An unnamed taxpayer met with the Town of Needham Board of Assessors on Friday, Oct. 10, to dispute assessments on multiple Highland Terrace properties, saying some structures are assessed significantly higher than local comparables.

The taxpayer said he had calculated an average of comparable multi‑family properties at about "$95 per square foot," while his property at 23 Highland Terrace equates to roughly "a $153" per square foot under the current assessment. He also told the board that 23 Highland Terrace is registered as a five‑family but was originally built as a six‑family, and that units there are about 400 square feet each. The taxpayer described 16 Highland Terrace as assessed at about "$144 per square foot." He said several small units on the street have been vacant and need refurbishment, and that market demand for very small units is weak.

Why it matters: property assessments determine local property taxes and feed into the board's classification work this fall. The taxpayer asked the board to reexamine how structure and land values were applied on Highland Terrace and offered to provide additional documentation and site access.

Details from the meeting

- Property types and unit sizes: The taxpayer described 23 Highland Terrace as a five‑family building that was originally configured as six units; he said unit sizes are about 400–420 square feet and that smaller units have been combined over time. He told the board one unit has been vacant for about a year.

- Comparative figures cited: The taxpayer said he averaged downtown Needham comparables and calculated roughly $95 per square foot; he said 23 Highland Terrace currently equates to about $153 per square foot. He said other nearby parcels have land values showing substantial variation (he cited a 3,000 square‑foot lot figure for a nearby address). For 16 Highland Terrace he cited $144 per square foot and said the property had only had window work since its 2005 purchase.

- Owner's market observations: The taxpayer said small unit sizes make rental demand limited and that he has faced extended vacancies and past legal costs to remove nonpaying tenants at other buildings he owns. He said asking rents he has tried include about $1,400 per month for a very small unit, but that taxes and upkeep significantly reduce net rent.

- Board/staff response and next steps: Staff indicated that "a portion" of the assessment previously had been abated on at least one property. Assessors asked the taxpayer to leave documentation for staff review and indicated they would "crunch the numbers" and follow up. No formal decision or vote on the property assessments was taken during open session.

What was not decided

The board made no formal change to any assessment during the meeting. The taxpayer and staff discussed possible valuation bases and comparable properties, but the board said further review would occur (including calculation checks and internal discussion) before any formal abatement or classification change.

The meeting record: the taxpayer presented comparables, sales references (including Zillow figures cited during the discussion), purchase years (the taxpayer referenced purchases in 2005 and 2006), and rent and vacancy experiences as context for his appeal. The board did not announce a final valuation outcome in open session; staff will examine the documentation and follow up with the taxpayer.