Hancock County denies two property tax abatement appeals after sworn hearings

Hancock County Commissioners held two abatement hearings on May 19, 2026, and denied both appeals after sworn testimony from property owners and assessor representatives.

In the first hearing, Igor Fateyev and Natalya Fateyeva contested the Town of Swan’s Island’s 2025 assessment of their unimproved waterfront lot (Map 003 / Lot 023), arguing the $250,000 assessment substantially exceeded market comparables and proposing a fair assessment between $163,000 and $187,000. Rebecca Adams, the town’s assessor agent, testified the town uses a front-foot mass-appraisal method for waterfront property with discounts for vacant lots. She presented the town’s sales-ratio study and said adjusting values based on the variable data could exaggerate outliers; she therefore did not change the 2025 land schedules. After commissioner discussion, the board found the applicants had not presented credible, affirmative evidence that the assessor’s valuation was manifestly wrong, discriminatory or fraudulent under 36 M.R.S. §701‑A and denied the appeal (vote 3-0). The board’s findings state the town applied a consistent methodology and the applicants received a 15% vacant-lot discount.

In the second hearing, John A. Hare (via Zoom) contested a 2025 municipal assessment on a 1.11-acre lot in the Unorganized Territory, arguing that extensive easements, steep terrain and setback constraints left only about 9,000 sq. ft. usable and prevented improvements. Stephen Sullivan, Deputy Director of the State of Maine Revenue Services’ Property Tax Division, presented state sales comparables and explained that the state applies a per-front-foot valuation adjusted for depth and legal lot size. Commissioners Clark and Wombacher concluded the state provided a rational, consistent methodology and denied Hare’s appeal. Commissioner DiBella dissented, stating he felt the easements and on-the-ground limitations supported relief; the denial passed 2-1.

Why it matters: Abatement hearings test whether local or state assessors applied valuation methodologies consistently and whether individual taxpayers carry the burden to demonstrate manifest overvaluation or inequitable treatment. The board recorded formal findings in both cases explaining why the evidence did or did not meet that burden.

The commissioners recorded detailed findings of fact in both matters and the hearing records show the motives, comparables and appraisal approaches relied upon by the respondent assessors. Both decisions were entered on the record during the May 19 session.