Fairfield board hears nearly 20 property assessment appeals; decisions to be mailed after deliberation
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 »
The Fairfield Board of Assessment Appeals spent the evening of March 5, 2026, hearing a sequence of property tax appeals from owners and agents who challenged the town’s valuations for a range of single‑family and waterfront parcels.
Board member Peter Rupert opened each case and repeatedly explained the next steps: he will present each petition to a majority of the board at a deliberation session, and appellants will be notified by mail of the board’s decision within seven days of that vote. "You'll be notified by mail of our decision within 7 days of that," Rupert said.
Several appellants relied on recent sales and appraisals. Jeff Dexter, who identified himself as an authorized tax agent with Cost Reduction Services Group, urged the board to reduce a waterfront assessment to reflect an arm's‑length May 2025 sale. Dexter said the property had been widely marketed, produced a warranty deed and an appraisal showing a sale price of $2,650,000; he summarized: "I think no greater proof of true value could be judged better than the facts of this sale, in my opinion." He asked the board for a market‑time adjustment to reach the value he requested.
Other appellants pressed technical claims. Paul Kim, appearing for several Lighthouse Point parcels, told the board that one new construction project had omitted parts of the steel superstructure the plans required, producing a house that "rocks" and has "substantial defects," and he said he would submit engineer reports. Owners of non‑waterfront parcels, including Darren Walsh and Charles Korchinski, submitted comparable sales and argued their improvement valuations were statistical outliers in their neighborhoods; Korchinski cited CGS 12‑64 and asked for a more uniform assessment.
Several homeowners described site constraints and deferred maintenance as drivers of lower market value. Elizabeth Seaman said her 1940s cape is considerably smaller than nearby homes, sits on a sloped lot with limited usable backyard and needs multiple updates; Sylvia DiTeramillo told the board her house is on septic, sits on ledge with limited buildable land and has an unfinished accessory unit that does not add value.
No final votes were taken at the session. Rupert said each petition will be presented in deliberation and the board will issue written decisions; appellants were reminded of their right to seek judicial review if dissatisfied with the board’s action.
The board noted it is handling 992 appeals this cycle and expects to continue work into May as it completes hearings and deliberations.
Board member Peter Rupert opened each case and repeatedly explained the next steps: he will present each petition to a majority of the board at a deliberation session, and appellants will be notified by mail of the board’s decision within seven days of that vote. "You'll be notified by mail of our decision within 7 days of that," Rupert said.
Several appellants relied on recent sales and appraisals. Jeff Dexter, who identified himself as an authorized tax agent with Cost Reduction Services Group, urged the board to reduce a waterfront assessment to reflect an arm's‑length May 2025 sale. Dexter said the property had been widely marketed, produced a warranty deed and an appraisal showing a sale price of $2,650,000; he summarized: "I think no greater proof of true value could be judged better than the facts of this sale, in my opinion." He asked the board for a market‑time adjustment to reach the value he requested.
Other appellants pressed technical claims. Paul Kim, appearing for several Lighthouse Point parcels, told the board that one new construction project had omitted parts of the steel superstructure the plans required, producing a house that "rocks" and has "substantial defects," and he said he would submit engineer reports. Owners of non‑waterfront parcels, including Darren Walsh and Charles Korchinski, submitted comparable sales and argued their improvement valuations were statistical outliers in their neighborhoods; Korchinski cited CGS 12‑64 and asked for a more uniform assessment.
Several homeowners described site constraints and deferred maintenance as drivers of lower market value. Elizabeth Seaman said her 1940s cape is considerably smaller than nearby homes, sits on a sloped lot with limited usable backyard and needs multiple updates; Sylvia DiTeramillo told the board her house is on septic, sits on ledge with limited buildable land and has an unfinished accessory unit that does not add value.
No final votes were taken at the session. Rupert said each petition will be presented in deliberation and the board will issue written decisions; appellants were reminded of their right to seek judicial review if dissatisfied with the board’s action.
The board noted it is handling 992 appeals this cycle and expects to continue work into May as it completes hearings and deliberations.
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
30-day money-back guarantee
