Homeowners press Board of Assessment Appeals over sharply higher land valuations

The Board of Assessment Appeals spent the session hearing dozens of property appeals focused largely on sharply higher land valuations that residents said do not reflect local market conditions. Board member Katie Guston, who opened the hearing and administered oaths, told appellants the volunteers will collect documents, deliberate as a group after the hearings and notify parties by letter a few days later.

The substance of most hearings centered on land-value allocations inside the town's mass reassessment. Multiple appellants argued the assessor’s appraisal placed disproportionate weight on land — in some cases imputing six- or seven-figure land values — while assigning little value to small or FEMA-noncompliant structures. One appellant summarized the complaint this way: “They’ve put most of the value on the land; the cottages themselves have no significant value,” and asked the board to consider that comparable waterfront lots used by the town are not directly comparable to properties with no water access.

Appellants repeatedly provided sales-comparison arguments. One resident said the town’s per-square-foot figure for their house ($721 per square foot cited in the record) far exceeded neighborhood norms and that nearby sales supported a lower valuation. Another appellant, who presented a set of neighborhood tables and field‑card data, told the board they found several sales where appraised land values approached or exceeded the total sale price, which they said indicates the appraisal model may overweight land relative to improvements.

Guston and other board members advised a practical remedy: submit sale-comps, field cards and any appraisals to the assessor’s office so the material can be included in appeal files and reviewed during deliberations. “If you can pull some kind of comparable sales in the timeframe, that shows me what this land down there is selling for,” Guston said, instructing appellants how to deliver documents to the assessor’s office for inclusion in Appeal files.

Several appellants also raised procedural complaints about notices and scheduling; a few said they received mailed notices only the day before their scheduled hearing because of mail delays tied to recent storms. The board acknowledged the unusually heavy caseload (members repeatedly referenced roughly 1,000 appeals this cycle) and explained that volunteer panels hear cases individually then convene to deliberate as a group in the weeks following the hearings.

What happens next: the volunteer board will gather with all submitted evidence to deliberate and reach decisions. The assessor’s office is notified that night, and appellants should receive notice of outcomes by mail — and can either reapply next year or pursue court review if they disagree with the decision.

The session recorded multiple requests by appellants to review specific comparable sales and field cards; the board indicated such documents are the primary practical way to affect a reassessment outcome at deliberation.