The Board of Assessment Review last month denied a request to reconsider its decision to reduce the property assessment for 72 Vine St.
Verna Sharpe, the Town’s assessing agent, asked board members to reconsider the partial abatement granted Sept. 8 that reduced the property’s assessed value by $203,000, resulting in a tax reduction of $2,541.56. The owner, Mark Zimmer, had asked for a $300,000 reduction in the assessed value.
In her testimony at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting, Sharpe pointed out that KRT, the firm contracted by the Town to conduct a townwide assessment in 2025, originally had valued the property at about $3 million.
Sharpe had disagreed with that valuation, she said, and worked with KRT to reduce the valuation by $1 million, down to $1.9 million.
Discussions between the Board of Assessment Review members and Sharpe grew contentious while arguing their cases at the meeting.
Board Chair Paul Steinhauer said he had consulted the Town’s attorneys at Bernstein, Shur/Drummond Woodsum and was advised that reconsideration should be granted only if the assessing agent demonstrates one of three grounds: “a misapprehension of evidence whereby the Board fundamentally misunderstood or overlooked a critical piece of the record, an error of law where the Board violated a procedural rule, or if any new evidence had come to light.”
Board member Benjamin Thompson, the board’s secretary, read a statement into the record outlining the purpose of the hearing in case the matter goes to court.
“Today’s date is October 19, 2026, and we’re acting on a timely petition filed on September 18, 2026, fully satisfying the jurisdictional requirement which expires on October 23, 2026,” he read. “The assessing agent does have the authority to request reconsideration as confirmed by the Town Council/Board of Assessors. And as of the date of our decision today, the 30-day clock will start for any appeal by either party to the court.”
The board was not persuaded by Sharpe’s list of seven areas where she contended the board had erred in making its decision.
“We have the sole constitutional authority to determine the weight and credibility of evidence,” Thompson said. “We’re not legally required to give the assessor’s analysis overriding weight.”
The board’s motion to grant the assessing agent’s request for reconsideration was rejected 3-0.
Referencing the Town attorney’s guidelines, any one of which would allow reconsideration of the assessment, Thompson said he did not believe Sharpe had clearly identified a misapprehension of evidence, demonstrated an error of law or presented any new evidence.
“I want to make it clear—if the assessor’s petition simply re-argues the same case they lost on Sept. 8, because they disagree with the conclusions, reconsideration is not warranted,” he said.
The board said on Oct. 19 it would send a letter to both the Town and Zimmer notifying them of their right within 30 days to appeal to the State Supreme Judicial Court.
