Lowes Home Centers, LLC v. Board of Assessors of the Town of West Bridgewater (December 3, 2025)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPELLATE TAX BOARD
LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC 	v. 	BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF
THE TOWN OF WEST BRIDGEWATER
Docket Nos. F327603
F329002
F335557
Promulgated:
December 3, 2025
These are appeals 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
West Bridgewater (“appellee” or “assessors”) to abate taxes on certain real estate located
in the Town of West Bridgewater and leased to Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“appellant”).
The assessed owner was 379 West Bridgewater LLC for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and
2018 (“fiscal years at issue”).
Commissioner 	Elliott 	heard 	these 	appeals. 	Chairman 	DeFrancisco 	and
Commissioners Good, Metzer, and Bernier joined him in the decisions 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.
Daniel P. Zazzali, Esq., Michael D. Benak, Esq., and Nicholas W. Allen, Esq., for
the appellant.
Thomas Gay, Jr., Esq., and Daniela Nilsson, Assessor, for the appellee.
ATB 2025-416

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
On the basis of testimony and exhibits entered into evidence at the hearing of
these appeals, the Appellate Tax Board (“Board”) made the following findings of fact.
I. Introduction and jurisdiction
On January 1, 2014, January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2017, the appellant was the
lessee of a 138,053-square-foot, big-box anchor space (“subject building”) with an
accompanying 21,750-square-foot garden center (“garden center”), a 5,583-square-foot
restaurant space (“restaurant space”), a 2,807-square-foot bank space (“bank space”),
and a cell phone tower (“cell tower”), all situated on a 26.44-acre parcel (collectively,
“subject property”).
The subject building was constructed circa 2007 and operated as a Lowe’s home
improvement retail store (“Lowe’s”) during all relevant time periods.
The following table details jurisdictional information for each of the fiscal years at
issue. Tax amounts are exclusive of the Community Preservation Act (“CPA”) surcharge:
Fiscal Year 2015 	Fiscal Year 2016 	Fiscal Year 2018
Assessed Value 	$17,089,500 	$17,091,300 	$17,263,000
Tax Rate 	$28.78 	$29.13 	$28.58
Tax Amount 	$491,835.81 	$497,869.57 	$493,376.54
Abatement
Application Filed
1/29/15 	1/29/16 	1/30/18
Timely Payments
Without Interest
Yes 	Yes 	Yes
Denial 	5/20/15 (an
extension to act on
the abatement
application was
granted by the
appellant on 4/27/15)
2/17/16 	2/21/18
Petition 	6/22/15 	3/23/16 	5/21/18 1
1 While the petition was stamped as having been docketed by the Board on May 23, 2018, the envelope
containing the petition bore a United States Postal Service postmark of May 21, 2018. Pursuant to G.L. c.
58A, § 7, the Board ruled that the date of the postmark was the date of filing.
ATB 2025-417

Based upon this information, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear and
decide these appeals for the fiscal years at issue.
II. The parties’ stipulations and unresolved issues
The parties stipulated to the following, as of each of the relevant valuation dates:
that the income approach is the most appropriate method of valuation for the subject
property; the vacancy and collection loss factor is 8 percent; the expenses amount to be
deducted is $200,000; the capitalization rate is 8.41 percent; and the combined aggregate
value of the restaurant space, bank space, and cell phone tower is $2,400,000. The sole
issues before the Board were (1) the rent to be attributed to the subject building and (2)
the rent, if any, to be attributed to the garden center.
A. The appellant’s case
The appellant presented its case primarily through the testimony and opinion letter
of Benjamin Starr, whom the Board qualified as an expert real estate broker and an expert
in retail real estate in the New England states; the testimony and appraisal report of
William McLaughlin, whom the Board qualified as an expert witness in commercial retail
real estate valuation; and the rebuttal testimony and opinion letter of David Lennhoff,
whom the Board qualified as an expert appraiser.
i. Mr. Starr’s testimony and opinion letter
In Mr. Starr’s experience, potential retailers are looking at population, density,
median household income, the critical mass or density of other national name retailers
nearby, and the sales figures of those retailers, as well as traffic counts and visibility on
the site.
ATB 2025-418

