HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025_10_22 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
MINUTES
Orange County Board of Equalization and Review
Meeting held on October 22, 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
Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells
Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout
Appraiser C le Anderson
Appraiser Louise Benson-Lochner
Appraiser Dana Hall
Appraiser Bill Hiltbold
Appraiser Jimmy Milliken
Appraiser Heidi Whetzel
Appraiser Scott Zeman
Meeting Schedule:
No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type
1 1:01PM Richard A. Fee 9778580366 Yes Value-Real
2 1:11PM James E. Williams Jr. 9890214760 Yes Value-Real
3 1:35PM Lisa Poger 9799551430 Yes Value-Real
4 2:02PM William C. Lock 9779614569 Yes Value-Real
5 2:27PM Lisa S. Deloach 9779614873 No Value-Real
6 2:33PM Deborah B. Nickell 9880323252 No Value-Real
7 2:43PM Davin L. Stewart 9788284671 Yes Value-Real
8 2:47PM Davin L. Stewart 9799520809 Yes Value-Real
9 2:53PM Schopler Family LLC 9788245407 Yes Value-Real
10 3:21PM Vanessa Jewell 9799513876 No Value-Real
11 3:27PM Li's Investment LLC 9778526232 No Value-Real
12 3:42PM Neal H. Bench 9890109512 No Value-Real
13 3:50PM Yunjun Mu 9799396178 No Value-Real
14 4:06PM Randy Thomas Horton 9779314745 Yes Value-Real
15 4:06PM Randy Thomas Horton 9779327032 Yes Value-Real
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
16 4:35PM Frances B. Shackelford 9882943478 No Value-Real
17 4:40PM Frances B. Shackelford 9882945420 No Value-Real
Time B
Meeting called to order 1:00 PM Leon Meyers
Meeting adjourned 5:00 PM Leon Meyers
Motion Time By Second
BOER to adopt consent 4:55 Leon Meyers Richal Vanhook
agenda
Related meeting notes:
• Reminder for 2026 BOER:NBH 7492 to be reviewed for Lakeshore Dr. home values largely
varying from non-Lakeshore Drive properties ("split development").
• Chad proposed adopting a consent agenda and presented an overview to the BOER. The BOER
agreed to allow consent agendas into their adjudication process.
Property Identification:
Property Owner Richard A. Fee Appellant(if different)
Property Address 107 Cheswick Court Parcel ID or Abstract 9778580366
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition of house.
Current Assessed Value $573,200 ounty Opinion $512,900
Time of Hearin 1:01 Appellant Opinion $400,000
County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $512,900
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• I am submitting this appeal to dispute the current assessed value of$572,000 for my property.
Based on the home's present condition,I believe this value significantly overstates its fair
market value. The property has multiple structural and cosmetic issues that impair its value and
will require substantial repairs:
• There is visible water damage, cracking, and separation along several areas of the siding.
• Trim boards are rotting and show signs of long-term moisture intrusion;these will need to be
replaced.
•Affected exterior areas require repairs and full repainting.
• The ceiling shows multiple seams and patch lines, indicating incomplete drywall repairs or
previous water damage.
•Additional sanding,refinishing, and repainting are needed to restore the interior to an
acceptable condition.
• The ceiling's condition negatively impacts buyer appeal and potential resale value.
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
• One window shows extensive rot on the sill and surrounding trim,raising both structural and
aesthetic concerns. This area will likely require full window and trim replacement.
•All windows in the home need replacement.
• The floors are sagging and will require professional bracing from the crawl space to level
them.
• The front driveway has sunk, causing water pooling of up to 2 inches during rain. Full
driveway replacement is necessary.
• Two of the three bathrooms are original from 1989 and require modernization to contribute to
the home's value.
• The third bathroom is unfinished and must be completed.
• There is concern that additional damage may be found beneath areas with visible dry rot,
which could further increase restoration costs.
• Given the extent of these issues,I respectfully request a reassessment and adjustment of the
property's value to $400,000,which more accurately reflects its current condition and the
significant repairs required.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• A county appraiser conducted a site review of the property on 10/16/2025. The appellant was
at home and allowed access to the exterior of the residence. Exterior and interior photographs
were provided by the appellant.
