Residents contest steep assessment increases at March 23 Board of Assessment Appeals hearings

Members of the Board of Assessment Appeals heard a full day of residential appeals on March 23 as homeowners challenged newly posted appraisals and large land-value increases.

Chrissy Kelly, an alternate on the board of assessment appeals, opened each hearing and swore in residents who disputed the town’s appraisals. “I will be the one who is presenting your case to the rest of the board when we start deliberating,” Kelly said as she took evidence and copies of appraisals and market analyses from appellants.

Many appellants raised the same themes. A homeowner at 23 Beacon View Drive argued the town’s $474,270 appraisal overstated value for a half-duplex, saying the parcel could not be redeveloped as a detached lot and that several comparables in the assessor’s report were condominiums or much larger homes. The appellant’s broker testified they conducted a market analysis and concluded a realistic market value was $395,000, and told the panel the property lacked central air and had limited improvements.

On High Street, an appellant described a mature street tree that the town removed and a new apartment project directly across from the house, saying both changes had eroded privacy and marketability. The homeowner submitted photos of the removed tree and asked the board to consider the development’s impact when comparing sales.

Row-house and small-lot owners including residents of 121 Rono Avenue told the board their parcels were much smaller than nearby detached houses, had no driveways or garages, and showed original interiors and older systems such as slate roofs and clay sewer lines. One resident said a 200‑square‑foot backyard and shared sewer location make some repairs and site improvements impractical, arguing that those characteristics should lower the land component of the appraisal.

Several appellants asked the board to scrutinize the assessor’s choice of comparables and to distinguish townwide market movements from case‑specific conditions. As one homeowner put it: “There’s a black box — I wish we had the list of comps Tyler used so we could see if a sale was a bidding war.” Kelly told appellants the board records deliberations and that mailed notices with the board’s revised numbers typically arrive in April; she also reminded residents that a state-level appeal remains an option if they remain unsatisfied.

In one distinct presentation, Gregory Lane spoke for the owner of a lakefront house on Springer Road and said lake access and severe slope require lakefront comparables; he said his appraisal supports a market value closer to $1.2 million than the town’s $1,538,655 appraisal and promised to submit a fuller report with photos.

The hearings were largely evidentiary: residents supplied appraisals, broker analyses, photos and lists of comparables; board staff recorded field‑card notes such as permit histories and flagged possible data errors (one participant identified a $72,000 permit entry that appeared to belong to a different property). No formal votes were taken at the sessions; the board will deliberate after completing all hearings and then issue adjusted values by mail.

The board’s process: the appeals are heard in the order filed, deliberations are recorded and appellants receive only a mailed number (with no written rationale). Appellants may then appeal to the state if still unsatisfied.

Next steps: the board expects to finish hearings and begin deliberations in the next two to four weeks; appellants will receive revised values by letter, most likely in April. If residents remain unsatisfied, the board’s staff said, instructions for a state appeal are available on the Board of Assessment Appeals website.