He described the subject property’s location as a tertiary market “where the retailer
would be a pioneer of almost no track record in those markets.” He opined on the “almost
complete absence of any critical mass of regional retail” in the location of the subject
property. He called the population density within the locale of the subject property
“improbably light for eastern New England.”
On cross examination, he admitted that the subject property is located within close
proximity to the on and off ramp of Route 24, that Route 24 is a major highway in the area
of the subject property, and that access to the subject property is at a signaled
intersection, with signage, and visible from Route 106.
Regarding the garden center, he testified that in his experience very few retailers
have a need for such a space. He named Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Tractor Supply
among those that would. He noted that Tractor Supply is a retailer with an active garden
space that refuses to include the square footage of a garden space in the rentable area
– it pays neither a base rent nor net rent on the additional uncovered space. If the
appellant were to vacate the subject property, he found it unlikely that the next user would
utilize the garden center and found it likely that the garden center would be demolished.
He added that conversion of the garden center “to enclosed retail would likely require
additional zoning variances, including for parking as the subject property [did] not meet
the current zoning requirements.”
Mr. Starr testified to the growth of big-box retailers, including Lowe’s, through the
1990s, and to the ending of that growth in 2008 into 2009, with little growth since then of
these types of retailers. In terms of leases signed before the 2008 time period, he testified
ATB 2025-419

that “[i]t was a different time. It was a competitive race among multiple category killers,
big box retailers in each category. After that . . . time frame, it was no longer that battle.”
ii. Mr. McLaughlin’s testimony and appraisal report
Mr. McLaughlin agreed with Mr. Starr’s conclusion that the subject property is
located in a tertiary market. He noted that the subject property is close to Route 24, which
provides average to good access to the subject property, but that the neighborhood lacks
additional retail to draw patrons to the subject property and drive traffic patterns to that
market. In his opinion the strengths or weaknesses of the market can drive what a retailer
would pay for rent.
Mr. McLaughlin determined that the highest and best use of the subject property
was as a large-scale, big-box retail building as it was improved during the relevant time
periods.
In his income-capitalization approach, Mr. McLaughlin’s first step was to determine
the market rent of the subject building occupied by Lowe’s. In searching for comparable
properties, he looked at size, noting that smaller-sized comparable properties might
generate higher rent per square foot than the subject property. He also looked at the
location of properties, access, visibility, collection of other retailers in the immediate area,
timing in terms of when leases commenced, and the use of the properties.
He agreed with Mr. Starr that most tenants do not pay for garden spaces and only
pay for the improved space with interior heating and cooling, not outdoor space. He noted
that the garden center does not have heating and is exposed to the elements. He did not
attribute any additional rent to the garden center beyond the rent attributed to the subject
building. Mr. McLaughlin also agreed with Mr. Starr’s testimony regarding a change in the
ATB 2025-420

