A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Peter Van Winkle challenges Fairfield appraisal for 80 Ironside Road, seeks $1.25M assessment

March 11, 2026 | Fairfield, Fairfield, Connecticut


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Peter Van Winkle challenges Fairfield appraisal for 80 Ironside Road, seeks $1.25M assessment
Peter Van Winkle told the Fairfield tax appeals panel on March 5 that his home at 80 Ironside Road should be appraised at $1,250,000, not the town’s $1,446,300 figure. He told the clerk he and two neighboring homes were built at the same time and in similar condition, but the town applied a different depreciation factor to his house and a smaller land discount to his neighbors despite all being on the same hill.

"It's because the town is treating, is applying a different depreciation factor to the 2 neighbors' homes than to ours," Van Winkle said, arguing the discrepancy drives the higher valuation. He added that his property includes a pool and a barn the comparables do not, and that when he applies the same depreciation and a 0.9 land factor used on the neighbor properties, the math produces the $1.25 million figure he requested.

The clerk reviewed Van Winkle's submitted historical appraisal printouts and said the documents show his property’s appraised percentage rose about 14% in the current cycle compared with the two comparables. The clerk acknowledged that applying consistent depreciation and land adjustments would bring Van Winkle’s valuation in line with his neighbors and said she would present the material to the full board for a vote.

The clerk explained the board’s options: grant the full appeal as requested, offer a partial adjustment, or deny the request and leave the town value unchanged. She told Van Winkle he has the statutory right to pursue judicial review if the board's decision is unsatisfactory.

The appeals panel did not vote at the March 5 meeting; the clerk said appellant decisions and any changes will be mailed after the full board reviews the case.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee