Connie Allen, the property owner and appellant, appeared before the Harrison property tax appeals board to challenge a $315,000 assessment for her waterfront lot at 46 Island Pond Road, arguing repeated flooding and neighbor-installed culverts reduced market value.

Allen said she measured her shore frontage and “so it's 200 feet at the shore and a 172 feet at the road,” and presented photos and videos she said show stormwater overtopping the road and flooding parts of her yard. She said a pair of culverts installed by a neighbor directs flow onto her land, that she has piled soil to form a berm, and that a ditch behind her lot is “man made.” Allen also submitted a 1994 septic-installation record she said shows a 1,000-gallon tank and nine infiltrators were installed soon after she took full ownership.

The town assessor reviewed the property after the board asked for an on-site visit. Jessica, the town assessor, told the board she verified shore frontage in the file and that she and a code-enforcement officer inspected conditions on the ground. The assessor said the office had adjusted Allen’s land valuation by the 10% reduction typically allowed for size, shape and topography, but, she said, “I still cannot find that we think a market value of $315,000 for a waterside property is overvalued.”

Board members pressed the assessor about whether the inspection process should have included advance outreach to Allen or a clearer explanation of file entries such as a stop-work notice cited from 1994. One board member said the assessor’s written findings read like “attack after attack” on the appellant; the assessor apologized on the record, saying, “It was not my intent, and it was probably ill worded, and I want to apologize for that.”

Members also debated the weight to give Allen’s photos and videos. Allen said the flood imagery was taken in 2022 and 2023 and that in one on-site measurement the ditch reached about 6 feet deep; the assessor said the property visit found no standing water on the day of inspection and that episodic flooding alone did not, in the assessor’s view, justify a change to the $315,000 valuation.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the tax-abatement appeal on the basis that the taxpayer had not shown the assessment was manifestly wrong; the motion carried unanimously. The board closed the hearing and told Allen the decision applied to the single tax year under appeal.

The meeting record shows the board accepted the assessor’s valuation methodology for this parcel and declined to order a larger reduction. The assessor acknowledged she would take the board’s feedback about tone and file communication into account in future reports.

The decision ends this appeal for the listed tax year; Allen was advised of her procedural rights for any further remedies beyond this local appeal.