Fairfield board hears property assessment appeals as homeowners challenge comparables and data errors

The Fairfield Board of Assessment Appeals held a series of individual hearings on March 5 as homeowners pressed objections to recent increases in property valuations.

Board member Neil Frink, who chaired the evening session, said each petition and the evidence submitted would be "presented to a majority of the board when we begin deliberations," and that appellants would be "notified within seven days" of the board's decision. He reminded property owners that a reduction bars further appeals until the next revaluation in four years, and that denied appellants may pursue court review.

Several owners focused on what they described as mismatched or sparse comparables. William and Carol McMorris asked the board to reduce a vacant-lot valuation at 57 Blue Ridge Road from $441,400 to $250,000, saying the assessor's appraisal relied on distant or higher-end lots in Greenfield Hills and a waterfront parcel. The McMorrises told the board they had a near-term marketing history and a negotiated offer in mid-2024 for $225,000 to $250,000; they argued those local sales better reflected fair market value than the assessor's chosen comparables.

Other homeowners made similar points. Sean Powers said the assessor's staff used sales from neighborhoods he described as miles away and that a recent nearby sale for about $580,000 was not included in the assessor's comparables. Deborah Serino and Lisa Roland each provided sale listings and appraisal documents they said showed lower valuations for homes like theirs, and both asked the board to weigh condition and neighborhood features in adjusting assessments. Christopher Anderson brought a five-comparable analysis for his Cape Cod on Cambridge Street and applied a price-per-square-foot calculation that led him to request a value roughly half the town's figure after modest condition adjustments.

Appellants also raised procedural and data concerns. Several said they had informal conversations with a Tyler representative (the vendor referenced in hearing materials) and that documents they submitted may not have been reflected in the informal review. One appellant told the hearing that the informal reviewer "understood our point" but that the formal assessment did not change. Another raised a neighborhood code or zip-code mismatch that he said produced distant comps rather than properties from his immediate neighborhood.

Frink repeatedly told petitioners that the board members would review all submitted materials, including field cards, photos and appraisals, before deliberations. "I'll present your petition with and I'll write up all my notes," he said to multiple appellants, adding that the board typically compiles packets for later voting by the full panel.

The hearings were procedural and evidentiary: no formal board votes were taken at the sessions. Frink said the board will deliberate later and mail decision letters to appellants within seven days of the board vote. He also told petitioners that if they disagree with the board's decision they may appeal to court and that instructions would be included in their decision letters.

The meeting gave residents a chance to place comparables, photos and contractors'estimates on the record and to flag specific perceived errors in the assessor's dataset. The board did not announce outcomes at the hearing; decisions will be included in the mailed letters following deliberation.