children to begin with, don’t get like consideration. I don’t believe that’s a level playing field. And the public should have access to information that identifies what percent of tax assessment reduction is being had and some idea of how that determination came about.

    Fudoli: The assessor office is understaffed right now and I am sure you will get that information. Why not level the playing field - no kids in school = tax deduction for all home owners ?Thank you Councilman D.Stempniak !

    Chowaniec: People need to receive that information because if a resident that builds a $300,000 patio home and does in fact get a 40% tax break his assessment lowers to $180,000 and he pays $3,600 less in property taxes per year. Unless that homeowner is paying $300 or more per month in Association fees, we are helping him pay for his Association fee and more. I don’t think that is fair to other taxpayers who do not get like consideration. If the town has done the math and believes it profits from 339-y developments, I will not challenge that. But it is my opinion that the school district and the taxpayer is being ripped off with the included school tax reduction. Definately .

    Stempniak: There are things in the town code that they have to pay full taxes on. - Again tell us which "things" they do or dont pay for - quit being so evasive - Thanks you Councilman D.Stempniak !

    -----------------------------------------------
    Fudoli: Well, here’s the thing. No one is forced to buy a home. So if you don’t want to have children and you don’t want to pay those full school taxes, you can buy a patio home and avoid that; right? You say those people never had children, well, they made a decision to either not have children or could not. But no one forces you to buy a home and pay full taxes. You have options. Long term home owners weren't given those options, Sir - are we all supposed to go deeper in debt - sell our homes just to try and jump on the tax dodge band wagon ?
    ____________________________________


    Chowaniec: I’m sorry as well as I don’t think we are on the same page here. This is not leveling the playing field. I know the state through the State Attorney General’s Office approved the 339-y program. But it was initially intended to serve New York City condominium high rises. Games were played and the program was bastardized to serve developers throughout the state.

    Fudoli: I agree with you on that. Then why do you approve and support these developments ?
    _____________________________

    Another perspective

    I love this self serving hypocrits statement Bill Tuyn, president of the New York State Building Association, addressed the board to make clear what the position of the industry is. The way it is utilized in Western New York, to my knowledge, a development pattern is altered to allow a cancer worm of development. "

    With respect to the school district, I think Lee (Chowaniec) brings up a very good point and one that needs to be made aware of. But, what he fails to look at is not on a hundred thousand dollars of assessed valuation taken and just compares one to the other. Instead you have to compare the development pattern and you will find communities per acre are getting much more tax revenue coming in; even the school district. The argument that they are getting away with something…the argument is that the school district is benefiting. It’s all perspective. The school district is actually collecting more in money in taxes per acre. But they are not getting school children because that form does not accommodate that demographic. Word games !

    People who have children don’t choose to live in those communities. Children are not prohibited but statistically there are very few children in the development. Yes, the school district is benefiting. Those are the kind of things we are finding. Those are the kind of things I ask you to think about so you don’t go down the road of unintended consequences; thinking you’re hurting yourself down the road.

    To Bill Tuyn, president of the New York State Building Association,

    Most times "a development pattern is altered to allow a cancer worm of development" as you stated - is because the people you represent and developers cause those changes by demanding zoning changes and special considerations given by Politicians.

    Sir, square foot for square foot of living space = taxes paid - is the only fair way to go - all the rest is semantics - posturing and benefits those developers and yourself !

    Politicians view "developement" in terms of future tax revenue to be spent. Developers look at it as "Profits" - once its done they move on and could care less which home owners pays what to who or why !

    In the long term only those tax paying home owners left behind when all the investors are gone will support whats been created for todays profits.

    Its nice to see - finally - these discussions are taking place - but the only reason they are occurring is the larger more profitable properties have been bulldozed already. Green space able to support full dry basements - land without wetlands or close proximity to flood zones is all that left - then what ?

