Fairfield appeals hearing: homeowners cite flooding, septic and utility easements in challenges to 2025 valuations

Helen Dailyaly, the staff member presiding over Fairfieldassessment appeals, heard a steady stream of homeowners on March 5 who challenged their 2025 property valuations on a range of grounds, from chronic drainage problems and septic complications to newly installed transmission poles and disputed comparable sales.

At the session, the earliest appellant, Timour Nur, said his house (about 1,240 sq ft and two bedrooms) was appraised at $764,200 but he asked for $525,000, pointing to a drain that he said runs from the Brookben neighborhood into his yard and leaves the backyard frequently ‘‘unusablemost of the years.}"

Nur also described basement dampness and a septic/leach-field arrangement that he said increases his repair costs; he provided neighborhood comparables and emailed photos that staff agreed to add to the appeal file. Later in the morning, homeowners raised other condition- and siting-related claims: Donna Propes told the panel that Eversource-installed 100-foot brown transmission poles and large concrete bases sit about 75 feet from her home and that a 1924 easement (which she said did not appear on her deed at purchase) now affects use and resale; she said she had filed a title-company claim and was pursuing a separate appraisal.

Other appellants questioned the assessor''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' valuation methods and the choice of comparables. One appellant cited a mortgage-company market estimate markedly lower than the town appraisal; another, Tara Dunigan, said the assessor had reduced her listed improvements value even as land values rose, which she said would constrain allowable FEMA repairs and could push owners in flood-prone areas toward teardown rather than repair. Multiple homeowners reported that recently completed or newly listed sales in Fairfield had qualities (new construction, larger lots, renovations) that they believed were inflating neighborhood valuation metrics relative to their own smaller or condition-impaired homes.

Staff told each appellant that the board keeps a list of sales used for valuations and encouraged claimants to file printed comparable sales and the photos they brought; staff repeatedly stated that the appeals board would deliberate in roughly the third week of March and that letters with final results would follow once the board votes. No formal board votes occurred at these hearings; the staff member said she would present each case to the nine-member board for decision.

What happens next: the hearing officer will include each claimant's materials in the board packet and present the cases at deliberation; appellants were told they can attend the board meeting to hear votes and, if dissatisfied, may pursue superior-court review. The session centered on condition, siting and comparable-sales disputes rather than procedural objections to assessment law.