Pazary, Karen J. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow (April 14, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
KAREN J. PAZARY 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF STOW
Docket No. F348628 	Promulgated:
April 14, 2025
This 	is 	an 	appeal 	filed 	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 	Town 	of 	Stow 	(“appellee” 	or
“assessors”) 	to 	abate 	taxes 	on 	real 	estate 	owned 	by 	and 	assessed
to 	Karen 	J. 	Pazary 	(“appellant”) 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2023 	(“fiscal
year at issue”).
Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	heard 	the 	appeal. 	Commissioners 	Good,
Elliott, 	Metzer, 	and 	Bernier 	joined 	him 	in 	the 	decision 	for 	the
appellant.
These 	findings 	of 	fact 	and 	report 	are 	made 	pursuant 	to 	a
request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Karen J. Pazary, pro se, for the appellant.
Kristen Fox, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2025-76

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based 	on 	testimony 	and 	documents 	admitted 	into 	evidence
during 	the 	hearing 	of 	this 	appeal, 	the 	Appellate 	Tax 	Board
(“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2022, the relevant valuation date for the fiscal
year at issue, the appellant was the assessed owner of a two-story
condominium 	with 	an 	address 	of 	55 	Ridgewood 	Drive 	(“subject
property”) located within a development known as Regency at Stow.
For 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue, 	the 	appellee 	valued 	the 	subject
property 	at 	$554,000 	and 	assessed 	a 	tax 	thereon, 	at 	a 	rate 	of
$18.13 per $1,000, in the total amount of $10,290.95, inclusive of
a 	Conservation 	Preservation 	Act 	(“CPA”) 	surcharge. 	The 	appellant
timely 	paid 	the 	taxes 	due. 	On 	January 	30, 	2023, 	the 	appellant
timely filed an abatement application for the subject property. On
March 	27, 	2023, 	the 	appellee 	partially 	granted 	the 	appellant’s
abatement request, reducing the subject property’s assessed value
to 	$510,800. 	Not 	satisfied 	with 	this 	reduction, 	on 	June 	7, 	2023,
the appellant seasonably filed her appeal with the Board. Based on
the information in this paragraph, the Board found and ruled that
it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The 	appellant 	presented 	her 	case 	through 	her 	testimony 	and
the 	submission 	of 	a 	self-prepared 	valuation 	analysis, 	which
included 	diagrams 	of 	floor 	plans 	and 	other 	information 	regarding
comparable properties.
ATB 2025-77

The subject property is part of Regency at Stow, a condominium
community 	for 	residents 	aged 	55 	and 	over 	described 	as 	consisting
of 	a 	combination 	of 	attached 	two- 	and 	three-story 	town 	homes 	and
stand-alone residences. The Regency at Stow units were constructed
and 	purchased 	during 	2018 	and 	2019. 	The 	appellant 	testified 	and
submitted 	diagrams 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	units 	of 	the 	same 	style
share a highly comparable, nearly identical floor plan. The subject
property 	is 	an 	end 	unit 	with 	an 	“Acorn” 	design. 	The 	subject
property contains 1,917 square feet of living space on two floors.
Additionally, 	the 	subject 	property 	is 	a 	base 	unit, 	meaning 	there
were 	no 	expansions 	to 	the 	original 	Acorn 	design. 	The 	appellant
purchased the subject property in January of 2019 for $538,595.
The 	appellant 	first 	offered 	background 	information,
testifying that the subject property’s assessment has been flawed
since fiscal year 2021, when the property record card on file with
the 	assessors 	mistakenly 	indicated 	that 	the 	unit 	was 	a 	triplex
with 	third-floor 	living 	space. 	The 	appellant 	testified 	that 	the
assessors granted her a partial abatement, but she opined that the
decrease in assessed value did not sufficiently compensate for the
error. For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors again mistakenly
added 	square 	foot 	living 	area 	to 	the 	subject 	property. 	The
appellant 	opined 	that 	the 	partial 	abatement 	that 	the 	assessors
granted again did not compensate for this error.
ATB 2025-78

