Editorials
Lancaster Assessor addresses Town Board on revenue loss and inequity of Condominium Law 339-y
By Lee Chowaniec
Mar 18, 2008, 20:48

After addressing the Lancaster Town Board at their recent work session on policy and procedure changes the Assessor’s office is making to measure, manage and improve the performance of New York’s real property tax system, Assessor Dave Marrano advised the board members to consider the information he has been sending them regarding the perversion of Condominium Law 339-y.

The state is allowing developers to build patio and townhome subdivisions and get tax reductions of 40 percent where the intent of Condo 339-y was for buildings three or more stories high.

Marrano declared that Pleasant Meadows developer Marrano / Marc Equity has applied for such consideration on the townhome subdivision he intends to build. “Should he get such consideration homes that would sell for $180,000, and where our assessment would normally be approximately $157,000, would then be assessed at $108,000.”

“The town would lose $59,400 per unit on assessed valuation, or a total of $6 million in assessed value when the subdivision is fully built out. And all the town is not doing there is plowing the streets but providing all other services.”

Marrano also pointed out the inequity in assessed valuation between Pleasant Meadows single-family homes across the street from patio homes that are similar in size (1,470 square-feet) and sale price. A single-family home on Chicory sold in 2006 at $239,000 and is assessed at 95 percent at $228,000.

There are two patio homes on Pelham. One was built for $227,000 and the other for $237,000. The one that sold for $227,000 is assessed at $136,000, the other at $142,000.

Marrano advised the board to look at the townhouse project when it came for their consideration. “The State Assessor is against this (339-y consideration for townhome and patio homes). Legislation has been placed on the Legislature floor, Assembly and Senate, to rework the law and return it to its original intent for buildings three or more stories in height (with no land involved).”

“Taxpayers look at this as being unfair and question our claim that we are leveling the playing field by assessing according to market value (home sale prices). We don’t want to see what happened in Amherst occurring here.”

Supervisor Robert Giza interjected: “We don’t have a lot of say on the matter because the program is supported by downstate legislators. It’s difficult to make change.”

Marrano responded, “We talk to our property owners on fairness and equity and this one (program) stinks of unfairness! I am in favor of the development and its concept, I just don’t think they should be getting this tax break.

Councilman Dan Amatura apprised Marrano that the Association ill do more on their own than just plow their streets. “They maintain those streets, waterlines and whatever.”

Marrano responded, “You are correct. However, to me the problem is that we have other developments like this one that do not get 339-y consideration and it shifts the tax burden to others. We have to move $6 million in revenues elsewhere. And yes, the town does provide less services, but not that much.

Amatura also declared that with higher density and more taxpaying units, “We are probably talking about less than $6 million. I would agree with you on the loss regarding patio home development.”

Marrano countered that the law was instated for properties that had no land (property). It was put in place for high-rise condominiums. Assessors statewide are against this and have been requested to bring this matter up before their municipal boards.

Residents support assessor position

Among those supporting Marrano’s position was Lee Chowaniec. He apprised the board that he had purchased a townhome in Lancaster 15 years ago.

He well understood that he would be paying full town taxes as well as Association fees to maintain the association buildings, streets, lighting, water and obtain amenities – snow plowing, grass cutting, etc.

Until a year ago, Lancaster had only two complexes that were receiving Condominium Law 339-y consideration. As of today there are two patio home developments are receiving like consideration and Marrano Marc Equity has applied for such consideration for the townhome development he proposes building.

The perversion of the Condo Law we are now seeing in Lancaster is the same slippery slope marketing ploy Marrano Marc Equity has used in other towns.

Understanding that the town has no say in the developer getting State Attorney General’s Office approval for this abuse, I am recommending that the town memorializes the State Legislature, as it did several years ago, to bring this matter in the form of a bill to the floor and reform to it to its original intent.

Gary Howell, residing on Park Boulevard, also supported Assessor Marrano's position. He declared that it was ludicrous that new houses priced in the low $200,000's would be getting 339-y consideration and would be paying less in property taxes than he and his neighbors would be paying on houses that were decades old.

Are you listening Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno?

Better yet, do you care?