market between 2008 through 2011, and that it would be a mistake to include comparable
lease transactions dating prior to 2008, unless there were no other comparable properties
available.
Mr. McLaughlin ultimately selected eight comparable properties for which he was
able to verify details: (1) Burlington Stores at the Nashua Mall Plaza in Nashua, New
Hampshire; (2) At Home at the Dedham Mall in Dedham, Massachusetts; (3) At Home at
the Rhode Island Mall in Warwick, Rhode Island; (4) At Home at the site of a former Sam’s
Club in Seekonk, Massachusetts; (5) Round One at the Silver City Galleria in Taunton,
Massachusetts; (6) Bass Pro Outdoor World at the site of a former Lowe’s in Hooksett,
New Hampshire; (7) Kohl’s at the Shopper’s World in Framingham, Massachusetts; and
(8) Kohl’s at the Milford Plaza in Milford, Massachusetts. Lease commencement dates for
his comparable properties ranged from April 2013 to February 2019, with lease terms
ranging from five to fifteen years. The sizes of the eight comparable properties ranged
from 62,676 square feet to 121,515 square feet. Rents ranged from $4.40 to $10.06 per
square foot, on a triple net basis.
With adjustments, Mr. McLaughlin’s rents ranged from $5.52 to $7.95 per square
foot. He concluded a $7 per-square-foot rent on a triple net basis for the subject building
was appropriate, with no additional rent for the garden space.
B. The appellee’s case
The appellee presented its case primarily through the testimony and appraisal
report of Shaun Fitzgerald,2 a certified general real estate appraiser whom the Board
qualified as an expert witness.
2 The appraisal report was co-authored by Stephen McCarthy, who was the only signatory on the report.
By affidavit, Mr. Fitzgerald attested that it was his “belief that I likely planned to sign the report between the
ATB 2025-421

i. Mr. Fitzgerald’s testimony and appraisal report
Mr. Fitzerald testified that retailers such as Lowe’s and Home Depot were in
business continuously through the financial crisis in 2008, with a bit of a backoff on
construction and renovation from 2008 to 2010, and that they were “booming through the
recent pandemic.”
He noted that the vast majority of Mr. McLaughlin’s comparables were malls, not
lumber and home renovation properties, and that the majority were built in the 1960s and
1970s. He also noted that several of Mr. McLaughlin’s comparables were “former
something else,” citing as an example the Dedham Mall being transformed into a power
center.
He disagreed that the garden center had no value, noting that in addition to selling
seasonal items, typically a garden space holds fencing, concrete blocks, and pavers,
things that can be stored outdoors, and that these garden spaces are essential to the
business of stores such as Lowe’s.
Mr. Fitzgerald found that the highest and best use of the subject property was its
continuing use as a retail property during the relevant time periods.
Mr. Fitzgerald’s income approach included two comparable properties located in
Massachusetts: (1) a BJ’s Wholesale Club in Haverhill - a 119,598-square-foot property
on 17.26 acres, built in 2004, with a twenty-year lease at $10.75 per square foot on a
triple net basis that commenced in August 2007 with rental increases in five-year
increments; and (2) a Kohl’s in Stoughton – an 88,174-square-foot property on twelve
printing company and the Post Office as I typically do,” but that “because Mr. McCarthy lives in West
Bridgewater, I may have asked that he collect the report at the printing company and hand deliver it to West
Bridgewater Town Hall” and that “[a]s a result, the only signatory on the bound report is that of Mr.
McCarthy.” Mr. McCarthy was not present to testify.
ATB 2025-422

acres, built to suit in 2003, with a twenty-year lease at $14.10 per square foot on a triple
net basis that commenced in April 2004. Taking into account these leases, he concluded
a market rent of $11.50 per square foot for the subject building and $7 per square foot for
the garden center.
In terms of the commercial real estate market in 2008 with leases in effect prior to
2008, Mr. Fitzgerald testified that home improvement stores have been “solid.” He opined
that 	“they 	did 	pull 	back 	somewhat 	on 	construction 	and 	renovation, 	residential 	in
particular,” but that “[c]ommercial stayed relatively stable because the leases are such
long-term leases with regard to construction, with regard to leases of retail property.”
On cross examination, Mr. Fitzgerald acknowledged that he had “limited access
to lease amounts. I know about properties that are leased. There’s no public record on
leases, and they are very difficult to find. So when I find them, I use them.” When
questioned about the Kohl’s comparable he used in his analysis, Mr. Fitzgerald testified
that his files had not contained the actual lease, only information from a broker familiar
with the transaction. He admitted that his conclusion would have been impacted if the
landlord had given Kohl’s a lump sum contribution to construct the building. The lease
underlying Mr. Fitzergald’s Kohl’s comparable was subsequently entered into evidence
and established that the landlord provided Kohl’s with a $4,312,000 contribution. When
questioned about the BJ’s comparable he used in his analysis, Mr. Fitzgerald similarly
testified that he had not seen the actual lease and that he had received information from
a real estate agent. When questioned about the garden center and his conclusion of a $7
per-square-foot rent, Mr. Fitzgerald admitted that there was no data in his appraisal report
to support this figure.
ATB 2025-423