The appellant offered a comparable-assessment analysis using
eleven 	purportedly 	comparable 	units 	from 	the 	Regency 	at 	Stow
complex. 	Four 	of 	the 	units 	shared 	the 	same 	Acorn 	design, 	six 	of
the 	units 	had 	an 	“Alder” 	design, 	and 	one 	unit 	had 	a 	“Tamarack”
design. 	The 	appellant 	introduced 	floor 	plans 	to 	illustrate 	those
floor plans’ similarities with the Acorn design. Nine of her eleven
comparable 	properties 	had 	greater 	square-foot 	living 	areas 	than
the subject property.
Although 	the 	average 	sale 	price 	of 	these 	eleven 	properties
was $541,480 – compared with the subject property’s sale price of
$535,595 	– 	the 	assessed 	values 	of 	these 	properties 	consistently
decreased, 	with 	the 	average 	assessed 	values 	decreasing 	from
$517,736 	in 	fiscal 	year 	2022 	to 	$476,536 	in 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at
issue.
The 	appellant 	further 	demonstrated 	that 	the 	subject
property’s 	assessed 	value 	was 	$40,875 	higher 	than 	the 	average
assessed 	value 	of 	the 	four 	Acorn-design 	comparison 	properties,
three of which she maintained had expanded kitchens and thus larger
living areas than the base-unit subject property.
Moreover, 	the 	subject 	property 	was 	assessed 	$75,000 	higher
than the assessed value of 50 Ridgewood, an Acorn-style unit that,
like 	the 	subject 	property, 	had 	no 	expansions. 	All 	in 	all, 	the
subject property’s assessment was $34,000 higher than the average
assessed value of all eleven comparable properties, nine of which
ATB 2025-79

had 	an 	average 	purchase 	price 	of 	$8,000 	more 	than 	the 	purchase
price of the subject property.
On 	the 	basis 	of 	her 	comparable-assessment 	analysis, 	the
appellant 	offered 	her 	opinion 	that 	the 	value 	of 	the 	subject
property for the fiscal year at issue was $455,000.
The 	appellee 	presented 	its 	case 	through 	the 	testimony 	of
Assessor Kristen Fox. Assessor Fox disputed the appellant’s claim
that the properties at Regency at Stow were remarkably comparable.
She 	testified 	that 	these 	units 	were 	designed 	to 	be 	highly
customizable, which she claimed was reflected in the very specific
purchase 	price 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	and 	the 	appellant’s
comparable properties.
Assessor 	Fox 	further 	stated 	that 	the 	condition 	grade
determined 	by 	the 	assessors 	reflected 	the 	custom 	furnishings 	and
finishes 	for 	the 	various 	comparable 	properties 	referenced 	by 	the
appellant, 	and 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	condition 	grade 	of 	A-
confirmed 	its 	high-end 	finishes. 	However, 	she 	acknowledged 	that
neither she nor the assessors had inspected many of the appellant’s
comparable properties to determine their proper condition grade.
Assessor Fox further disputed the appellant’s claim that some
of 	the 	comparison 	properties 	had 	expanded 	kitchens 	that 	were 	not
reflected in their property record cards, testifying that she and
other 	assessors 	have 	not 	been 	granted 	access 	to 	each 	unit 	at
ATB 2025-80

Regency 	at 	Stow 	and 	therefore, 	she 	could 	not 	confirm 	whether 	the
floor plans recorded on the property record cards were accurate.
Finally, 	Assessor 	Fox 	explained 	that 	there 	were 	very 	few
timely 	sales 	at 	Regency 	at 	Stow, 	but 	the 	appellee 	offered 	two
purportedly 	comparable 	condominium 	sales, 	one 	at 	21 	Ridgewood
Drive in the Regency at Stow development and another located at 14
Heather 	Lane. 	The 	21 	Ridgewood 	Drive 	unit 	sold 	in 	April 	of 	2021
for $880,000. This comparable is larger than the subject, at 2,276
square 	feet, 	and 	originally 	sold 	in 	2018 	for 	$766,846, 	almost
$230,000 	more 	than 	the 	price 	that 	the 	appellant 	paid 	for 	her
property. 	Assessor 	Fox 	gave 	no 	indication 	of 	where 	this 	property
or 	14 	Heather 	Lane 	were 	located 	relative 	to 	the 	subject 	property
or whether either was a stand-alone property. After her adjustments
to 	her 	two 	comparable 	sale 	prices, 	the 	assessors 	determined
indicated values of $604,300 and $610,400 for the subject property,
which values were greater than its assessed value.
The 	appellant 	responded 	to 	Assessor 	Fox’s 	claims 	that 	the
assessors 	could 	not 	confirm 	whether 	some 	of 	the 	Regency 	at 	Stow
units 	had 	expanded 	kitchens. 	The 	appellant’s 	submission 	included
a picture of 57 Ridgewood Drive taken from the street, which showed
a 	bump-out 	and 	additional 	windows 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	a 	casual
observation revealed the space to be expanded kitchen area, not a
screened-in porch as listed on the property record card.
ATB 2025-81

