Mascia, Jonathan M. v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Stow (August 12, 2026)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
JONATHAN M. MASCIA 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
Docket No. F351107
THE TOWN OF STOW
Promulgated:
August 12, 2026
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
(“assessors” or “appellee”) to abate a tax on real estate owned by and assessed to
Jonathan M. Mascia (“appellant”) for fiscal year 2024 (“fiscal year at issue”).
Chairman DeFrancisco heard this appeal. Commissioners Good, Elliott, Metzer,
and Bernier joined him in the decision for the appellee.
These findings of fact and report are made at the request of the appellant pursuant
to G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.34.
Jonathan M. Mascia, pro se, for the appellant.
Kristin Fox, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2026-303

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
Based on the testimony and documents presented at the hearing of this appeal,
the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
On January 1, 2023, the relevant valuation and assessment date for the fiscal year
at issue, the appellant was the assessed owner of a 1.05-acre parcel of land, located at
153 Harvard Street in Stow, improved with a single-family, raised ranch-style dwelling
(“subject dwelling”) (collectively, “subject property”). The subject dwelling has a total
finished living area of 1,238 square feet comprised of six rooms, including three
bedrooms, as well as one full bathroom and one half bathroom. Other amenities include
a one-car garage, partially finished basement, and a shed.
For the fiscal year at issue, the assessors valued the subject property at $525,800
and assessed a tax thereon, at the rate of $16.97 per thousand, in the total amount of
$9,139.60, inclusive of the Community Preservation Act surcharge. The tax due was
timely paid without incurring interest. On January 29, 2024, the appellant timely filed an
abatement application, which the assessors denied on February 20, 2024. Subsequently,
on May 15, 2024, the appellant timely filed an appeal with the Board. Based on these
facts, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal.
The appellant testified on his own behalf and offered several exhibits that were
admitted into evidence. The appellant’s primary argument was that the subject property
was overvalued for the fiscal year at issue because both the subject property’s well water
and soil were contaminated with PFAS, a group of man-made chemicals found in drinking
water that, when consumed at high level over time, can lead to serious health issues. The
appellant offered into evidence a copy of a PFAS lab report, which was completed by the
Massachusetts 	Department 	of 	Environmental 	Protection 	(“DEP”), 	that 	verified 	the
ATB 2026-304

existence of PFAS in the subject property’s well water that were above acceptable levels.
The appellant testified that the DEP then installed a remediation system, at no cost to the
appellant, for the subject property’s drinking water, which was completed in February
2023. The appellant further testified that throughout the remediation process, the DEP
provided bottled water for drinking and cooking at no charge to the appellant.1
The appellant also argued that the subject property’s soil was contaminated with
PFAS from runoff water from a nearby golf course. He submitted videos depicting what
he described as a “sheen” from the chemicals in the water traversing the subject property.
The appellant maintained that, because of the contamination of the soil, his property has
lost value because he cannot have a garden or raise chickens.
The appellant further argued that the runoff from the golf course has, at times, an
unpleasant smell and has also caused his land to erode which has caused the subject
dwelling’s basement to flood on occasion.
The appellant did not offer an opinion of the subject property’s fair cash value as
of the relevant assessment date, nor did he offer any evidence to substantiate or quantify
his claim of a loss in value.
The appellee presented its case through the testimony of Kristin Fox, Assessor,
and 	the 	introduction 	of 	several 	documents, 	including 	the 	requisite 	jurisdictional
documents. First, Ms. Fox testified that PFAS is a very common issue in the town of Stow
and likened it to radon, which is a very common issue, and that properties still sell after
remediation. Next, Ms. Fox testified that properties on the same street as the subject
property, which are also impacted by the runoff water, are not decreasing in value but are
1 The appellant explained that the DEP continues to test on a quarterly basis, up until the date of hearing of this appeal,
and noted that any time the PFAS levels are high the appellant goes back to using the bottled water at no cost to him.
ATB 2026-305

selling for prices consistent with the overall values in Stow. With respect to the appellant’s
issue of water in the basement, Ms. Fox pointed out that because the subject property is
smaller than the current zoning requirement, the assessors cannot discount the prime lot
land value to account for the water issue. Instead, the assessors removed the value of
the finished basement beginning in fiscal year 2022 to account for the water issue.
Lastly, Ms. Fox offered into evidence a comparable-sales analysis citing three
ranch-style dwellings that ranged in dwelling size from 1,104 square feet to 1,416 square
feet and sold between May 6, 2022, and July 21, 2022. After adjustments for differences
between the subject property and the comparable-sales properties, the sale prices ranged
from $570,800 to $590,400, significantly higher than the subject property’s assessment
for the fiscal year at issue.
Based on the evidence presented, the Board found and ruled that the appellant
failed to meet his burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for the fiscal
year at issue. The Board found that the appellant failed to offer evidence to show how,
and to what extent, the perceived deficiencies from PFAS impacted the subject property's
fair cash value. Finally, the Board found that the appellant failed to offer comparable sales
or any other affirmative evidence indicating that the subject property's fair cash value was
lower than its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue.
Accordingly, the Board issued a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
ATB 2026-306

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 on which a willing seller and a willing buyer will
agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion. Boston Gas Co. v.
Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).
A taxpayer has the burden of proving that the property at issue has a lower value
than its assessed value. “The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right
as [a] matter of law to [an] 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)). “[T]he board is entitled to ‘presume that the
valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayer[] sustain[s] the burden of
proving the contrary.’” General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598
(1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
In appeals before the Board, a 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., 393 Mass. at 600 (quoting Donlon v. Assessors of Holliston,
389 Mass. 848, 855 (1983)).
In the present appeal, the appellant provided no evidence of flaws or errors in the
assessors' valuation methodology and offered no affirmative evidence that undermined
the assessed value for the fiscal year at issue. While the Board found that the appellant’s
testimony and evidence regarding the presence of PFAS on the subject property was
credible, 	there 	was 	no 	quantifiable 	evidence 	of 	diminution 	of 	value. 	See Fox 	v.
ATB 2026-307

Assessors of Longmeadow, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2021-479, 483
(finding that "any quantifiable impact on the subject property's fair cash value was critically
lacking").
Based upon the above and the evidence of record, the Board found that the
appellant failed to meet his burden of proving that the subject property’s fair cash value
was less than its assessed value for the fiscal year at issue. Accordingly, the Board issued
a decision for the appellee in this appeal.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: __________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2026-308