Fairfield homeowners press appeals over revaluation, citing wrong comparables, wetlands and damage

Fairfield volunteer hearing officer Laura O'Brien heard more than a half-dozen property assessment appeals on March 3, as homeowners disputed new valuations drawn from a revaluation program the town contracted to a vendor. Claimants said the revaluation relied on broad, map-based comparables and failed to account for site-specific limits such as wetlands, slope, chronic flooding, storm damage and obsolete interiors.

"I will do what I can," O'Brien told one homeowner after explaining the process for the committee's later review. The hearing officer explained assessed value typically uses 70% of an agreed market valuation and said the notes from each in-person appeal will be placed in the record for the committee to review at its meeting later in the month.

Homeowners and their appraisers raised three recurring objections. First, claimants said the vendor's comparables ignored local constraints: several speakers asked that large portions of parcels identified as conservation wetlands or sloping, unusable land be discounted because they cannot be developed. Stephanie, who appealed the valuation for a condo at 291 Reading Road, said the assessor’s land component appeared to have included wetland acreage and noted multiple recent closing prices clustered from $2.0 million to $2.1 million that, she argued, supported a reduced valuation.

Second, several residents said condition and deferred maintenance had been underweighted. A resident on Black Rock Turnpike described chronic groundwater intrusion and repeated tree damage that has led to structural and outbuilding losses, saying he now runs multiple sump pumps year-round. "I have four sump pumps on 2-in discharge lines that are running year round," he said, asking the committee to factor the ongoing costs and safety risks into any valuation adjustment.

Third, property owners and an independent appraiser questioned whether the revaluation firm used appropriate comparables for different neighborhood pockets. Eric Nicholson brought a certified appraiser, Pat Labella, who described selecting three 2025 sales he judged most similar and placing an adjusted value around $455,000—below the town figure for that small-house market.

Attorney Don Bradford, representing clients who purchased a 4.5-acre estate on Saskco Hill Road late in 2024, urged a larger reduction. Bradford submitted three appraisals and the purchase price; the most recent appraisal dated Oct. 1, 2025, placed market value at $5.5 million, while the town's valuation shown in the file was roughly $7.7 million. "A purchase price within months of the revaluation is strong evidence of market value," Bradford said, asking the committee to weigh the submitted bank and independent appraisals.

Residents also criticized the mechanics of the blanket appraisal process. Several speakers — including multiple appellants who hired independent appraisers — said firms that rely primarily on mapped comparables can miss local features such as traffic noise, adjacent commercial parcels, and restrictive zoning that reduce usable land value.

No formal decisions were issued at the session. O'Brien told appellants that notes and submitted materials would be reviewed by the valuation committee and that applicants could expect contact by the end of the month. The committee did not take votes at the hearing; its members will consider the submissions at a later public meeting.

What happens next: the valuation committee will review hearing notes, submitted appraisals and supporting documentation. Appellants will be notified of committee action and any change to assessed value.