We Grow Microgreens, LLC v. Board of Assessors of the City of Boston (May 9, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
WE GROW MICROGREENS, LLC 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE CITY OF BOSTON
Docket Nos. F342552 & F347440 	Promulgated:
May 9, 2025
These are appeals under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L.
c. 	58A, 	§ 	7 	and G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§§ 	64 	and 	65 	from 	the 	refusal 	of 	the
Board 	of 	Assessors 	of 	the 	City 	of 	Boston 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	taxes 	on 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed
to 	We 	Grow 	Microgreens, 	LLC 	(“appellant”) 	for 	fiscal 	years 	2021
and 2022 (“fiscal years at issue”).1
Commissioner 	Bernier 	(“Presiding 	Commissioner”) 	heard 	these
appeals and, in accordance with G.L. c. 58A, § 1A, issued single-
member decisions for the appellee.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Daniel J. Wilson, Esq., for the appellant.
Laura Caltenco, Esq., for the appellee.
The 	appeal 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2022 	was 	originally 	filed 	under 	the 	informal
procedure, but within 30 days of the date of service of the informal petition,
the appellee timely elected to have the appeal transferred to the formal docket.
See G.L. c. 58A, § 7A.
ATB 2025-118
1

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during 	the 	hearing 	of 	these 	appeals, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner
made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2021, the relevant valuation
dates for the fiscal years at issue, the appellant was the assessed
owner 	of 	35,190 	square 	feet 	of 	improved 	land 	comprised 	of 	seven
contiguous 	parcels, 	one 	with 	an 	address 	of 	21 	Norton 	Street 	and
the other six abutting a “paper road” called Manila Avenue, in the
Hyde 	Park 	neighborhood 	of 	Boston 	(collectively, 	the 	“subject
property”). 	The 	subject 	property 	was 	assessed 	and 	taxed 	as
commercial property.
For fiscal year 2021, the appellee valued the subject property
at $209,599 and assessed taxes thereon, at the rate of $24.55 per
thousand, in the amount of $5,145.65.2 The appellant failed to pay
the taxes timely and incurred interest on the tax assessed against
each of the seven parcels. However, the tax due on each parcel was
less 	than 	$5,000. 	Therefore, 	pursuant 	to 	G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§ 	64, 	the
Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) was not deprived of jurisdiction on
the basis of late payment.
The appellant timely filed abatement applications on January
19, 	2021, 	which 	the 	appellee 	denied 	on 	February 	16, 	2021. 	The
2 This amount excludes Community Preservation Act (“CPA”) surcharges for each
parcel.
ATB 2025-119

appellant 	seasonably 	filed 	an 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board 	on 	May 	14,
2021. Based on the foregoing, the Presiding Commissioner found and
ruled that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal
for fiscal year 2021.
For fiscal year 2022, the appellee valued the subject property
at $334,101 and assessed taxes thereon, at the rate of $24.98 per
thousand, 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$8,345.86.3 	The 	appellant 	timely 	paid
the taxes due without incurring interest. On January 31, 2022, the
appellant timely filed abatement applications for each parcel with
the 	assessors, 	which 	they 	denied 	on 	March 	22, 	2022. 	On 	June 	22,
2022,4 	the 	appellant 	seasonably 	filed 	an 	appeal 	with 	the 	Board.
Based on the foregoing, the Presiding Commissioner found and ruled
that the Board had jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal for
fiscal year 2022.
At 	all 	relevant 	times, 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	used 	for
horticultural purposes, specifically as an urban farm for growing
vegetables 	for 	sale. 	The 	subject 	property 	was 	improved 	with 	a
commercial 	greenhouse 	containing 	4,765 	square 	feet 	of 	gross
building 	area, 	as 	well 	as 	two 	“hoop 	houses” 	and 	several 	outdoor
raised garden beds.
3 No CPA surcharges were charged against the subject property for fiscal year
2022.
4 While the petition was stamped as having been docketed by the Board on June
30, 	2022, 	the 	envelope 	containing 	the 	petition 	bore 	a 	United 	States 	Postal
Service postmark of 	June 	22, 2022. Pursuant to G.L. c. 58A, § 7, the Board
considered the date of the postmark to be the date of filing.
ATB 2025-120

