Fairfield appeals hearing: homeowners cite wetlands, structural damage and market comps in multiple valuation appeals

The Fairfield Board of Assessment Appeals heard a string of residential appeals on March 4 from homeowners contesting the town’s reassessments, citing constraints such as wetlands and floodplain, undisclosed structural defects, and neighborhood comparables.

At the hearing Marvin Kolariki (1685 Redding Road) said roughly half his lot lies in wetlands and that a 100‑year flood line runs through the parcel, preventing his proposal for an accessory dwelling unit and limiting saleability. “Fifty percent of it is in, in wetlands,” he said while showing maps and photos and offering comparables that his attorney and the board could review. The chair asked Kolariki to provide photos and confirmed the board would include the evidence in the packet for the full panel.

In a separate appeal for 230 Winton Road, Laura Torme presented a bank appraisal and described post‑purchase discoveries including significant exterior rot, a sagging floor later diagnosed as a structural roof‑load issue, and other condition failures. She said the bank appraisal supported a $2,000,000 opinion but that, given newly discovered defects, she believed $1.8M was a more accurate figure. The board asked for photos and engineering documentation and accepted the documents for consideration.

At 50 Stoneridge Way, condominium owners Nancy and John Jacobson submitted recent sales comparables for Stone Ridge and argued the town’s figure should be lowered toward $801,000 based on several sales between October 2024 and October 2025. The board discussed unit‑level pricing differences (floor level, noise, and within‑complex location) that can affect condo valuations.

Other homeowners presented spreadsheets of recent sales, argued that assessor field‑card adjustments (neighborhood factors and condition ratings) had inflated land values in some areas, and discussed the board’s process for presenting candidate appeals to the full nine‑member panel. The chair advised appellants that the board will review all exhibits and then the full panel will vote; appellants retain the right to seek judicial review if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.