Homeowners challenge 2025 appraisals at municipal assessment hearing; board to deliberate

At a municipal assessment appeals hearing, homeowners and counsel pressed the town to lower a string of 2025–2026 property appraisals, raising specific errors in assessor data and differences among comparables.

Petra and York Bender said the town’s field card for 184 Bullard Street lists seven rooms when the condo has six and mislabels the fireplace as a two‑story unit. Petra Bender also highlighted what she called an outlying replacement‑cost figure for their unit: “Whereas the replacement cost on our property is $455 per square foot,” she said, noting comparable units showed replacement costs between $36 and $343 per square foot. They asked the hearing officer to present corrected data and three condo comparators and requested the appraisal be reduced to $800,000.

At 358 Morris House Highway, owner Robert Cherelli told the board the assessor treated an attic space as living area even though he and his insurer consider it non‑living. “It’s not really living space,” he said, and urged the board to discount the attic when comparing market value and rebuild estimates; he recommended a lower value near $1.35 million.

Several appellants represented by attorney Chris Russo pressed similar points about comparables and location. For 418 Harbor Road (an 1874 house), counsel argued the town’s $5.377 million appraisal reflected a very large increase — roughly 118% — that the owners say is not justified by the limited improvements made and by historic‑district limitations on modernization. “We are requesting a market value of 3.6 million,” Russo told the hearing officer.

Other cases raised routine but material technical disputes: at 2206 Fairfield Beach Road and several Roland Road properties, counsel cited proximity to the beach, lot shape and privacy differences to explain why nearby sales and town valuations should not be directly ported to the subject parcels. At 17 Welch Terrace, counsel presented two scenarios (owner‑occupant vs. redeveloper) and two comps to support a requested value near $725,000.

At 20 Rolling Ridge Road, owner Philip Trager said the assessor treated a steep, rocky rear parcel as usable acreage and sought a land‑value correction. “It’s totally unusable,” Trager said of the back cliff and rock ledge, and he submitted a bank appraisal and multiple comparables showing significantly lower values (roughly $875,000–$900,000) for similar, usable‑land lots.

Across the hearing the officer repeated the next steps for petitioners: the officer will present each petition to the majority of the board for a deliberation session and vote; petitioners will be notified by mail of the board’s decision within seven days; a denied appellant may refile next year, and instructions for any court appeal will be included in the decision letter.

The board did not vote at the hearing; each petition will be considered at a future deliberation session and appellants will be notified in writing of the outcome.