• Appraiser observations and recommendations:
• 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of B+05. The grade is consistent with most of the
residences on Cheswick Court.No change to grade is recommended.
• 2. AGE: The residence was built in 1989 and has a current effective year built of 2000. An in-
law suite was added in 2007. The appellant's photos show significant age and wearing to the
windows, floors, and ceiling. An effective year built of 1989 is recommended.
• 3. CONDITION/DEPRECIATION: The residence is currently listed in Average condition with
19%depreciation. Based on the appellant's photos and the exterior review, it is recommended
the condition be changed to Fair.
• Additionally, it is recommended that a 5%Physical Depreciation Factor be added to account
for one of the bathrooms being unfinished. The additional depreciation will offset the value of
the bathroom while it is under renovation.
• The total recommended depreciation percentage would be 35.4%.
• With the recommended changes above, the county recommends the property be revalued from
$573,200 to $512,900.
1. GIS map
2. Appellant photos of exterior and interior
3. Current property record card
4. Recommended property record card
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $512,900
Made the motion Richal Vanhook
Seconded the motion Saru Salvi
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
ProDertv Identification:
Property Owner James E. Williams Jr. Appellant(if different) Catherine Kobe
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Property Address 2424 Sedgefield Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9890214760
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based assessed value at time of purchase.
Current Assessed Value $722,300 County Opinion $722,300
Time of Hearing_ 1:11 Appellant Opinion $600,000
County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $711,000(remove value of deck)
Lochner
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
* The Appellant filed a formal appeal on June 27,2025.
* The Appellant stated"The property value was assessed at the time of purchase in April of 2022
for$550,000. We have since done some repairs to the home including new windows,
waterproofing, and foundational repairs totaling just under$50,000. The tax value of the home
as of 2024 was $397,600. I do not believe the tax value of the home has increased by over
$300,000 in one year."
* **No additional evidence e.g. photos,repair bids, comparable sales were provided.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
* On September 29th, a drive by visit of the subject was performed by this appraiser.
* A drive-by evaluation is considered to be a sufficient review due to the MLS evidence
available and due to the nature of the appeal.
* Observations and conclusions:
* 1. Actual Year Built is 1971. The current Effective Year Built is 2000. This Effective Year is
considered to be appropriate due to continued maintenance and upgrades of cosmetic items
along with the major components. No change is recommended.
* 2. The Grade of the home is B. This is appropriate for the style and quality of the home. No
change is recommended.
* 3. NBC 7492 is assessed at$435,000 per lot. No land influences are applicable. Topography,
shape, and size
* (0.66 ac) are typical for the neighborhood. There are no easements affecting the lot.No change
is recommended.
* 4. A Comper Report is attached. The 3 qualified comps have a sales range of value of
$692,900 to $750,000. Their assessed values range from$756,100 to$760,600. The amenities
of the Comps bracket the Subject with no significant variation that would justify a reduction of
assessed value from the current $722,300 to the requested$600,000.
* 5. Appellant evidence-The Appellant has not provided evidence to warrant any reduction.
The'2024 tax value of
* $397,600'was based on the last Reval year of 2021,utilizing values effective for 1/l/2021.
* In summary,no changes are recommended.
Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $711,000 remove value of deck
Made the motion Leon Meyers
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Prover Provertv Identification:
Property Owner Lisa Poger Appellant(if different)
Property Address 9 Lark Circle Parcel ID or Abstract 19799551430
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on perceived unfairness in lot pricing.
Current Assessed Value $451,100 County Opinion $445,700
Time of Hearin 1:35 PM Appellant Opinion $341,100
County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $413,865 $255/SF
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• My property"Structure" value increased from$172,000 to$231,000 in the recent 4-year re-
assessment of property values 2012-2025 (fair). However, the Land value appraisal increased
from$88,000 to $220,000: apparently for ALL lots 1 acre or less (not fair). My lot is 0.10
acres. I respectfully request Land value assessments be equitably distributed across lot sizes (as
lot size is a considerable factor in resale). 50%of the current one-acre land assessment of
$220,000 is $110,000. 25%of the current one-acre land assessment would be $55,000. I
respectfully request my Property Appraised Value be re-adjusted to at least$341,000.
$231,000+ $110,000 50%. Thank you for your consideration
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• Subject property is in NBC 7412 at 9 Lark Circle,built in 1985 with 1,623 square feet. The
property sold in April of 2021 for$345,500 and again to the current owner in July of 2021 for
$370,000. The property increased over$34,000 in value in less than 3months.
• The land is lot priced at$220,000 (extraction method).
• I created an analysis and a Comper report to break down the land and improvement price per
s/f as part of measuring value. The attachments also have to be considered as they add value.
The Comper report illustrate equity, with age being the remaining factor.
• After reviewing all documentation,the County suggest lowering the effective year built from
2008 to 2005 to align the subject property. This adjustment will create a new value of
$445,700.
• Analysis
• Comper Report
• Current Property Record Card
• Proposed Property Record Card
• Maps
• Aerial Photo
Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $413,865 $255/SF
Made the motion Saru Salvi
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner William C. Lock Appellant(if different)
Property Address 504 Forest Court Parcel ID or Abstract 9779614569
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties' value.
Current Assessed Value $334,600 County Opinion $326,100
Time of Hearin 2:02 PM Appellant Opinion $302,100
County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $305,500 $268/SF
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• (See two attached letters dated August 31, 2025, and October 15, 2025).
• I am requesting a decrease in my property value of$334,600 downward to$302,100. This is
determined using county information for similar properties within the same housing complex.
My property is showing a per square foot value of$294. It is a one story, 2 bedroom with 1
bath unit with minimal improvements.
• Four other units, all with considerable improvements, are shown with lesser per-square-foot
values than the subject unit. The same four units have an additional one-half bath and are two-
story units. In my opinion,the subject unit should have a value equal to or less than the lowest
"better"unit.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• A site visit by an appraiser was performed on 10/16/2025. The appellant was at home and
allowed access to the exterior of the property. The appraiser took exterior photos, and the
appellant provided interior photos.
• Appraiser observations and recommendations:
• 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of B-10 which is consistent with all townhomes in
Forest Court.No change to grade is recommended.
• 2. AGE: The residence was built in 1983 and has an effective year built of 1987. The
appellant's evidence shows the subject property has had LVP flooring installed in the kitchen,
foyer, and living room,but no other significant improvements. No change to the effective year
built is recommended.
• 3. CONDITION/DEPRECIATION: The residence is currently in Average condition. The
subject property is unique in Forest Court in that it is the only one-story unit that is also an
interior unit. All other one-story units are exterior units, and all other interior units are two
stories. The county recommends adding a-5%Design Factor for the subject property being
less marketable than the other one-story units.
• 4. ANALYSIS OF SALES: The county reviewed the appellant's comparable sales: Units 401,
304, 105,404, and 204 Forest Court. The appellant's evidence shows that the subject property
has had fewer upgrades than any of the comparables. Four of the comparables are two-story
units while the subject is one story. Two-story residences receive a downward adjustment in
their building value calculation, as they typically have lower market values than one-story
residences with the same square footage. This explains why the subject property, a one-story
unit, is valued higher on a per-square-foot basis than some of the two-story units despite being
less updated.
• After adding the-5%Design Factor, the subject property would be assessed at$286 per square
foot. The median assessed value of the five comparables is$288 per square foot,keeping in
mind that four of these comparables are two-story units. The only one-story comparable,401
Forest Court, is assessed at$334 per square foot.
• With the-5%Design Factor,the county recommends a revised value of$326,100 for the
subject property.
1. Front and rear photos.
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
2. Appellant letters to the BOER
3. Appellant evidence
4. County analysis
5. Current property record card
6. Proposed property record card
7. GIS ma
Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $305,500 $268/SF
Made the motion Leon Meyers
Seconded the motion Saru Salvi
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against ...
Property Identification:
Property Owner Lisa S. Deloach Appellant(if different)
Property Address 101 Forest Court Parcel ID or Abstract 19779614873
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable property value.
Current Assessed Value $341,700 ounty Opinion $341,700
Time of Hearin 2:27 PM Appellant Opinion $334,600
County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $341,700 No Change
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• (See attached email transcript)
• The property referenced PIN 9779614873 has been valued$341,700. This is an unfair value. I
am appealing again because my neighbor who has the same townhouse and square footage was
valued at$334,600 504 Forest Court . How is thispossible?They are the same.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• A site visit by an appraiser was performed on 10/16/2025. The appellant was at home and
allowed access to the exterior of the property. Photos taken from the exterior are attached to
this documentation. No interior photos were provided.