The 	appellant 	further 	disputed 	the 	high 	variability 	of 	the
Regency at Stow units and Assessor Fox’s opinion that the purchase
price 	of 	the 	subject 	property 	reflected 	its 	high 	level 	of
customization. 	The 	appellant 	claimed 	instead 	that 	the 	Regency 	at
Stow units’ prices had increased the later that the sales occurred.
She 	further 	testified 	that 	the 	units’ 	assessments 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue were less than their sale prices, reflecting, in her
opinion, that the purchase prices had been inflated by the initial
demand for the units and that the demand had cooled, as evidenced
by 	the 	assessments 	decreasing 	between 	fiscal 	year 	2022 	and 	the
fiscal year at issue.
Based on the record in its entirety, the Board found that the
appellant 	submitted 	sufficient 	evidence 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	the
subject 	property’s 	assessed 	value 	was 	higher 	than 	its 	fair 	cash
value for the fiscal year at issue. First, the Board found credible
the appellant’s testimony regarding the cooling of demand for units
at Regency at Stow, which was supported by the assessments of her
eleven 	comparable 	properties 	for 	fiscal 	year 	2022 	and 	the 	fiscal
year 	at 	issue, 	and 	thus 	found 	that 	the 	sale 	price 	paid 	by 	the
appellant 	was 	not 	the 	best 	indication 	of 	the 	subject 	property’s
fair 	cash 	value 	for 	the 	fiscal 	year 	at 	issue. 	The 	Board 	further
found that the appellant proved the substantial similarity between
the subject property and her eleven comparable properties from the
same development but for the expansion of several of the comparison
ATB 2025-82

properties, 	and 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	assessment 	was
inconsistent with the other properties’ assessments. Assessor Fox
admitted that the assessors had not inspected the interiors of the
majority of the appellant’s comparable properties, and therefore,
her 	statement 	about 	variability 	in 	grade 	and 	condition 	among
Regency at Stow properties was unsubstantiated.
Based on a review of the evidence presented, the Board found
that $475,000 was the fair cash value for the subject property for
the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellants,
granting abatement in the amount of $668.52, inclusive of the CPA
surcharge.
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
ATB 2025-83

(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
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 appeal, the appellant offered a comparable-
assessment analysis to support her argument that the subject
property’s assessed value was higher than its fair cash value for
the fiscal year at issue. 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.”).
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, including
similar age, location, size, and date of sale. Lattuca v. Robsham,
442 Mass. 205, 216 (2004); see also Heitin v. Assessors of Sharon,
Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-323, 333. The Board
ATB 2025-84

found 	that 	the 	appellant 	proved 	the 	similarity 	of 	the 	subject
property 	with 	her 	comparison 	properties 	and 	further 	found 	her
evidence 	supported 	a 	fair 	cash 	value 	that 	was 	lower 	than 	the
subject property’s assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
In reaching its opinion of fair cash value in these appeals,
the 	Board 	was 	not 	required 	to 	believe 	the 	testimony 	of 	any
particular witness or to adopt any particular method of valuation.
Rather, the Board could accept those portions of the evidence that
the 	Board 	determined 	had 	more 	convincing 	weight. 	Foxboro 	Assocs.
v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 683 (1982); New Boston
Garden 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors 	of 	Boston, 	383 	Mass. 	456, 	473 	(1981);
Assessors of Lynnfield v. New England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass.
696, 	702 	(1972). 	In 	evaluating 	the 	evidence 	before 	it, 	the 	Board
selected 	among 	the 	various 	elements 	of 	value 	and 	formed 	its 	own
independent judgment of fair cash value. General Electric Co., 393
Mass. 	at 	605; 	North 	American 	Philips 	Lighting 	Corp. 	v. 	Assessors
of Lynn, 392 Mass. 296, 300 (1984).
Having considered the record in its entirety, the Board found
and 	ruled 	that 	the 	subject 	property’s 	fair 	cash 	for 	the 	fiscal
year at issue was $475,000.
ATB 2025-85

Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	issued 	a 	decision 	for 	the 	appellant,
granting 	abatement 	in 	the 	amount 	of 	$668.52, 	which 	included 	the
appropriate CPA surcharge.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By:
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest:
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-86