Fairfield homeowners challenge sharp revaluations, cite floods, unfinished renovations and measurement errors

Fairfield — Homeowners and their representatives told the Board of Assessment Appeals on April 4 that recent town revaluations overstated their properties, raising taxes and in some cases punishing homeowners still repairing flood damage or mid‑renovation homes.

At the hearing, held at Fairfield Town Hall, appellants described a range of complaints: a homeowner at 1666 Milh Hill Road said the town’s valuation jumped more than 50% within a year after a rebuild and that the timing and amounts of reassessments conflicted with the revaluation schedule in state statute. “We had assessments almost every year…with a significant increase of over 50% in late 2024,” the appellant said, asking that the valuation be reduced from $1,764,287 to $1,300,000.

Robin Dejo, speaking for her 94‑year‑old father at 224 Linderir Lane, urged the board to consider recurring basement flooding and original, deteriorated fixtures when comparing his home to nearby sales. “The basement is damaged…we had 6 inches of water and all the moldy drywall had to be taken down,” Dejo said, and handed the assessor office a video taken July 3, 2020 to document repeated flooding.

Irma Matuk, representing owners at Warner Hill Road, told the panel that one property was undergoing gut renovation at the time of appraisal and several core items were not functioning. “At the time of the appraisal the house had no exterior or interior doors…no kitchen, no appliances,” she said, noting later repairs and replacement costs — including a clay‑tile roof and stucco work — that were carried out after the assessor’s snapshot.

Other appellants raised more technical challenges: unit owners in the Maplewood condominium complex said their units retained original 1980s finishes and that remodeled units in the complex had recently sold for $480,000–$485,000, which they argued is a better comparator than higher assessed units. One homeowner asked the board to correct carded living‑area figures after an architect found differences between recorded and measured square footage.

Hearing officer Laura O’Brien (recording the session) repeatedly advised appellants how to add photos, videos and sale records to their files and said the staff would compile the documentation for the full board. “If I’m going to put this forward to the board, I need to see the comparables and the notes,” she told one appellant. No final votes were taken during the session; the hearing officer said she would bring the compiled cases and supporting evidence to the board for decision.

Why it matters: Appeals that challenge measurement errors, incomplete inspections, or misapplied comparables can change how property tax burdens are shared across a neighborhood. Several appellants asked the board to consider the practical effect on long‑term residents, particularly older homeowners, who face sudden tax increases after nearby sales push land values higher.

What’s next: The appeals officer said she would include appellants’ photos, videos and documented sales in each case file and present them to the full Board of Assessment Appeals for deliberation and a future ruling. The hearing record shows no formal action or vote on April 4.

(Reporting from the Board of Assessment Appeals session; quotations and factual assertions are drawn from the April 4 hearing transcript.)