• Appraiser observations and recommendations:
• 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of B-10 which is consistent with all townhomes in
Forest Court.No change to grade is recommended.
• 2. AGE: The residence was built in 1983 and has an effective year built of 1992. No change to
effective year built is recommended.
• 3. CONDITION: The residence is currently in Average condition, and no change is
recommended.
• 4. EQUITY ANALYSIS: The appeal is based on an equity comparison with 504 Forest Court
(PIN 9779614569). While both properties are one story and have similar square footages, the
subject property is an end unit while 504 Forest Court is an interior unit. The subject property
would presumably have a higher market value in comparison, all other aspects being equal.
• Also,the subject property is valued equitably with 106 Forest Court,which was reviewed by
the Board of Equalization and Review on September 24, 2025. The Board approved a value of
$341,700 for 106 Forest Court,the same value as the subject property. Both the properties are
end units and have the same square footage and characteristics.
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
• The county has included an equity analysis of five properties in Forest Court. Based on an
equity comparison, no change in value is recommended.
1. Appellant letter
2. GIS map
3. Exterior photos
4. County equity analysis
5. Current recommended property record
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $341,700 No Change
Made the motion Richal Vanhook
Seconded the motion Saru Salvi
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against ...
Property Identification:
Property Owner Deborah B. Nickell Appellant(if different)
Property Address 102 Dixie Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9880323252
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on appraisal.
Current Assessed Value $842,700 County Opinion $812,700
Time of Hearin 2:33 PM Appellant Opinion $750,000
County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $782,000(between county and
appraisal)
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• This house is my personal residence and is a duplex with a rented apartment. See appraisal:
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• The subject property is in NBC 7466 at 102 Dixie Drive,built in 1971 with 3,890 square feet.
After reviewing the submitted appraisal I find the property to be as the County list as a single-
family home with an in-law suite. The appraisal uses comps from different areas that only
compare to square footage with land values from 250K to 450K,Ac-9 and lot valued.
• I prepared an equity analysis of properties in NBC 7466 that indicate the subject property is
conformed to the neighborhood. The land is valued by lots and the property has a stream the
run through and with this taken in consideration County suggest reducing the land by-10%,
creating a new value of$812,700.
• Analysis
• Map
• Current Property Record Card
• Proposed Property Record Card
• GIS map
• Photo
County Recommendation:
0 The County recommends reducing the land for a new value of$812,700.
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $782,000(between county and
appraisal)
Made the motion Leon Meyers
Seconded the motion Saru Salvi
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Davin L. Stewart Appellant(if different)
Property Address 105 Noble Street I Parcel ID or Abstract 19788284671
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable property values.
Current Assessed Value $439,800 ounty Opinion $439,800
Time of Hearin 2:43 PM Appellant Opinion $450,000
County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $439,800 No Change
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• Recent Comparable Sale:
• The most applicable comps for this property average out to be $450k. 701 Church, 607
Church, 204 Caldwell.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• The subject property is a 2,227-sf single family home built in 1946 in the Northside area in
Chapel Hill.
• This neighborhood underwent a review per order of the BOER and a reduction was made to
this parcel reducing the value from$494,800 to the current value of$439,800 which is less
than the appellants opinion of value. a
• The County recommends no further change in value.
• Image of subject
• GIS Map
• Current Property Record Card
Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $439,800 No Change
Made the motion Saru Salvi
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Davin L. Stewart Appellant(if different)
Property Address 404 Holly Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 19799520809
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable property values.
Current Assessed Value 1 $581,600 County Opinion $581,600
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Time of Hearin 2:47 PM Appellant Opinion $450,000
County Re resentative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $581,600 No Change
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• The comps closest to our home average out to be$450k. 305 Birch, 904 Grove, 1502 Lamont.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• Subject property is in NBC 7418 at 404 Holly Lane,built in 1964 with 2,099 square feet. I
reviewed the submitted sales and 305 Birch sold in 2023 with 2,070s/f for$395,000, 904
Grove sold in 2023 with 2,193s/f for$451,000, and 1502 Lamont in 2024 with 1,742s/f for
$505,000.