ii. Mr. Lennhoff’s rebuttal testimony
Mr. Lennhoff’s testimony and opinion letter chiefly aspired to rebut the testimony
and appraisal report of Mr. Fitzgerald. He critiqued the lack of analysis on the two leases
selected by Mr. Fitzgerald, opining that “absent a database and the ability to verify and
then 	analyze, 	the 	information 	coming 	from 	the 	comparables 	would 	be 	highly
questionable.”
He testified to the lack of adjustments made by Mr. Fitzgerald, particularly to
account both for the dates of the leases – “They are very old dates” – and the differences
in size of the underlying properties compared to the subject building. In his opinion letter,
he stated that “the fundamental problem with the income approach in the appraisal under
review is that the rental comparables do not meet the criteria of reasonable exposure on
the open market and are not arm’s length. Both leases were to the original occupant and
represent ‘first generation’ transactions rather than market exposed transactions. Absent
consideration of supportable adjustments to equate first generation, leased comparables
to the subject market situation, i.e., second generation fee simple interest, these
transactions would not be appropriate comparables.”
Regarding the garden center, he noted that it is a feature that in his experience
“Lowe's likes, Home Depot likes but the market in general won't pay for it.” He also
expressed concern that Mr. Fitzgerald’s “appraisal report shows no evidence whatsoever
of whether the market would pay at all or how much in rent it would pay. The conclusion
appears without any support.”
ATB 2025-424

III. The Board’s findings and rulings
On the basis of the record in its entirety, the Board found and ruled that the
appellant met its burden of proving that the subject property was overvalued for each of
the fiscal years at issue. In reaching this conclusion, the Board agreed with the parties’
experts that the highest and best use of the subject property was its continued use as a
retail property as of the relevant assessment dates for the fiscal years at issue, and that
the income approach was the most appropriate methodology to value the subject
property, as stipulated to by the parties.
The Board agreed with Mr. Starr’s and Mr. McLaughlin’s opinions that no additional
rent should be attributed to the garden center, finding their testimony credible concerning
the likelihood that most tenants do not and would not pay for garden spaces and pay only
for the actual, improved space with interior heating and cooling, not outdoor space.
Turning to the subject building, the Board gave no weight to Mr. Fitzgerald’s comparables.
His admission of limited access to lease information did not inspire confidence, and his
two comparables were both remote in time to the fiscal years at issue. Additionally, his
Kohl’s comparable failed to take into account a lump sum contribution provided to Kohl’s
by the landlord, a fact that Mr. Fitzgerald admitted would have impacted his conclusion.
While the Board found Mr. McLaughlin’s comparables to be persuasive, it declined to
adopt his conclusion of a $7 per-square-foot rent for the subject building. The Board found
that an $8.50 per-square-foot rent for the subject building appropriately reflected the
location of the subject property, within close proximity to a major highway and accessible
via a signaled intersection, with signage and visible from Route 106.
ATB 2025-425

