Fairfield homeowners challenge 2025 revaluations, citing overvaluation and deferred maintenance
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At a Board of Assessment Appeals hearing, multiple Fairfield property owners asked the board to reduce 2025 appraisals, citing heavy traffic, new apartment construction, comparable sales they say were overlooked, and significant deferred maintenance; the panel will present each case to the full board for deliberation.
Fairfield property owners appeared before the town's Board of Assessment Appeals to contest recent revaluations, arguing their homes were overvalued and that local conditions and deferred maintenance were not properly reflected.
Patrick Pereira told the panel the town appraised his home at $772,400 and said "there is no way...I could get $772,000 for this house," pointing to 22 years without major improvements, heavy traffic near BlackRock Turnpike and the appearance of new apartment buildings he said reduced neighborhood desirability. Pereira asked the board to consider comparable nearby sales and a corrected assessed-market calculation that, in his view, pointed toward a significantly lower value.
Maria Tomaszewski told the board the town listed her property at $1,282,600 and said the house is "in extremely bad condition," reporting an offer from a builder in the $500,000–$600,000 range and saying an assessor who inspected the interior in 2023 described the dwelling as effectively a "knockdown." She said she would supply written offers and contractor letters to support her request for a reduction to about $600,000.
Stanley Bridal, whose home dates to 1917, presented photographs and a 3-page statement documenting what he called extensive deterioration—settling foundation, rotting woodwork, aging mechanicals and asbestos-wrapped heating pipes—and estimated it would cost roughly $500,000 to make the house marketable. "If you take 1,400,000 and subtract 500,000 ... my home today would be worth $900,000 or less," Bridal said, urging an adjustment to the improvement valuation.
Other appellants raised similar themes. Eric Baker questioned why his appraisal rose much more than comparable nearby properties and presented three sales he said were materially lower than his new valuation. Angelo Miragos and fellow condo owners submitted two recent condominium sales and argued interior finish differences (finished basements, hardwood floors, updated kitchens and baths) justified a lower valuation for their unit. Attorney Mark Milin, representing Avenue Properties LLC, asked the board to cut an appraisal for 930 High Street to $600,000, citing basement flooding, roof and flashing failures and the loss of privacy from adjacent development.
Board members and staff repeatedly explained that the town's appraisal work is based on sales within the revaluation base period and that assessed value is calculated from market-value estimates (the board noted assessed value is typically 70% of market value). In each case the member hearing the in-person appeal said they would present the appellant's materials and the hearing notes to the full board for deliberation and that appellants would be notified by mail of the board's decision "within seven days of when we make that decision." The board did not issue decisions at the hearing.
What happens next: The panel will compile notes and submitted documents and present each appeal to the seven-member Board of Assessment Appeals for deliberation and a vote; appellants were reminded they may pursue further remedies in court if they disagree with the board's outcome.
The hearing highlighted recurring issues for residents contesting the 2025 revaluation: reliance on sales data from the appraisal window, disputes over which comparable sales the assessor used, and claims that deferred maintenance, lot-size discrepancies and neighborhood changes (traffic increases; new apartment or high-rise construction) had not been adequately reflected in appraisals.