The appellant presented its case through the testimony of co-
owner 	Lisa 	Evans 	and 	the 	submission 	of 	documents. 	Ms. 	Evans
testified 	that 	the 	appellant 	purchased 	the 	subject 	property 	in
March 	2019 	from 	the 	City 	of 	Boston 	for 	$700, 	which 	sale 	was 	not
considered 	to 	be 	an 	arm’s-length 	transaction. 	Pursuant 	to 	a 	deed
restriction and right of reversion, the appellant can make no other
use 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	other 	than 	for 	urban 	agricultural
purposes, 	and 	further, 	the 	appellant 	cannot 	sell 	the 	subject
property 	to 	anyone 	other 	than 	another 	farmer. 	Ms. 	Evans 	also
testified 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	soil 	is 	contaminated 	with
lead, 	and 	accordingly, 	the 	appellant 	cannot 	grow 	plants 	directly
in the soil. She explained that the appellant must construct raised
garden beds and purchase soil from off site.
The 	appellant 	also 	offered 	as 	evidence 	an 	appraisal 	report.
The 	appraiser, 	however, 	was 	not 	presented 	as 	a 	witness 	in 	the
hearing 	and 	thus 	not 	available 	for 	cross-examination 	by 	the
appellee or questioning by the Presiding Commissioner. As will be
explained further in the Opinion, the appraisal report was hearsay,
and 	accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	placed 	no 	weight 	on
the appraisal report.
The 	appellant 	next 	offered 	a 	self-prepared 	comparable-
assessment 	analysis. 	Relying 	on 	the 	subject 	property’s 	property
record 	card 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2024, 	the 	appellant 	adopted 	the
ATB 2025-121

appellee’s valuation of the greenhouse at $146,700.5 Applying this
value to the fiscal years at issue, the appellant deduced that the
subject property’s land was assessed at $62,899, or $77,859.63 per
acre, 	in 	fiscal 	year 	2021, 	and 	at 	$187,410, 	or 	$231,985.78 	per
acre, 	in 	fiscal 	year 	2022. 	The 	appellant 	then 	compared 	these
assessed 	land 	values 	to 	Allandale 	Farm 	in 	Newton. 	Allandale 	Farm
consists 	of 	33.04 	acres 	and 	is 	certified 	as 	agricultural 	land
pursuant 	to 	G.L. 	c. 	61A 	(“Chapter 	61A”), 	which 	is 	restricted 	to
land that is at least 5 acres in size and that is “actively devoted
to 	agricultural, 	horticultural 	or 	agricultural 	and 	horticultural
uses.” 	Pursuant 	to 	the 	parameters 	of 	Chapter 	61A, 	Allandale 	Farm
was valued at $34,000, or $1,029.02 per acre, in fiscal year 2021,
and at $30,400, or $920.07 per acre, in fiscal year 2022.
The 	appellant 	recognized 	that 	only 	farmlands 	of 	5 	acres 	or
more are eligible for certification and reduced valuation pursuant
to 	Chapter 	61A. 	However, 	the 	appellant 	contended 	that 	the 	vastly
different 	valuations 	of 	Allandale 	Farm 	and 	the 	subject 	property
were not warranted, where both farmlands were engaged in the same
business of selling produce at comparable prices.
The appellant applied Allandale Farm’s per-acre valuations to
the 	subject 	property 	and 	derived 	the 	following 	land 	valuations:
$833.51 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2021 	and 	$745.26 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2022.
5 The property record card for fiscal year 2024 included separate entries for
the subject property’s greenhouse and its land.
ATB 2025-122

