Fairfield appeals board hears homeowners’ challenges to steep reassessments, citing flooding, traffic and light pollution

The Fairfield Appeals Board heard several property assessment appeals on the 23rd, as homeowners and their lawyers urged the board to reduce newly reassessed values that they called out of line with neighborhood conditions and recent sales.

At the first case, Maryanne Rido, the appellant for 700 Uncle Road, told the board the town valued her home at roughly $2,478,151 and asked the board to reduce that figure to about $2.25 million (she also cited calculations that put the value at approximately $2.285 million). Rido said her corner lot in Whitten Park has become noisier and more heavily lit as school and parking-area expansion have increased traffic and nighttime illumination. She presented field cards, maps and photographs showing wetlands, setback constraints and flooding and argued the assessor’s recent adjustments (including a grade she said was unusually high for the street) do not reflect the property’s condition. "If they put one more light there, I'm going to pop," Rido said, describing the effect of new stadium and street lighting on her backyard privacy.

Danielle Edwards, appealing the 211 Marbor Terrace valuation, asked the board to reduce the town’s figure of $707,500 to $600,000. Edwards cited four main points: the house's age (106 years), an original sandstone foundation with ongoing water seepage, what she described as limited, lower-quality remodel work, and street congestion caused by neighboring properties. She said a severe storm within six months of moving in left roughly a foot of water in the basement and required removal of two feet of drywall and replacement of flooring. "There was a foot of water in the basement," Edwards said, and she left photos and a town-engineer note showing the property sits at a low point that contributes to the damage.

Attorney Chris Russo represented two separate appellants later in the session. For 1088 Harbor Road (owner trustee listed as Jessica McManis), Russo said the town’s appraisal of about $4.33 million represents roughly a 95% increase from the prior valuation and argued the improvement component is significantly higher than comparable grade-A sales nearby, which he cited in the $2.6 million to $3.2 million range. "There's a huge kind of gap there," Russo told board members as he walked through sale-by-square-foot comparisons and field-card evidence.

In a separate appeal for 1011 Pequat Avenue, representing Gunston Holdings LLC, Russo asked the board to adopt a $3.7 million valuation, citing a comparable sale that closed for $3.75 million in August 2025 and noting differences in lot size and living-area square footage between the properties.

Helen Dailyaly, a member of the nine‑member appeals board who presented cases to the panel, told appellants the board will review the evidence, consult field cards and sales data, and deliberate before issuing determinations. She reminded appellants that if they remain unsatisfied after the board’s decision they may appeal to superior court and that deliberations will be recorded and available for review.

No formal votes or final decisions were recorded during the session excerpt provided; the board heard evidence and asked staff to double-check certain field-card adjustments (including whether a flood/location adjustment had been applied). The board will consider the documentation and sales evidence presented when it deliberates and issues its written decisions.