Fairfield appeals board hears hundreds of individual property challenges; homeowners cite condition, wetlands and comparator sales

The Fairfield Board of Assessment Appeals spent the evening of March 3, 2026, taking individual appeals from homeowners who said the town’s appraisals overstated market value.

Hearing officer Peter Rupert opened each case, confirmed the town’s appraisal and the homeowners’ requested value, and told property owners the board will present their evidence to a majority of members at a later deliberation and notify them by mail within seven days of that vote. “We are, we have 992 appeals,” Rupert said, explaining the board expects deliberations to stretch into May.

Homeowners raised three recurring complaints. Several owners said assessor comparables and replacement-cost calculations treated older, historic properties as more valuable than nearby renovated homes. Chester Bartlett, appealing the appraisal for 1014 Pequod Avenue, said his 1734 house remains largely original and that features such as 7½-foot ceilings, nonfunctional historic chimneys and limited plumbing reduce marketability: “We are one of the oldest homes in Southport…we are an outlier,” Bartlett said, asking the board to weigh direct, historic comparables and replacement-cost adjustments.

Other appeals focused on lot use and coding. Bradley Yun and co-owner Cheongsook Yoon said more than half of their 1.2-acre parcel at 400 Dunham Road is mapped as wetland, reducing buildable area and marketability; they submitted MLS history, inspection notes and an appraisal of their February 2025 purchase to argue the assessment assumes a level of usable land the property lacks.

A third theme was condition and deferred maintenance. Richard Perkin, who supplied an independent appraisal for 501 Warren Hill Road, said his home (1981 construction) showed significant deferred maintenance and that a local appraiser’s report supported reducing the town’s $2.42 million appraisal to about $2.0 million. Other owners similarly submitted photos, field-card notes and contractor or inspector reports showing basement, roof or septic issues.

Owners across appeals also challenged land-per-square-foot calculations and parcel coding. Vanessa Mazzella and others showed side-by-side land-value tables and asked the board to consider lower per-square-foot values used by neighboring parcels or to merge parcels where a conservation easement or coding error had flagged land as developable when it is not.

Board procedure and next steps were consistent across hearings: Rupert swore in speakers, marked submitted evidence for the file and described the outcomes the board could choose — deny the appeal, grant it fully (which bars subsequent appeals until the next revaluation), or grant partial relief. He reiterated that deliberations will be by majority of the nine-member board and that decisions will be mailed within seven days of those deliberations.

The board did not take any votes during the sessions recorded on March 3; the record for each appeal will be scanned and included in the file for the deliberation. Owners were repeatedly advised they may appeal the board’s final decision to court if they remain dissatisfied.

For homeowners who presented evidence, the next procedural update will be the board’s deliberation and mailed decision. The hearings continue to be scheduled through May as the board works through nearly 1,000 appeals.