Adding 	$146,700 	for 	the 	greenhouse, 	the 	appellant 	arrived 	at 	the
following opinions of value for the subject property: $147,533.51
for fiscal year 2021 and $147,445.26 for fiscal year 2022.
The 	appellee 	presented 	its 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	of
Assessor 	Raymond 	Boly 	and 	the 	submission 	of 	documents, 	including
the relevant jurisdictional documents.
The appellee offered as evidence an appraisal report that the
assessors, 	including 	Assessor 	Boly, 	had 	prepared. 	Assessor 	Boly
testified, 	and 	the 	appraisal 	report 	noted, 	that 	the 	assessors’
valuation 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	for 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue
accounted 	for 	potential 	soil 	contamination. 	The 	Presiding
Commissioner found Assessor Boly’s testimony to be credible.
The assessors determined that the highest and best use of the
subject 	property 	was 	its 	current 	use 	as 	a 	commercial 	greenhouse,
and they did not value the greenhouse separately from the subject
property’s 	land 	for 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue. 	The 	assessors
primarily 	relied 	on 	the 	comparable-sales 	approach. 	The 	assessors
looked 	for 	comparable 	sales 	of 	residential 	land 	with 	marginal
development potential and selected five sales - four from various
Boston neighborhoods and one from nearby Dedham – with land ranging
in 	size 	from 	2,211 	square 	feet 	to 	32,000 	square 	feet. 	The 	sales
occurred 	between 	May 	2018 	and 	May 	2022 	for 	sale 	prices 	ranging
from 	$7.14 	per 	square 	foot 	to 	$36.73 	per 	square 	foot. 	After
applying 	adjustments 	for 	features 	including 	location, 	time 	of
ATB 2025-123

sale, 	condition 	of 	improvements, 	and 	size 	of 	property, 	the
assessors 	determined 	a 	per-square-foot 	valuation 	for 	the 	subject
property of $10 as of January 1, 2020, and of $11 as of January 1,
2021, 	yielding 	rounded 	fair 	cash 	values 	for 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at
issue of $351,900 and $387,100, respectively. As these values are
greater than the subject property’s assessed values for the fiscal
years at issue, the appellee opined that no abatement was due.
Assessor 	Boly 	further 	contended 	that, 	since 	the 	subject
property 	is 	less 	than 	the 	required 	5 	acres 	to 	be 	considered 	for
Chapter 	61A 	classification, 	values 	of 	Chapter 	61A 	properties 	are
not 	relevant 	to 	these 	appeals 	and 	accordingly 	should 	not 	be
considered.
Upon 	review 	of 	the 	evidence 	in 	the 	instant 	appeals, 	the
Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	that 	the 	appellant 	produced 	very
little relevant evidence of the subject property’s fair cash value.
First, as testified to by Assessor Boly, the appellee’s valuation
of 	the 	subject 	property 	already 	accounted 	for 	potential
contamination. 	Next, 	as 	previously 	mentioned, 	the 	Presiding
Commissioner 	placed 	no 	reliance 	on 	the 	appraisal 	report. 	With
respect 	to 	the 	appellant’s 	self-prepared 	comparable-assessment
analysis, 	the 	appellant 	used 	one 	certified 	Chapter 	61A 	property.
It is without contest that the subject property did not qualify as
Chapter 	61A 	land; 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	thus 	found 	that 	the
ATB 2025-124

comparison to Allandale Farm for the subject property’s valuation
lacked meaningful evidentiary value.
Based on the foregoing, the Presiding Commissioner found and
ruled 	that 	the 	appellant 	failed 	to 	meet 	its 	burden 	of 	proving 	a
fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	subject 	property 	that 	was 	less 	than 	its
assessed value for either of the fiscal years at issue.
Accordingly, the Presiding Commissioner issued decisions for
the appellee in these appeals.
OPINION
Assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash
value. 	G.L. 	c. 	59, 	§ 	38. 	Fair 	cash 	value 	is 	defined 	as 	the 	price
upon which a willing buyer and a willing seller will agree if both
are 	fully 	informed 	and 	under 	no 	compulsion. 	Boston 	Gas 	Co. 	v.
Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956). The appellant has
the 	burden 	of 	proving 	that 	the 	property 	has 	a 	lower 	value 	than
that assessed. “The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make
out 	its 	right 	as 	[a] 	matter 	of 	law 	to 	abatement 	of 	the 	tax.”
Schlaiker 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Great 	Barrington, 	365 	Mass. 	243, 	245
(1974) (quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242
Mass. 47, 55 (1922)).
In 	appeals 	before 	this 	Board, 	“[t]he 	taxpayer 	may 	present
persuasive 	evidence 	of 	overvaluation 	either 	by 	exposing 	flaws 	or
errors 	in 	the 	assessors’ 	method 	of 	valuation, 	or 	by 	introducing
ATB 2025-125