    The tax payers will be left paying ever increasing taxes for life - Thanks you Xsupervisor/Vote with your feet B.Giza, Double Dip/Councilman D,Stempniak, Councilmember R.Ruffino, Double dip/School teacher/Councilmember Abraham !
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,956
    I personally thanked Mr. Tuyn for his unique and innovated presentation; unique in that this is the first time I have heard any developer/builder, or their reps present the reasoning and merit of Condominium 339-y tax reductions to the town in such manner. It is innovated in that the usual market pitch is that such developments do not draw children of school age and therefore need little in the way of school district services.

    What I had heard and learned at last Monday’s town board meeting is the following:

    • The 2000 Comprehensive Plan was not comprehensive, has not been reviewed and updated/modified since that time, and the petition by residents to draft a new one was met by “it’s too expensive to draw up a new one.” The master plan should be revisited once a year. When residents brought that fact forward over the past several years, their request was met with silence.

    • For years rezones in the town were handed out like candy; often in subdivision developments were there were no established neighbors to voice opposition. Recently, two patio home development rezone petitions were denied because the neighbors formed coalitions, did their research, petitioned for supermajority vote and made it impossible for the town to not deny rezone. And guess what? The master plan has enough teeth in it to come up with findings for dismissal and with little worry of developer legal action.

    • Mr. Fronczak was correct in stating he is tired of developers coming into town, arrogantly and openly stating they have the access to get permits to build anywhere and anything they feel is marketable and in their best interests. And the town either agrees with them or declares we can’t stop them. Enough with the rezones of rezones. The town does have a master plan in place but has been weak in enforcing its conditions.

    • Supervisor Fudoli stated that if someone doesn’t want to pay full taxes they have an ‘option’ to buy a patio home. Seriously, how many people have at least $250,000 to purchase one when they are considering downsizing; and where often the patio home is larger than the home they now reside in.

    But then they can purchase a townhouse for $160,000 at Pleasant Meadows Fudoli says and get same condo 339-y consideration. Really, those homes are pushing $200,000. And many townhome developments were built before the law went into place and were not allowed to receive condo 339-y benefits because the state grandfathered them from receiving that consideration.

    • So now residents are being told they have an option to buy these $250,000 patio homes and get that same tax break – even residents who have no intent or needs for such development, or those who don’t have the means. But hey, if you don’t purchase such dwelling you are compelled to pay full school district taxes; even if you no longer have children going to school or never had any. Is that fair? Even businesses pay full school taxes.

    • Gorga, thanks for that tax assessment reduction breakdown you gave on post #2. The patio home in the example is receiving a tax assessment reduction of 41% with a resulting tax break of slightly over $3,000 per year, $250 per month. I know people who live in this patio home development and they are not spending near that in an Association fee. So taxpayers are paying not only for the development services that are not provided by the town, but also landscaping and other maintenance services.

    • It is also my understanding from talking to employees in the Assessor’s office that the percentage of tax assessment reduction does vary based on income rental properties comparables. Percentages of reduction tend to decrease as the unit cost increases.

    • The town is indeed mandated to following the state mandated Condominium Law 339-y guidelines. The developers/builders and now the town are now buying into the revenue stream had by looking at the lot density patio and townhomes provide vs. single family development so much so that they would like to see this type development take over Lancaster. I disagree and feel the law is unfair – my opinion and will never change.

    I'm hearing an assessment revaluation is in the wind. Sharpen up the knives.

  5. #5
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,155
    From the Lancaster Bee-
    Patio home discussion ignites war of words
    by ETHAN POWERS Reporter
    The Lancaster Town Board approved a subdivision on Monday to allow the construction of single family units in preparation for the creation of the Hidden Meadows Patio Homes. The conversation that followed, in regard to the direction of the town’s development, escalated into an all out war of words between board members.

    The approved subdivision will see the creation of 80 single-family units, located off Partridge Run and Aurora Street. The patio homes, currently referred to as “Hidden Meadows,” will be priced at a median range of around $450,000.