• I created an analysis with 2024 sales of similar size and based on the data the County will
suggest no change in value.
• Analysis
• Maps
• Current Property Record Card
• Photo
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $581,600 No Change
Made the motion Richal Vanhook
Seconded the motion Saru Salvi
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Vanessa Jewell Appellant(if different)
Property Address 1401 Wildwood Drive I Parcel ID or Abstract 19799513876
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on purchase price, condition, and comparable
property values.
Current Assessed Value $653,800 ounty Opinion $608,800
Time of Hearin 3:21 PM Appellant Opinion $553,000
County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $608,800
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• The property was recently purchased for$547,000 (Sale recorded on 4/5/2022).
• Condition/Maintenance: The home needs major foundation repairs.
• Recent comparable sales: 904 Grove Street,415 Long Leaf Drive, and 305 Birch Circle.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• A county appraiser conducted a site review of the property on 10/16/2025. The appellant was
at home and allowed access to the exterior of the property. Interior photos were obtained from
an MLS listing for the sale in 2022.
• Appraiser observations and recommendations:
• 1. GRADE: The residence has a current grade of B. A grade of B-05 is recommended, as most
residences with roughly 2,100 square feet have a grade below a B in this neighborhood.
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
• 2. AGE: The residence was built in 1965 and has an effective year built of 1991. Interior
photos obtained from MLS show the residence has older cabinets,plumbing fixtures, and
baseboard heating. No significant issues to the foundation were observed during the exterior
review. An effective year built of 1980 is recommended.
• 3. CONDITION: The residence is currently in Average condition for its age, and no change is
recommended.
• 4. ANALYSIS OF SALES: The appellant has submitted three comparable sales. The sale of
904 Grove Street is considered unqualified, as it was bought by an investor(Opendoor)at
below market value. 415 Long Leaf Drive sold for$306 per square foot in 2024, and 305 Birch
Circle sold for$190 per square foot in 2023.
• The county conducted an analysis of five sales within the Briarcliff neighborhood and
determined a median sale price per square foot of$297. The properties used in the analysis are
considered to be of similar age and condition to the subject property. With the recommended
changes to grade and effective year built, the subject property would be assessed at$291 per
square foot.
• The county recommends the subject property be revalued from$653,800 to $608,800 with
changes to the grade and effective year built. The adjusted value is supported by the county's
sales analysis.
1. GIS map
2. Front and side photos
3. Interior photos obtained from MLS
4. Appellant's comparable sales
5. County's sales analysis.
6. Current property record
7. Proposed property record
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $608,800
Made the motion Saru Salvi
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Schopler Family LLC Appellant(if different)
Property Address 305 Brookside Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9788245407
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2023 fee appraisal.
Current Assessed Value $795,800 ounty Opinion $795,800
Time of Hearin 2:53 PM Appellant Opinion $650,000
County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision $795,800 No Change
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• The property was appraised by a fee paid appraiser on 11/2/2023. At that time,it was appraised
for$600,000. There is no way it went up in value by 32%in a little over a year.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
• On October 9th,the subject property located at 305 Brookside Drive in Chapel Hill was visited
by Tanner Valuation Group. The appraisal submitted by the appellant as evidence includes
comparable properties located outside of the immediate neighborhood, as well as sales from
within the neighborhood dated from 2021 and 2022.
• A sales analysis conducted for the subject neighborhood identifies multiple additional sales
that occurred within the neighborhood in more recent years—specifically in 2023 and 2024.
Notably, a sale on May 30,2023, at 321 McCauley Street supports the current 2025 revaluation
of the subject property.
• Based on this analysis, the County recommends no value change to the current assessed value.
• NBH 7162 Sales Analysis
• Comparable Report
• Review of comparables provided in appellant's evidence.
• Photos
• GIS Ma
Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $795,800 No Change
Made the motion Leon Meyers
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Li's Investment LLC Appellant(if different)
Property Address 104 Riverbirch Point I Parcel ID or Abstract 19778526232
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition and 2025 flooding.
Current Assessed Value $438,600 1 County Opinion $438,600
Time of Hearin 3:27 PM Appellant Opinion $380,000
County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $399,600(account for portion of
land in flood lain
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• I bought this house as foreclosure property,paid$160,500, and rent it out as rental property.