Taking into account the parties’ stipulations of market rent for the bank space,
market rent for the restaurant space, cell tower revenue, vacancy and collection loss
factor, expenses, and capitalization rate, the Board derived the following amounts for the
subject property when applying an $8.50 per-square-foot market rent to the subject
building:
Fiscal Year 2015 	Fiscal Year 2016 	Fiscal Year 2018
Gross potential
income ($8.50 x
138,053 sq. ft.)
$1,173,451 	$1,173,451 	$1,173,451
Vacancy (8%) 	$93,876 	$93,876 	$93,876
Effective gross
income
$1,079,575 	$1,079,575 	$1,079,575
Expenses 	$200,000 	$200,000 	$200,000
NOI 	$879,575 	$879,575 	$879,575
Cap. Rates 	.0841 	.0841 	.0841
Value indications 	$10,458,679 	$10,458,679 	$10,458,679
Rounded 	$10,500,000 	$10,500,000 	$10,500,000
Contributory value
of
bank/restaurant/cell
tower
$2,400,000 	$2,400,000 	$2,400,000
Total value 	$12,900,000 	$12,900,000 	$12,900,000
Assessed Value 	$17,089,500 	$17,091,300 	$17,263,000
Overvaluation 	$4,189,500 	$4,191,300 	$4,363,000
Based on the above findings, the Board issued decisions for the appellant for each
of 	the 	fiscal 	years 	at 	issue, 	with 	abatements 	of 	$121,779.55, 	$123,313.49, 	and
$125,941.49, for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2018, respectively, for the subject property,
inclusive of the CPA surcharge.
ATB 2025-426

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 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 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)). An assessment is
presumed valid until the taxpayer sustains its burden of proving otherwise. Schlaiker,
365 Mass. at 245.
In determining fair cash value, all uses to which the property was or could
reasonably be adapted on the relevant assessment dates should be considered. Irving
Saunders Trust v. Assessors of Boston, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 838, 843 (1989). “In
determining the property’s highest and best use, consideration should be given to the
purpose for which the property is adapted.” Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, Mass.
ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-573, 617 (citation omitted), aff'd in relevant part,
62 Mass. App. Ct. 428 (2004). In the present appeals, the Board agreed with the parties’
experts that the subject property’s highest and best use was its continued use as a retail
property.
Generally, real estate valuation experts, Massachusetts courts, and the Board rely
upon three approaches to determine the fair cash value of property: income capitalization,
sales comparison, and cost reproduction. Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment
ATB 2025-427

Auth., 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978). “The board is not required to adopt any particular
method of valuation . . . .” Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass.
447, 449 (1986). The use of the income-capitalization approach is appropriate when
reliable cost and market-sales data are not available. Assessors of Weymouth v.
Tammy Brook Co., 368 Mass. 810, 811 (1975); Assessors of Lynnfield v. New
England Oyster House, Inc., 362 Mass. 696, 701-02 (1972). It is also recognized as an
appropriate 	technique 	to 	use 	for 	valuing 	income-producing 	property. Taunton
Redevelopment Assocs. v. Assessors of Taunton, 393 Mass. 293, 295 (1984). In
these appeals, the Board found and ruled, as stipulated to by the parties, that the income-
capitalization approach was the most appropriate method to value the subject property.
“The direct capitalization of income method analyzes the property’s capacity to
generate income over a one-year period and converts the capacity into an indication of
fair cash value by capitalizing the income at a rate determined to be appropriate for the
investment risk involved.” Olympia & York State Street Co. v. Assessors of Boston,
428 Mass. 236, 239 (1998). “[I]t is the net income that the property should be earning, not
necessarily what it actually earns, that is the figure that should be capitalized.” Peterson
v. Assessors of Boston, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428, 436 (2004) (emphasis in original).
Accordingly, the income stream used in the income-capitalization method must reflect the
property’s earning capacity or economic rental value. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 397
Mass. at 452.
Imputing rental income to the subject property based on fair market rentals from
comparable properties is evidence of value if, once adjusted to reflect reasonable
operating 	expenses, 	they 	are 	indicative 	of 	the 	subject 	property’s 	earning
ATB 2025-428