affirmative 	evidence 	of 	value 	which 	undermines 	the 	assessors’
valuation.” 	General 	Electric 	Co. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Lynn, 	393 	Mass.
591, 	600 	(1984) 	(quoting 	Donlon 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Holliston, 	389
Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
In 	the 	instant 	appeals, 	the 	appellant 	offered 	an 	appraisal
report to support its argument that the subject property’s assessed
value was higher than its fair cash value for the fiscal years at
issue. However, as its author was not presented as a witness, the
Presiding Commissioner placed no weight on the opinions contained
in 	the 	appraisal 	report. 	See 	Ward 	Brothers 	Realty 	Trust 	v.
Assessors of Hingham, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2012-
515, 525
The 	appellant 	also 	offered 	a 	self-prepared 	comparable-
assessment 	analysis. 	The 	fair 	cash 	value 	of 	property 	may 	be
determined 	by 	evidence 	of 	assessed 	values 	of 	comparable
properties. 	See 	G.L. 	c. 	58A, 	§ 	12B 	(“At 	any 	hearing 	relative 	to
the assessed fair cash valuation . . . of property, evidence as to
the 	fair 	cash 	valuation 	. 	. 	. 	at 	which 	assessors 	have 	assessed
other property of a comparable nature . . . shall be admissible.”).
The introduction of such evidence may provide adequate support for
the 	granting 	of 	an 	abatement. 	Chouinard 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Natick,
Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact 	and 	Reports 	1998-299, 	307-308 	(citing
Garvey 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	West 	Newbury, 	Mass. 	ATB 	Findings 	of 	Fact
and Reports 1995-129, 135-36, and Swartz v. Assessors of Tisbury,
ATB 2025-126

Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 1993-271, 279-80). However,
properties 	used 	in 	a 	comparable-assessment 	analysis 	must 	be
“comparable” to the subject property, meaning that they must share
fundamental 	similarities 	with 	the 	subject 	property. 	See 	Sterling
v. Assessors of Arlington, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports
2021-76, 	93-4 	(appellant 	bears 	the 	burden 	of 	establishing 	that
comparable 	assessment 	properties 	share 	fundamental 	similarities
with the subject property).
The 	appellant 	failed 	to 	prove 	the 	similarity 	of 	the 	subject
property 	with 	its 	sole 	comparison 	property. 	Allandale 	Farm 	is 	a
parcel 	larger 	than 	5 	acres 	that 	qualifies 	as 	a 	Chapter 	61A
property. 	As 	such, 	it 	does 	not 	share 	“fundamental 	similarities”
with the subject property and thus is not an appropriate comparison
property. 	Therefore, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	found 	and 	ruled
that 	the 	appellant’s 	comparable-assessment 	analysis 	lacked
probative 	value 	for 	determining 	the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash
value 	for 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue. 	See 	Gabay 	Realty, 	LLC 	v.
Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2023-
112, 118.
[This space intentionally left blank.]
ATB 2025-127

Based on the foregoing, the Presiding Commissioner found and
ruled that the appellant failed to meet its burden of proving that
the 	assessed 	value 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	greater 	than 	its
fair 	cash 	value 	for 	either 	of 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue.
Accordingly, 	the 	Presiding 	Commissioner 	issued 	decisions 	for 	the
appellee in these appeals.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By:
Nicholas D. Bernier, Commissioner
A true copy,
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-128