Everything is out of date, and in need of lots of repairs.I do not agree that this house worth
above $400,000.
• July 6th the property was flooded.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• The subject property is located at 104 Riverbirch Point in Carrboro. A site visit was conducted
on June 11,2025. At that time, a hang tag was left requesting additional information and
asking the taxpayer to contact me.
• The initial reason for appealing the value was based on purchase price and condition.
However, the sale was a foreclosure from 2013 and is not considered a qualified transaction or
relevant for the 2025 revaluation. The taxpayer and I have exchanged several emails regarding
the possibility of an interior inspection. The taxpayer noted that the property is tenant-
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
occupied. I asked her to let me know when she might be available to meet in person or if she
could provide interior photos of the home's condition.Unfortunately,we were unable to
arrange a suitable time to meet, and no photos were submitted.
• On July 9,the taxpayer emailed me stating that the home had sustained flood damage during
Tropical Storm Chantal and included photos and videos documenting the damage. I explained
that while I would make note of the situation and include the submitted materials in her appeal
file, the assessment must reflect the property's condition as of January 1, 2025, in accordance
with statutory guidelines. As no relevant evidence could be obtained to document interior
condition as of January 1, 2025,no change in value is recommended.
1. Subject property photos
2. Property record card before changes
3. GIS ma
Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $399,600(account for portion of
land in floodplain)
Made the motion Leon Meyers
Seconded the motion Saru Salvi
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Neal H. Bench Appellant(if different)
Property Address 397 Lakeshore Lane I Parcel ID or Abstract 19890109512
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on values of comparable properties.
Current Assessed Value $702,000 ounty Opinion $679,700
Time of Hearin 3:42 PM Appellant Opinion $618,000
County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $679,700
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• As illustrated on the attached spreadsheet,we have reviewed our property's assessed value per
square foot with the valuations of 17 homes in our neighborhood all within the same
subdivision and adjacent to our property. The average per sq. ft. valuation of our neighbors is
$286. Our per sq. ft. valuation is $325, 14%greater than the average. We believe that a
valuation closer to the average of$286 per square foot or$618,000 would be more equitable
than the current valuation of$702,000. The requested valuation of$618,000 is still 36%higher
than our 2024 valuation,which would result in an approximate 13%increase in our upcoming
total property tax bill as compared to the prior year. A 13%increase in one's property tax bill
is significant in any year especially in a year when budgeted County and City tax revenue
increases are 4%or less. We have made no changes to our property. We thank you for your
time and consideration regarding this request.Neal and Jeanette Bench
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• The subject property is a one-story home with some finished basement, in NBC 7492 at 397
Lakeshore Ln.,built in 1974 with 2,160 square feet.
• I reviewed the submitted documentation and the and it clearly show the size of the living area
to determine price per square foot,with the exception of 406 Lakeshore had renovations and
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
407 Lakeshore Ln was built in 2017 with guest house.Also 2537 and 2541 are from NBC 7409
which has a land value base of$325,000.
• I created an analysis of three sales of similar size Comp#1 has been maintained where comp
#2 has been renovated, and comp#3 had a kitchen renovation. This you can see confirms the
assessed values. Comparable#2 is more comparable with the difference being the renovations.
• Based of the reviewed information the County suggest lowering the effective age from 1984 to
1974 for a new value of$679,700.
• Analysis
• Current Property Record Card
• Proposed Property Record Card
• Maps
• GIS ma
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $679,700
Made the motion Saru Salvi
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Yu n j u n mu Appellant(if different)
Property Address 2210 E. Old Oxford Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9799396178
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on flooding.
Current Assessed Value $249,400 ounty Opinion $249,400
Time of Hearin 3:50 PM Appellant Opinion $120,000
County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $237,000(for flooding)
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• This vacant lot is on the Booker Creek stormwater runoff pathway. "It is constantly flooded
with a hue impact on property value".
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• The FEMA mapped floodplain is far to the west of the subject property as shown on the GIS
map. If a house is built on this lot,the reputable builder will excavate swales to channel surface
water around the house.
• There are few qualified sales of vacant property in this neighborhood. For the value analysis I
found only 3 comparable and all are $0 value transfers. The subject falls between the average
and median variance for land value and value per acre.
1. Photos
2. Flood map
3. Equity analysis
4. Current property record card
5. Correspondence
Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $237,000 for floodin
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Made the motion Leon Meyers
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For Saru Salvi
Voted Against ...
Property Identification:
Property Owner Randy Thomas Horton Appellant(if different)
Property Address 2.81 acres on Webb Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19779314745
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value due to lack of public water and sewer access.
Current Assessed Value $408,200 ounty Opinion $326,500
Time of Hearin 4:06 PM Appellant Opinion $210,750
County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision $326,500
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• The property currently lacks access to public water and sewer services and has no road
frontage. Additionally,there is a significant cost associated with extending water and sewer
infrastructure to the site, as substantial fees are owed to OWASA for development.
• Given these limitations and the financial burden required for utility access and development,
the land should be valued at$75,000 per acre.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• The subject property consists of 2.81 acres of vacant land located behind 1020 Hillsborough
Road in Chapel Hill. A site visit was conducted on October 1 st by County staff, accompanied
by the current property owner,Randy Horton.
• This parcel is undeveloped and has never been improved. A recorded easement for Parcel
9779327032 runs along the north side of the property line. In addition, state-maintained dead-
end signage restricts access via Webb Drive, effectively limiting direct entry to the lot.
• Based on these access limitations and the presence of the easement,the County recommends
applying a-20%negative influence adjustment to the land value. This results in a revised 2025
assessed value of$326,500.
• Current Property Record Card
• Proposed Property Record Card
• Photos
• GIS Ma
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $326,500
Made the motion Saru Salvi
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Randy Thomas Horton Appellant(if different)
Property Address 1030 Hillsborough Road Parcel ID or Abstract 19779327032
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value due to lack of public water and sewer access.
Current Assessed Value $505,200 County Opinion $470,600
Time of Hearin 4:06 PM Appellant Opinion $168,750
County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision $470,600
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• The property currently lacks access to public water and sewer services and has no road
frontage. Additionally,there is a significant cost associated with extending water and sewer
infrastructure to the site, as substantial fees are owed to OWASA for development.
• Given these limitations and the financial burden required for utility access and development,
the land should be valued at$75,000 per acre.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• The subject property, located at 1030 Hillsborough Road,was visited on October 1st by county
staff, accompanied by the current owner,Randy Horton.
• During the site visit,the property owner disclosed that the house currently utilizes a private
water and sewer system and is occupied by one tenant.While the property would require
significant infrastructure investment to connect to OWASA services, it does currently have
access to a private system,which supports basic living needs.
• Access to the property via Webb Drive is restricted. The current access point for the tenant is
through a deeded ingress and egress easement originating from a 1954 survey when Mack
Williams owned the property. This easement provides access from Old Highway 86,now
known as Hillsborough Road.
• During the inspection, it was noted that topography constraints limit the usable acreage,
particularly in the rear portion of the approximately two-acre parcel. These site limitations also
help explain the current placement of the house on the property.
• Based on these observations, the County recommends applying a-10%negative topography
adjustment to the land value. This results in a revised 2025 value of$470,600.
• Current Property Record Card
• Proposed Property Record Card
• Deed 9779327032
• Photos
• GIS Ma
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $470,600
Made the motion Richal Vanhook
Seconded the motion Saru Salvi
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Property Identification:
Property Owner Frances B.Shackelford Appellant(if different)
Property Address 3714 Brockwell Road Parcel ID or Abstract 19882943478
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition of adjacent parcel and offer-to-
purchase letter.
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Current Assessed Value $333,900 County Opinion $296,100
Time of Hearin 4:35 PM Appellant Opinion $300,000
County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $296,100
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• The appellant states that the subject property was purchased for$93,000. The appellant further
contends that the adjacent property, located at 3708 Brockwell Road, is in such poor condition
that it would significantly impact the potential resale value of the subject property.
• As supporting evidence,the appellant submitted an offer-to-purchase letter dated April 29,
2025, from an investor offering $296,554.80 for the property. The appellant also included
photographs of the adjacent property at 3708 Brockwell Road to demonstrate its alleged lack of
maintenance.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• Property Summary and Recommendation: The subject property is a 1.54-acre tract improved
with a 1,704-square-foot single-family residence located at 3714 Brockwell Road in Durham.
