| Author |
Message |
    
Winkydink
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 9:21 am: |     |
Mr. Galante stated at the tax "workshop" that the acreage land values are supposed to be calculated in two parts as follows:
the min lot size for your zone X $350,000
plus the excess square footage X $100,000
Then add on the site value ("neighborhood tax")
The zone is from the tax map. e.g., R-1-4, R-1-5, R-1-6, or R-1-7, etc. Some are R-2-4, ETC.. The first number means one or two family. The LAST number is the MINIMUM LOT SIZE, e.g. 7 means 7000 Square feet, 6 means 6000 SF, etc.
You need to submit for review by the tax assessor if this is not correct on your property card. The request for review deadline is 4:30 PM today 2/14/01.
If you have any questions, you can try to call me @ 973-714-8926
Winkydink |
Franny
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 9:31 am: | |
Winky - what if we already submitted our request? This information would have reduced my assessment by almost $30,000 - if this is a calculation overlooked by the tax assessor, shouldn't they automatically check every appeal to see if they did the math? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 10:08 am: | |
Winky, where is the zone on the property card? |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 11:35 am: | |
Advised by the Prospect Street protestors that I had a right to see and get a copy of my 1981 reval, I went to town hall on Tuesday since it was closed Monday. I was refused! Said they were too busy! Apparently those lucky enough to get their copies had some very interesting differences in how values were given. Especially in land value and in the depreciation columns! I was only alerted to getting this info on Saturday. I wonder what is the real motivation. The town employee did not suggest I come back later or anything like that. It was an emphatic NO. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 11:43 am: | |
Winkydink:
I may be mistaken but I think the "350,000" rate figure varies from neighborhood to neighborhood and that 350,000 was the highest value assigned. Lucky you.
Njjoseph:
You won't find your zone listed on your Record Card but you can compute it easily enough. Just look at the first of two "AC" units listed under land calculations. If you have only one AC unit figure listed then your lot is the minimum size for your zone. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 11:47 am: | |
Mtierney:
We must be near neighbors. I too have had my property listed as being in neighborhood 20 (Prospect Street). I hear that my Prospect Street neighbors submitted a petition to Mr. Galante asking that the land rate applied to the street be reduced. Can you tell me the basis for that request? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:01 pm: | |
Joan, I already know what you told me. My first number is .20, which translates to about 9000 sq. feet. That should mean I'm in a zone R1-9, right? But what if I'm not, and am really in R1-5 -- I'm being overassessed! |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:12 pm: | |
Njjoseph:
There is no zone R-1-9. R-1-7 is the highest in town. If your unit figure is .2 acres then you are in an R-1-7 zone. This includes most of the property west of the tracks and most of Middle Maplewood on or west of Prospect Street.
I have the zoning map in front of me. If you want to post your address (generally or specifically) I can look it up for you. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:26 pm: | |
The Prospect St. group objected to receiving the same higher land value for a specific stretch of Prospect as streets such as the Crescents. They pointed to the heavy traffic along Prospect for its entire length from Springfield Ave. to SO line. Another instance of where Certified blew it. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:38 pm: | |
I also picked up Mr. Galante's statement during the workshop which was supported by Mayor De Luca's comments on his own property, reading from his property card. He lives in a 4,000 square foot zone, he has 5,000 square feet. He had 1,000 sq ft. accessed at the lower rate. The Mayor also posted this information on the board a couple of weeks ago.
We live in an R-1-7 zone and have 11,000 plus square feet. We didn't get the lower excess acreage charge.
I included this in my review request. Being ever pessimistic I think we will find that the excess acreage reduction is only allowed in certain neighborhoods under the theroy that most lots in the Jefferson area are larger than the minimum and therefore not "excessive".
Time will tell. Mr. De Luca, Mr. Ryan are you listening? |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 12:48 pm: | |
Mtierney:
Thanks. I agree with the heavy traffic issue. It's definitely worth pointing out. |
Wilbur
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 1:07 pm: | |
Mtierney, I live on Prospect smackdab in the middle of the stretch that was given the same land value as the Crescent. Do you happen to know the status of the request to change the land value for that part of Prospect? For some reason, I was not included in the Prospect group's meetings (no idea why but I'm not taking it personally), and I'm a little in the dark on this. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 2:30 pm: | |
Wilbur:
When the presentation was made concerning Prospect the Mayor suggested that those involved file a Tax Review Form with the Assesser.
This is something that should probably be taken care of on a bulk basis by Mr. Galante, but I suggest you get your form in ASAP since the deadline is 4:30pm TODAY!! |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 2:54 pm: | |
Joan, isn't R1-7 about .16 acre? If so, how do I get .20 on my property card?
I think I'm map 22 (it says so on the property card, but could be wrong) at 380 Elmwood. So you all now know who I am.....oh well, I'm not hiding anything.... ;-)
Let me know what you find. Thanks! |
Wilbur
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 4:08 pm: | |
BobK, I was indeed hoping to hear that the town had decided to change the land value for that part of Prospect in one fell swoop, like I understand they did for Jefferson, Ridgewood and other streets. I know the deadline was today....and in fact we missed it, a function of our being out of town recently and of being busy with jobs, kids, etc. No excuse, but still...we missed it. Since we missed this deadline, we have decided we will probably file a formal tax appeal (deadline is April, I believe?) based on the "busy street factor" and the fact that it was not taken into account in our assessment. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 4:13 pm: | |
Wilbur:
Maybe you will get lucky and Mr. Galante will have changed your assessment on a block basis. The frustrating thing is that there is no way to know what is going on until we get our notifications the beginning of next month.
Good Luck!! |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 5:00 pm: | |
Njjoseph:
Unless your house borders on Prospect Street, as mine does, the Zoning Map for 1986 places your property in an R-1-5 zone. Hope this helps. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 7:57 pm: | |
Oh my! It doesn't border Prospect; it's closer to Boyden. 44000 * .20 = 8800. That's not R-1-5.
Any advice? Jerry? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 9:57 pm: | |
Bobk: I don't know the answer to your question, sorry.
I live in an R-1-7 zone on a 73x170 lot which comes to 12,410 sq. ft. I only have one land calc on my card (for .285 AC).
BTW, if I get the database turned around fast enough, you should know (some of) the results before you get the card.
Njjoseph: The 2 houses on the corner of Prospect are R-1-7. Almost all of the rest of Elmwood is in R-1-5, except that just before Boyden it becomes R-1-4, then R-2-4 past the Sweet Shop.
Prospect, by the way is R-1-4 over in Hilton, R-1-5 to Tuscan, R-1-7 to just past Elmwood. On the right side as you are heading toward S.O. it is R-1-5 2 houses past Elmwood. On the left it doesn't change to R-1-5 until Parker. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 8:39 am: | |
Jerry, so if you have R-1-7, and only one line on the reval, the '7' doesn't really mean '7000', right? I'm probably R-1-5 then, although I'm diagonally across from the beginning of the Winchester Gardens property line, which could make me R-1-4.
However, there are a few properties, of which I have one, that have exceptionally-sized properties, so I'm wondering if they are zoned any differently. None-the-less, R-1-5 translates to about 1/9th acre, when my first line item is 1/5th acre.
What does the 4, 5, 7 really represent? |
|