The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025_09_30 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on September 30, 2025 Board Members in attendance: Chair of the Board Leon Meyers Yes Regular Member Saru Salvi Yes Regular Member Richal Vanhook Yes Alternate Member Shareese Alston No Alternate Member Hunter Beattie No Alternate Member Tony Blake No Alternate Member Vaughn Compton No Alternate Member Shannon Julian No Alternate Member Barbara Levine No Orange County Staff in attendance: Tax Administrator Nancy Freeman Deputy Tax Assessor Chad Phillips Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser C le Anderson Appraiser Jimmy Milliken Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:OOPM Myrna Schwartz 9799081762 Yes Value-Real 2 1:35PM Elmojo, LLC 9788278230.111L510 Yes Value-Real 3 1:54PM Amy S. Crutchfield Trustee 9833307863 Remote Value-Real 4 2:0013M Maury D. Klein 9769497169 Yes Value-Real 5 2:21PM Regina La Noe 9836344633 Yes Value-Real 6 2:40PM Rachel Victoria Mills 9788894893 Yes Value-Real 7 2:51PM Bradford Munroe Booth Jr. 9835915740 Yes Value-Real 8 2:57PM Thomas O. Mills Trustee 9846853837 Yes Value-Real 9 3:15PM John J. Kim 0802034802 No Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 1:00 PM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 3:52 PM Leon Meyers Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 Related meeting notes: • Chad Phillips presented schedule of value on land appraisal. ➢ How AP5 carries out calculations ➢ Summary of the entirety of schedule of values for land values ➢ Base rate for acre and factor for lot size variations(in table) ➢ Roger: Base price is for one acre; not per acre Property Identification: Property Owner Myrna Schwartz Appellant(if different) David Schwartz Property Address 2017 S. Lakeshore Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9799081762 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on an independent appraisal. Current Assessed Value $1,979,100 County Opinion $11766,900 Time of Hearin 1:OOPM Appellant Opinion $1,460,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $1,593,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The property was professionally appraised in April 2025. The appraisal report is attached. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject property is a lakefront property at 2017 S. Lakeshore Drive with 2,472 square feet. An appraisal was submitted with a value of$1,460,000. Comparable#3 is three and a half times the size of the subject. Comparables#1,#4 and#5 are non-lakefront properties,leaving#2 to be the only truly comparable property to the subject. Based on the appraisal comments,the main valuation issue is the land value. The appraisal suggests the land should be valued at $1,200,000. No comparable sales to support that value were noted. Of the five comparables in the appraisal,only one is a lake lot with a land adjustment. • The attached map will display the subject with a red dot and the submitted appraisal comparables with a black dot, leaving the County sales with a yellow dot. • There was a vacant land sale at 423 Lakeshore Lane(northeast corner of the lake)in December of 2021 for$1,899,000,which was the last vacant lot on the lake. This sale was used to establish the price for lots surrounding the lake. • In February 2022, 1821 S. Lakeshore Drive was sold for$1,750,000. This property was improved,but the house was subsequently demolished, and a new house was constructed. This suggests that the property was purchased for the land with the home not having any contributory value to the buyer. In July 2023, 1815 S.Lakeshore Drive with 2,408 square feet, built in 1970,with an effective age of 1990, sold for$1,760,000 and has a current value of $1,895,900(Land$1,615,000). • Upon inspection,the County suggests increasing the -10%topography adjustment to -20%,for the steep sloped land leading to the lake. This will create a revised value of$1,766,900(Land $1,520,000) for the lakefront property. • Summary • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 • Maps • Photo of Subject Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $1,593,900 Between county and appellant values,based on evidence Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Elmojo, LLC Appellant(if different) Lisa Sutker Property Address 140 W Franklin Street, Parcel ID or Abstract 9788278230.1111-510 Unit 510 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $866,800 County Opinion $847,900 Time of Hearin 1:35PM Appellant Opinion $569,700 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $847,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Based on comparable sales, sales within the same building provide the strongest evidence of market value,as they share the exact same location,construction quality,building amenities, and immediate market conditions. This minimizes the need for complex adjustments related to these significant factors. Several recent sales within 140 W Franklin Street align closely with the January 1,2025 valuation date. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,220 square foot condo unit on the 5th floor with 2 bedrooms and 2 baths built in 2012 located at 140 W Franklin Street. Chapel Hill • There were several sales and a few resales within the revaluation period. Based on the equitable values and most current sales of similar units,The County recommends reducing the construction modifier from 1.15 to 1.125 resulting in a reduction in value from$866,800 to $847,900. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board I Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $847,900 Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Amy S. Crutchfield Trustee Appellant(if different) Property Address 57.66 acres on Mt. Willing Parcel ID or Abstract 9833307863 Road Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $605,400 County Opinion $518,900 Time of Hearin 1:54PM Appellant Opinion $409,194 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $518,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The year-over-year increase in land is 59%,which is very high. • We compared to recent sales of similar land and the average per acre sales price is $7,097. Our 57.66 x$7,097=$409,194. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is 57.66 acres of vacant land located in Mebane and is split by Mt. Willing Rd. • This was not a year-over-year increase, it was over the revaluation cycle of 4 years. The 59% increase was typical during this time frame. • The comparable sales used in the appeal are not qualified sales and cannot be considered. • Based on vacant land sales,the road splitting the property and topography,including streams across the parcel, The County recommends increasing the adjustment on the land from -30%to -40%resulting in a reduction from$605,400 to $518,900. • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $518,900 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner I Maury D. Klein Appellant(if different) Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 Property Address 1510 Quinn Court Parcel ID or Abstract 9769497169 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on a comparable sale and the condition of home. Current Assessed Value $823,300 County Opinion $761,600 Time of Hearin 2:OOPM Appellant Opinion $586,800 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision Continued Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The three main items affecting the valuation are Building and Land. >BUILDING should be valued with 3,578 sf at$135 /sf for a total of$483,030. The home was built in 1988 with an addition in 1996 and is pretty dated with a very unorthodox floor plan. Therefore,much of the "livable" sf is not easily accessible/usable. The homes of my two neighbors who have also lived here since the 1990's [511 & 505 Quinn Court] are valued at$143/sf& $142/sf respectively,but those homes have much more orthodox floor plans. Therefore, $135/sf is a more appropriate number to use to value my home STORAGE BUILDING--there is a small [10'x10'] storage building on the garage side of the house which is valued at$1,800. LAND VALUE--my 1.12 acres are valued at$275,000= $245,536/acre which is totally unrealistic. There are three plots on Creekstone Drive 75-100 yards from me which are valued at$52,700 to $65,800 per acre. I know these are much larger plots [5.38 to 7.4 acres],but that should not increase the valuation of my property by 360%to 486%. I also do not see any land parcels in Orange County close to $245K or even$150K per acre. I feel that a maximum land value for 510 Quinn Court is $100,000. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY TOTAL VALUATION OF $586,800 I would appreciate an opportunity to address the board in person. Thank you very much--Maury Klein • Two neighbors' homes [500 Quinn Court& 501 Quinn Court] sold recently for a little more than the value I claim for my home [$586,800],but for much less than the 2025 Value Change Notice [$823,300]. My home has more square feet [3,578],but those two homes were completely renovated before sale while 510 Quinn is pretty dated. • 510 Quinn Court was built in 1988 and is very dated. Of course, I make repairs as needed,but this home is not updated,ready-to-sell, or anything close to that condition. "Comps" are almost always for homes upgraded for sale and,therefore valued much higher per square foot. As detailed, I have used a value of$135/square foot for the current condition of my home vs much higher values for home. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 510 Quinn Court,was built in 1988, and contains 3,580 square feet. The subject property is in NBC 7844 and is lot priced at$275,000 per lot. The finished living area was adjusted from 3,684 square feet to 3,580 square feet and the pool was removed in 2025,due to a data correction form being submitted. • The properties noted off Creekstone Drive in NBC 7954 are valued using the Ac_9 pricing table with a base rate of$115,000 for one acre. • An analysis was created that included the comparables submitted and an additional sale to illustrate the sales and equity of the neighborhood. The land value difference in comparables #1 and#2 are due to a Piedmont EMC Easement running through these properties. • In conclusion,I adjusted the effective year built from 1990 to its actual year built of 1988 for the lack of improvements, and the story height from 1 story to 1.25 story to account for the Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 second floor living area behind the garage. These changes result in a revised value of $761,600. • Summary • Sales Analysis • Map • Plat • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Photo of Subject Motion of the Board Continue to a Future Date/Time: Continued Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner I Regina La Noe Appellant(if different) Property Address 2007 Pintail Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19836344633 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on a comparable sale and the condition of home. Current Assessed Value $322,200 County Opinion 1 $322,200 Time of Hearin 2:21PM Appellant Opinion $280,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $322,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant arrived at their opinion of value after viewing a Zillow.com estimate and after receiving advice from their real estate agent. The appellant provided one comparable sale and states that the house needs numerous repairs. Photos were submitted as supporting evidence. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,254 square foot frame house built in 2003 on 1.76 acres located at 2007 Pintail Drive, in Mebane. The County analyzed two recent sales of improved properties with similar quality grades that were in the subject's neighborhood. As part of this analysis,the County also reviewed two recent sales of vacant lots within the subject property's neighborhood. The County also reviewed the subject's property record card. The subject property's effective year built is already set to the actual year built,which is 2003, and the condition has already been lowered from Average to Fair. The appellant's comparable sale is located almost two miles from the subject property. The base rate for land in this property's neighborhood is $65,000, compared to $78,000 in the subject property's neighborhood,using AC-9 pricing. After review,the County recommends no change to the subject property's assessed value of$322,200. • Photo of Subject Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $322,200 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Rachel Victoria Mills Appellant(if different) Property Address Lots 25-26, E. Franklin Parcel ID or Abstract 9788894893 Street Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the 2025 purchase price and the fact that this lot is not buildable. Current Assessed Value $175,000 County Opinion $87,500 Time of Hearin 2:40PM Appellant Opinion $82,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $87,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Small vacant lot that is not buildable,purchased in 2025 for$82,000. The purchase price was based on the size and the use. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject property is a.16-acre vacant lot in the 900 block of E.Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. • Although the June 2, 2025 sale price cannot be considered,after reviewing the submitted documents and appraisal notes/history,the lot should be valued as not buildable for a residence. The appellant also owns a home contiguous to this property. • The lot currently has a-50% adjustment for size. The County suggests increasing the adjustment by 25%totaling a-75%market land adjustment for size and overall utility which would create a revised value of$87,500. • Summary • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Maps • GIS Map Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Pro osed Value: $87,500 Made the motion Saru Salvi Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Bradford Munroe Booth Appellant(if different) Jr. Property Address 11201 Red Gate Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9835915740 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $735,000 County Opinion $640,200 Time of Hearin 2:51PM Appellant Opinion $573,400 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $640,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The current assessed value of$735,000 does not reflect market value as of January 1, 2025 • Based on verified local sales,I respectfully request a revised assessment of$573,400, reflecting a$235/sf market-supported rate. • The land should not be valued based on speculative development potential,but rather as a rural residential parcel with limited market liquidity and utility. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 2,440 square foot single family home with 3 bedrooms,2 and 1/2 baths built in 2005 on 10.01 acres of land in Mebane. • The sales used in the appeal are not comparable to the 2,440 square foot house on 10.01 acres as they are all less than 1,400 square feet and the largest parcel is 1.6 acres. The sale of 2010 Sunday Drive. is for 2 parcels and not considered a qualified sale. There were no sales in the area that are comparable to the subject although the subject sold in 2021 for$525,000. • Based on the equity analysis and appraiser's opinion,the County recommends reducing the grade of the house from A+15 to A-10 and apply a-10%adjustment for access on the land for the private dirt road resulting in a reduction in value from$735,000 to $640,200. • Images of subject • GIS Map • Plat • Equity and Sales Analysis • Comparable sales clips • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $640,200 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Thomas O. Mills Trustee Appellant(if different) Property Address 4030 Legato Lane I Parcel ED or Abstract 19846853837 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the lot being encumbered by a floodplain and an easement. Current Assessed Value $627,300 County Opinion 1 $627,300 Time of Hearin 2:57PM Appellant Opinion $500,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision Continued This appeal is a continuation of the appeal heard on September 16,2025. Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant states that the subject property's land should not be compared to other properties that are flat because much of the lot is encumbered by floodplain and an easement. The appellant provided three photos to support this claim. • The appellant supplied additional comparable sales to support their opinion of value. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 4030 Legato Lane in Efland. The County visited the subject property for verification and photos. The appellant states that this property should not be compared to flat, level farmland due to floodplain and an easement. After performing a field and desktop review,the subject property is not being compared to flat,level farmland. There is a large downward adjustment of-55%currently applied to the subject that accounts for both the floodplain and the easement. This adjustment also accounts for the irregular shape and topography(streams)issues associated with this tract. Therefore,the County recommends no change to the subject property's value of$627,300. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Continue to a Future Date/Time: Continued again Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner I John J. Kim Appellant(if different) Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 Property Address 14643 Owls Wood Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 0802034802 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on values of comparable homes in the same neighborhood and incorrect data on the current property record card. Current Assessed Value $2,849,500 County Opinion $2,255,400 Time of Hearin 3:15PM Appellant Opinion $2,028,336 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $2,255,400 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • 2025 Orange County assessments for all neighboring homes value the buildings at an average price per square foot of$211. The subject property at 4643 Owls Wood Lane is being valued at $284/sq. ft. even though the property is 26 years old and has not undergone any major renovation. Please see attached spreadsheet which shows all adjacent properties and their property valuations per 2025 Orange County assessment.Unfair to value subject 26-year-old property at a significant higher price per square feet than all adjacent properties except for the one that was newly built in 2024. The average price per square foot(including the 2024 new custom home)would be$211/sq ft. Applying that average price to 6,434 sq feet gives a total building value of$1,359,736 vs the 2025 assessment of$2,180,900. • Gross living area per attached appraisal is 6,434 sq. ft. vs the 7,675 listed on the 2025 Orange County Assessment. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 4643 Owls Wood Lane,was built in 1999, and has 7,123 square feet.An older appraisal was submitted to assist with correcting the listing of the house. The finished living area was corrected from 7,675 square feet to 7,123 square feet(main house 6,434 square feet and guest house 688 square feet per submitted appraisal. Bath count corrected from 7 full baths to 5 full baths and 2 half baths; fireplace count corrected from 3 to 5 and the open porch corrected to a screened porch. • During the site visit Mr. Kim pointed out two comparable homes in the area. 4406 W. Cornwallis Road was most comparable to the subject property. Size and along with a guest house and pools,make them very similar. After reviewing both properties,the grade was adjusted for the subject from AA to A+70 and the effective year built was adjusted from 2009 to the year built, 1999 due to no upgrades to the property. • The properties on Owls Wood Lane and the surrounded properties in NBC 7019($100,000 base rate)are assessed at different base rates even though they are in the same neighborhood 7019,because Owls Wood Lane land sold for more than that of surrounding properties being a restricted subdivision. A premium value($185,000 base rate)was assessed for properties on this street. I reviewed the subject plat which displayed a drainage easement,private road easement and stream/buffers. A-30% adjustment was added to the land for those issues. The result of these changes created a revised value of$2,255,400. • During the visit Mr. Kim requested to be updated of the proposed County value in order to determine if he would appear or not appear at the meeting. I explained the process and the proposed value, and he opted not to appear. • Summary • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Maps 0 Photo of Subject Docusign Envelope ID:A601AB7D-8806-49E3-97E5-610E08400673 Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $2,255,400 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members ... Voted Against ... ... Chair of the igned by: Leon Meyers 10/16/2025 Recording Se ^ rya by: Rob F6�U -rca&164 Teachou �F-4-&gM41)8 10/16/2025