    A number of residents voiced their opposition to the patio homes’ construction. Mike Fronczak questioned the board as to why it was bowing to multiunit developers instead of allowing for more creative development approaches.

    “I want to know how we got to this point, that we are now, again, making this work for a developer who comes into our town, makes a lot of money and gets to leave,” he said.

    “We’re not doing this for developers, we’re doing it for residents,” said Supervisor Dino Fudoli, who noted that there is a desire for patio homes in Lancaster. “Do we want them building things that people don’t want, or do we want them building things that people want?”

    Fronczak said of the main reasons behind his decision to move to Lancaster was that the town historically did not see the kind of development notable in other suburbs.

    “I moved to Lancaster 20 years ago, and the idea was that it wasn’t a farm community and it wasn’t suburbia. It was a mix of both,” he said. “And now, we’re losing our farm community and going toward total suburbia.”

    Council Member Donna Stempniak said residents who inhabit the area surrounding the future patio homes’ location are in favor of the project.

    “The neighbors are very happy,” she said. “They would much rather see residential units than to see a plaza.”

    While there is undoubtedly a growing pool of older people ready to downsize their living spaces and pay top dollar in order to do so, some residents say patio homes may be an expense unavailable to a large portion of the population.

    “There are a lot of empty nesters out there who would like to downsize but cannot afford a $400,000 patio home,” said resident Lee Chowaniec.

    Forbes-Capretto Homes, the custom-home builder behind the Hidden Meadows project, built 55 homes in 2013 with an average price of $500,000. Owner David Capretto was at the board meeting and spoke on behalf of the company to address the concerns of residents. He stated that the construction period itself would not be a long process and that his company compromised with the town to limit destruction of roads and trees while being the least disruptive to neighbors.

    “I try to be the best neighbor I can be,” he said. “I’ve built many of these homes throughout a number of neighborhoods over the years. It definitely pays us back with our reputation.”

    When the board’s conversation turned to the credentials of Lancaster’s Planning Board, an argument between Fudoli and Stempniak quickly became heated and personal.

    Fudoli stated his disapproval of what he views as a disposition within town politics to appoint those who are friends rather than the most qualified candidates. He commented that his appointees have been shot down by the board and pointed toward a comment made by past Town Councilman Mark S. Aquino while he still held the position in which he told Fudoli, “We’ll do what we want. We have the votes.”

    Stempniak refuted the claim that the board’s appointees to the Planning Board are inadequate, noting that such a committee should have the opinion of ordinary residents.

    “They’re residents. You’re not supposed to have eight town planners on a planning board,” she said.

    Both Fudoli and Stempniak began attempting to make their points simultaneously, igniting a shouting match between them.

    “You’re infringing on my first amendment rights!” Stempniak yelled at Fudoli as he pounded his gavel in an attempt to maintain order.

    Stempniak then said, “Don’t bully me,” while pointing at Fudoli. The supervisor replied, saying, “You’re bigger than I am. It’d be hard to do that.”

    Stempniak approached reporters as the meeting adjourned to express her dismay at a comment she saw as sexist and demeaning.

    “He disrespected me as a woman. As the only female member of this board, I’m disgusted.”
    This article states 80 single family units. The August 17, town board resolution #10 states 30 single family home development. Is there a mixture of single family homes and patio homes? The Forbes-Capretto website shows 2-story homes in the $300,000 range under their Hidden meadows community. Yet, their patio homes have amedian price of $450,000

    Georgia L Schlager

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,956
    Yes indeed there was a mix up with the Lancaster Bee report. The focus t Monday evening's town board meeting was on the Marrano Mark Equity 29 patio home development at Walden and Juniper regarding its being a rezone of a rezone, the questioning of the master plan and on condominium 339-y tax breaks.