capacity. See Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Auth., 5 Mass. App. Ct. 289,
293-94 (1977), aff'd on other grounds, 375 Mass. 360 (1978). Vacancy rates must also
be market based when determining fair cash value. Olympia & York State St. Co., 428
Mass. at 239. After accounting for vacancy and rent losses, net operating income is
obtained by deducting the landlord’s appropriate expenses. General Electric Co. v.
Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 610 (1984). The expenses should also reflect the
market. See Olympia & York State St. Co., 428 Mass. at 239. Lastly, the capitalization
rate selected should reflect the return necessary to attract investment capital and account
for real estate taxes borne by the landlord by use of an effective tax factor. Taunton
Redevelopment Assocs., 393 Mass. at 295.
In reaching its opinion of fair cash value, the Board is not required to believe the
testimony of any witness or to adopt any particular method of valuation that an expert
witness suggested. Cummington School of Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington,
373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977) (“The credibility of witnesses, the weight of the evidence, and
inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the board.”). Rather, the Board
can accept those portions of the evidence that, in the Board’s determination, have more
convincing weight. Foxboro Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679,
683 (1982); New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 473
(1981); New England Oyster House, 362 Mass. at 702. The fair cash value of property
cannot be proven with “mathematical certainty and must ultimately rest in the realm of
opinion, 	estimate 	and 	judgment.” Assessors 	of 	Quincy 	v. Boston 	Consol. 	Gas
Co., 309 Mass. 60, 72 (1941). See also New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 473.
ATB 2025-429

In Boston Consol. Gas Co., 309 Mass. at 72, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled
that “the conclusion reached by the board . . . did not coincide with the figure given by
any witness, but it does not follow . . . that this conclusion was, therefore, unsupported by
the evidence.” The Court noted that “[t]he board was not required to believe the testimony
of any particular witness but it could accept such portions of the evidence as appeared to
have the more convincing weight. . . . The board could select the various elements of
value as shown by the record and from them form, as it properly did, its own independent
judgment.” Id. See also New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 473 (“The essential
requirement is that the board exercise judgment.”).
Turning to the present appeals, the parties stipulated to – for purposes of an
income approach for each of the fiscal years at issue – the combined aggregate value of
the restaurant space, the bank space, and the cell phone tower; a vacancy and collection
loss factor; the amount of expenses to be deducted; and a capitalization rate. The
remaining issues before the Board were the market rent to be attributed to the subject
building and the market rent, if any, to be attributed to the garden center.
In making its determination on these issues, the Board considered the testimony,
reviewed the record in its entirety, and analyzed the various comparables presented by
the parties’ experts. North American Philips Lighting Corp. v. Assessors of Lynn, 392
Mass 296, 300 (1984). The Board found and ruled that for purposes of an income
approach, the market rent for the subject building was $8.50 per square foot for each of
the fiscal years at issue, and that no additional rent was to be attributed to the garden
center. While the Board gave no weight to Mr. Fitzgerald’s comparables and declined to
fully adopt Mr. McLaughlin’s conclusion of a market rent for the subject building, the record
ATB 2025-430

~
in the aggregate afforded the Board with sufficient and probative evidence to form its own
judgment. See Liberty Norfolk Dev. II, LLC v. Assessors of Norfolk, 90 Mass. App. Ct.
1110 (2016) (decision under Rule 1:28).
Application of the Board’s determination of market rent for the subject building and
the parties’ stipulated figures resulted in a fair cash value of $12,900,000 for the subject
property for each of the fiscal years at issue. This value was lower than the assessed
value of the subject property for each of the fiscal years at issue. Accordingly, the Board
found and ruled for the appellant for each of the fiscal years at issue, granting abatements
of $121,779.55, $123,313.49, and $125,941.49 for fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2018,
respectively, for the subject property, inclusive of the CPA surcharge.
THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD
By: 	__________________________________
Mark J. DeFrancisco, Chairman
A true copy,
Attest: ________________________
Clerk of the Board
ATB 2025-431