The appellant reports that the property was purchased for$93,000; however,the County did
not consider this sale, as it occurred in May 1996 and is therefore not reflective of current
market conditions.
• As supporting documentation,the appellant submitted an offer-to-purchase letter from an
investor dated April 29, 2025, indicating an offer price of$296,554.80. The County contends
that this offer does not represent true market value, as it originated from an investor seeking to
acquire property at discounted rates. The appellant also asserts that the adjacent property at
3708 Brockwell Road is in poor condition and negatively impacts the subject property's resale
potential. Several photographs of the adjacent parcel were provided in support of this claim.
• The County conducted an on-site inspection for verification and documentation purposes.
During this visit, staff spoke with the appellant and confirmed that the subject property does
not have a well. A subsequent sales analysis of the neighborhood was performed. Based on the
findings,the County recommends a-20%land adjustment to account for the lack of a well.
Additionally,the County recommends revising the effective year built from 1997 to 1987 to
better reflect the dwelling's observed condition. With these adjustments applied,the revised
assessed value for the subject property is $296,100.
• Subject Photo
• GIS Aerial Photo
• Sales Analysis(Subject Assessed Without Recommended Changes)
• Sales Analysis(Subject Assessed With Recommended Changes)
• Current Property Record Card
• Proposed Property Record Card
Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $296,100
Made the motion Saru Salvi
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
Property Identification:
Property Owner IFrances B.Shackelford Appellant(if different)
Property Address 13718 Brockwell Road I Parcel ID or Abstract 19882945420
Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on vacant lot and Zillow value estimate.
Current Assessed Value $67,400 County Opinion 1 $52,800
Time of Hearin 4:40 PM Appellant Opinion $38,700
County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $52,800
Evidence submitted by the appellant:
• The appellant states that the subject property is essentially a vacant lot, as they do not own the
single-wide mobile home currently situated on it. The appellant further indicates that their
opinion of value was derived from an online estimate obtained from Zillow.com.
• As supporting documentation,the appellant submitted an offer-to-purchase letter dated April
29, 2025, from an investor offering$296,554.80 for the adjacent property located at 3714
Brockwell Road. The appellant also provided photographs of the neighboring property at 3708
Brockwell Road to illustrate its alleged lack of maintenance.
Evidence submitted by the county representative:
• Property Summary and Recommendation:
• The subject property is a 0.92-acre tract located at 3718 Brockwell Road in Durham. The
parcel is improved with a single-wide mobile home, which is listed and assessed separately as
personal property. The appellant states that their opinion of value was derived from
Zillow.com,which estimates the property's value at$38,700.As supporting documentation,
the appellant provided an offer-to-purchase letter dated April 29, 2025, for the adjacent lot
located at 3714 Brockwell Road, as well as photographs of a neighboring property at 3708
Brockwell Road,which the appellant contends is poorly maintained and adversely affects the
subject property's market value.
• The County reviewed the appellant's materials and conducted a physical inspection of the
property for verification purposes. The offer to purchase (dated April 29, 2025)was from an
investor seeking to acquire land at discounted rates, and therefore does not represent true
market value. Similarly,the Zillow.com estimate cited by the appellant is not a reliable
indicator of market value as of January 1,2025, as it is based on automated modeling and does
not account for site-specific factors. Accordingly,the County finds that the appellant has not
provided sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof in support of their opinion of value of
$38,700.
• During the inspection,the County confirmed that the subject property shares a well with an
adjacent lot. The irregular shape of the tract was also noted as a factor that would likely have a
negative impact on marketability. To account for these issues,the County recommends
revising the current land adjustment from Shape to Market(Shape and Shared Well)and
increasing the adjustment amount from-10%to-30%.Based on these changes, the revised
assessed value for the subject property is $52,800.
Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17
• GIS Aerial Photo
• Current Property Record Card
• Proposed Property Record Card
Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $52,800
Made the motion Saru Salvi
Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook
Voted For All BOER Members
Voted Against ...
Chair of the Signed by:
Leon Meyers
11/12/2025
Recording Se �`sn a er
Rob Teachout l�a,aR
11/12/2025