    I am glad that someone caught that besides me.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,872
    Councilman "Stempniak refuted the claim that the board’s appointees to the Planning Board are inadequate, noting that such a committee should have the opinion of ordinary residents.
    “They’re residents. You’re not supposed to have eight town planners on a planning board,” she said.

    She can deny all she wants - anyone with half a brain see's recycled Party Members - past developer employees - and those obviously align with one group - Lan Dem Committee.

    Stempniak has been the bulldog of the Lan Dem Controllers for 20 years.

    She's the iron fisted committee campaign fund controller - the Country Club buddies to many !

    Why would she suddenly be offend when she instigates and antagonizes people to the point of explosion. When she does - she cry's - "Oh I am a women - you cant treat me that way - or I'll smash you in the mouth "

    Good ridence you phony bulldog !
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  8. #8
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,155
    As was stated by Lee that he was told that the townhouses had a lower decrease in tax savings. It does ring true.

    A townhouse on Hanover St sold for $150,245 in 2009. It is assessed at $105,000.

    Library - $21.00
    County - $212.52
    Town - $110.82
    Highway - $77.13
    Police - $66.35
    Cons Water - $9.99
    EC sewer - $2.92
    EC Sewer - $18.77
    Light - $4.92
    Fire - $75.17

    In this case, the condo status saved the owner more than $599.59 in Town/county taxes
    and $750.51 in school taxes for a total reduction of $1350.10 or about $112.50 per month.



    I was surprised to see owners from 2009 not receiving any STAR exemption

    Georgia L Schlager

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,872
    So I guess one could believe what the developers are saying is, "Without these tax breaks - we could not charge so much or sell these units"

    So for developers and tax hungry local Government - its not truly about what "Buyers want" - its about we need money - so what can we cram in before we run out of green space !

    Because most land without issues like water/flooding/wetlands/protected space, creek tributaries and so on - the remaining property can only support the building of "Patio Homes" ? ! ?

    Can someone help with this:
    I thought "Patio homes" were supposed to be built on slabs without basements ?
    Isn't that because the ground beneath them contains so much water or the close proximity to wet lands and flood plains ?
    #Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !

  10. #10
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,155
    Is this a case of more broken promises?

    Georgia L Schlager

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    where exactly is this gorja? These developers need to fulfill their promises. I feel bad for this resident.

  12. #12
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,155

    Georgia L Schlager

  13. #13
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,155
    A couple pics that were attached to that letter.


    Georgia L Schlager

  14. #14
    Member FMD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,739
    Why not over assess condos to make up the difference in taxes?
    Willful ignorance is the downfall of every major empire in history.

    "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao, 1938

  15. #15
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,155
    Quote Originally Posted by FMD View Post
    Why not over assess condos to make up the difference in taxes?
    Condos aren't assessed using market value like the rest of us.
    Real Property Law 339-y, adopted in 1983, states that even though a condominium unit is independently owned and sold, it has to be valued as if the whole complex was being sold as a single entity, like an apartment complex. The basis of this law is that condominiums own common area together and pay an association fee.

    The condominium complex is valued as one entity just like a commercial apartment complex. Once a value is established, then the % allocation of each unit is divided into the value to come up with a unit value for each unit. All of the unit values added together will equal the value for the whole which was established for the complex.

    As a result, a condominium unit may have an assessment that is less than its likely selling price, even on an assessment roll that is at 100%.

    Georgia L Schlager

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Master Plan, rezones, Condo Law 339-y tax breaks: Part II Rezones
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 20th, 2015, 08:48 AM
  2. Master Plan, rezones, Condo Law 339-y tax breaks: Part I Master Plan
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 20th, 2015, 01:36 AM
  3. Cheektowaga Master Plan
    By OneEmerald in forum Cheektowaga, Depew and Sloan Politics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: March 5th, 2012, 08:59 PM
  4. Why it’s Important to Revise the Master Plan: Part 2 - Roads
    By gshowell in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2009, 02:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •