Syracuse board hears appeals on property assessments, schedules inspections and rechecks

The Syracuse City Board of Assessment Review held hearings Tuesday, Feb. 11, on appeals from multiple property owners contesting recent assessment increases, and directed follow-up inspections and data checks in several cases.

Petitioner Gary S. Nastasi asked the board to keep the assessed value of a 4.33‑acre vacant lot at 142 Lafayette Road at its previous level while sewer capacity constraints prevent development that would realize the lot’s R‑4 zoning. Nastasi told the board he has received several purchase offers and that the lot is listed for $235,000, but said developers have withdrawn deposits after learning the sewer “cannot take the extra pressure” now. He told the board, “I don't think it's fair to pay the property tax increase until such time the property can be used for what it is zoned for.” City staff (Michael Layman) said the city’s neighborhood revaluation found a tentative assessed value of $70,000 and that the residential vacant‑land category was reviewed citywide.

At 207 Parrish Lane, petitioner Tracy Duncan described a newly noticed crack and upward bulge in her basement floor that she said appears linked to large tree roots between the sidewalk and the road. Duncan said the issue is also producing pooling water in the yard and that she has had trouble arranging contractors; she told the board she currently has no cell phone. The board agreed to arrange a city staff walk‑through of Duncan’s property to evaluate condition and provide a follow‑up referral about the basement issues. Duncan also asked staff to check whether she is receiving the STAR benefit she sees on tax paperwork.

Several other homeowners argued their tentative assessed values were too high given recent sale prices, condition or apparent data errors. At 263 Robinoe Road, Kathleen Doherty pointed out the assessment record lists the house as about 1,940 square feet while she said the house is 1,732 square feet; the board asked her to provide a survey and said staff would verify the discrepancy and re‑evaluate the assessment. At 747 Stenard Ave., homeowners Angelica Post and Colin O’Neil told the board they likely overpaid in a recent purchase and described deferred maintenance (chimney, basement floor and deck) they say emerged after closing. At 1429 Stolp Ave., the petitioner said the home had been purchased from family and that some deferred maintenance remains. At 117–119 Twin Hills Drive and 179 Beverly Road petitioners discussed comparable sales and recent neighborhood increases; city staff said those neighborhoods were part of a broader valuation update.

City staff repeatedly told petitioners the revaluations were neighborhood‑wide rather than targeted to individual owners and that the board is an independent review body that will deliberate based on submitted evidence. For cases where petitioners supplied comparables, listing information, surveys or other documents the board asked that those materials be emailed or submitted for the record.

No final votes or changes were announced in the hearing. The board said it will deliberate and that the city will mail final notices of the board’s determinations in April. For cases with agreed follow‑up (walk‑throughs or data corrections) staff will return with findings that may inform the board’s final decision.

The board’s handling on Feb. 11 covered both (1) valuation disputes tied to recent neighborhood revaluations and market evidence and (2) property condition or data issues that may affect assessed values or eligibility for exemptions. Several petitioners were advised to pursue possible exemptions or STAR questions directly with the assessment office after the hearing.