The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025_12_09 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on December 9, 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 Office Assistant Jennifer Ri sbee Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Appraiser Bill Hiltbold Appraiser Dana Hall Appraiser Heidi Whetzel Appraiser Scott Zeman Appraiser Jimmy Milliken Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:01PM William S.Totten Jr. 0805656500 Yes Value-Real 2 1:44PM Finbar J. Gallagher 9880159147 Yes Value-Real 3 1:59PM Caroline M. Sherman 9799191128 Yes Value-Real 4 2:15PM Edward Philip Bala Keen 9789724957 No Value-Real Trustee 5 2:25PM Robin John Unwin 9787052207.009 No Value-Real 6 2:31PM Condoza Pinnix Jeffries 9837565115 No Value-Real 7 2:36PM Maury D. Klein 9769497169 Yes Value-Real 8 2:59PM Gabriel Adam Jones 9779050159 No Value-Real 9 3:04PM John Rubin 9779922471 Yes Value-Real 10 3:22PM Patricia L. Neville 9768134660 No Value-Real 11 3:27PM Melissa Cramer 9799420864 No Value-Real 12 3:35PM Justin M. Chandler 0910246642 No Value-Real 13 3:39PM Evans Estates REI LLC 9861028152 Yes Value-Real 14 3:55PM Adeyemi Ogunleye 9768684975 Yes Value-Real 15 4:09PM John D. Billing 9749998564 Yes Value-Real 16 4:19PM John D. Billing 9759260937 Yes Value-Real Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Time B Meeting called to order 1:01PM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 4:30PM Leon Meyers Motion Time By Second To move into recess 2:11PM Leon Meyers Richal Vanhook To return to order 2:14PM Leon Meyers Saru Salvi Related meeting notes: Saru Salvi motioned to rescind the original consent agenda vote from 12/03/25 on PIN 9788394516.005 and to revise the value to $460,900. Richal Vanhook seconded the motion and the motion carried. There were no objections. Property Identification: Property Owner William S.Totten Jr. Appellant(if different) Property Address 6615 Craig Road Parcel ID or Abstract 0805656500 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on age of portion of house, upper story ceiling height, and conservation easement. Current Assessed Value $1,011,009 ounty Opinion $822,193 Time of Hearin 1:01PM Appellant Opinion $1,000,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $699,400 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • 60-70%of the house was built in 1972, added on in 2004 • Throughout the upstairs the ceilings are less than 7 ft. • Conservation Easement applied; IRS validated a property value reduction of 48% Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 3,108-sf single family home with 3 bedrooms, 3 & 1/2 baths built in 1972 with an addition in 2004 on 30.58 acres in Durham, on the Orange County line. • The county line divides the parcel. • The property is already receiving a-30%adjustment for the Conservation Easement added in 2023. The home is also receiving an additional 10%layout depreciation due to the low ceilings upstairs. • Based on the documentation provided, the County recommends *Correcting the full bath count from 2 to 3, *Correcting the front open porch to screened porch and *Increasing the Conservation Easement adjustment from -30%to -50% Resulting in a reduction in total market value from$1,011,009 to$822,193. Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Land: $486,593 Building: $311,600 SF/YI: $24,000 Total: $822,193 • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $699,400 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Finbar I Gallagher Appellant(if different) Property Address 109 Tremont Cir. Parcel ID or Abstract 19880159147 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on a comparable sale. Current Assessed Value $735,000 ounty Opinion $702,000 Time of Hearin 1:44PM Appellant Opinion $611,832 County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $702,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • 111 Tremont Circle, a 10%larger house(3032 vs 2756 sq ft)and with 5 instead of 4 bedrooms, sold for$672,500 on Dec 19,2024. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • I visited the property and updated the bay windows and dimensions of the lower deck. Exterior photos show the decks need maintenance. The analysis report confirms the property is slightly over valued from the mean and median of close comparisons by roughly$34,000. • The county suggests changing the condition from average to fair and the effective year built from 1996 to the year built of 1995. These changes would reduce the building value $33,000 to $402,000 and the total property value from$735,000 to$702,000. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Analysis Report • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board I Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $702,000 Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Caroline M. Sherman Appellant(if different) Property Address I Lot 44R, Markham Drive I Parcel ID or Abstract 19799191128 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on Resource Conservation District due to Lower Booker Creek and associated flood plain. Current Assessed Value $348,000 ounity Opinion $348,000 Time of Hearin 1:59PM Appellant Opinion $34,800 County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $304,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Almost the entire property lies within the Resource Conservation District due to Lower Booker Creek and associated flood plain. {as defined 3.6.3 Resource Conservation District https://www.j ordanrivercommission.gov/wp- content/uploads/2011/04/Stormwater_RCD_LUMO_ChapelHill.pdf} Taking into account the required setback from Markham Drive, essentially no house can be built on the lot. The property is restricted to use such as open space and wildlife sanctuary that do not require use of fertilizers,pesticides, fences, or walls. Thus, we believe the proper current market value as of January 1, 2025,was zero dollars. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • A small house can be built on this property and still be clear of setbacks. The back deck could encroach the Resource Conservation District as long as the floor is at least 18 inches above the elevation of the RCD. There is currently a 20%reduction to the land value from a recent informal appeal. The County recommends no further adjustment to property value. • GIS Map • Photo of Subject • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $304,500 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Property Owner Edward Philip Bala Keen Appellant(if different) Trustee Property Address 312 Burla e Circle Parcel ID or Abstract 9789724957 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable values and condition of home. Current Assessed Value $884,200 ounty Opinion $880,900 Time of Hearin 2:15PM Appellant Opinion $750,000 County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $880,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Several homes in the neighborhood of comparable quality and size are valued at well below $800,000, including 343 Burlage Circle and 107 Meadowbrook Drive. We also know that the market has changed in the last several months and now homes are sitting on the market and not selling, so the 2024 prices are in many respects inflated. We have not done major improvements,no added square footage, and over time the condition of the home has depreciated as would be expected. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a single-family dwelling with a detached garage apartment. I visited the property and found Building 1 to be one foot shorter than sketched and there is a 52 square foot overhang on the back which I labeled LQ. These changes to Building 1 correct its living area to 2,962 square feet. Building 2, the garage apartment has a storage room on the right side which I added to the sketch and relabeled the second story area LQ (living area)over AG(garage). These changes raise the building value about$30,000. • There had been a storage building on the property which I removed from yard items. This lowers the yard item value$2,800. • It is difficult to compare properties with multiple dwellings on the lot with single family dwellings alone. I have highlighted in blue the 2 properties presented by the appellant as comparisons in the top section of the analysis report.Note that both are single dwellings on their lots as seen in the "Bldg Seq" column whereas the subject has 2 dwellings. I filtered the neighborhood for similar size buildings also graded B+10 as the subject and found 5 comparisons. They too are single dwelling properties as are all but 1 of the qualified sales in 2023 and 2024. For this appeal the County suggests focus on the median numbers. They are central value and not swayed by extremes as are averages. The subject is currently valued less than the medians of close comparisons in total value and well below the median sale price per square foot which may indicate undervaluation. However, sales are usually recently renovated whereas this property has deteriorated. If the Board accepts the recommended changes as well as a reduction of effective year built from 1998 to 1979, the building value would decrease by $500 to $480,900,the yard items value by$2,800 to $0, and total property value from $884,200 to $880,900. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Analysis Report • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board I Accept County's Proposed Value: $880,900 Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Robin John Unwin Appellant(if different) Property Address 701 Copperline Drive Unit Parcel ID or Abstract 9787052207.009 205 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on per cent of increase, a comparable sale, and condition of home. Current Assessed Value $326,800 ounty Opinion $320,200 Time of Hearin 2:25PM Appellant Opinion $290,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $320,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • To go from$188,400 tax assessment value in 2024 to$326,800 is a 73.5%increase which is egregious. An increase of$138,400 far exceeds average market appreciation rates in Orange Co. Property value appreciation in most residential markets has been more gradual and rarely exceeds 10-15%annually in stable markets. Furthermore, a review of tax records indicates that similar or even superior properties in nearby communities are assessed much lower, in the range of$250,000 to $280,000. • 700 Market Street, #217 sold for$287,000 in June 2024. It has almost the exact same square footage(745) and is a 1 bedroom 1 bath unit,just like ours. • As noted in the informal appeal, we have made no improvements since buying the property, other than a new water heater. All the systems in the house such as the HVAC is original. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The property is a 750 square foot, one bedroom, 1.5 bath condominium in the Copperline Square Development in the Southern Village area of Chapel Hill. The home sold previously in June 2022 for$267,000. There have been no other similar sales in the subject development since 2022. • As a result, the County performed a sales and equity analysis with similar sales from other condominium developments in Southern Village from 2023 and 2024. See attached. • As a result of this analysis,the County recommends applying an E02 economic market adjustment to the subject property's overall value which would reduce the current value to $320,200, which is in range of both the sales prices and assessed values of these similar sales. • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Sales and Equity Analysis Motion of the Board I Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $320,200 Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Condoza Pinnix Jeffries Appellant(if different) Property Address 8.47 acre Unimproved Parcel ID or Abstract 9837565115 parcel on Harmony Church Road Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on land restrictions(creek)and comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $143,400 County Opinion $107,600 Time of Hearin 2:31PM Appellant Opinion $80,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $107,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • In the appellant's appeal form she states that the"creek has restrictions for use on the property." As part of her documentation, she included four qualified land sales in the area from 2023 and 2024 ranging in size from 2.72 acres to 22.81 acres and ranging in value from$9,800 per acre to $31,912 per acre. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a 8.47-acre vacant parcel on Harmony Church Road in Efland and is valued at $16,930 per acre. In analyzing the appellant's provided sales, it is unclear how the appellant's estimated value of$80,000 or$9,445 per acre was determined. The appellant's lowest valued comp of 10 acres at$98,000 or$9,800 an acre has no road frontage and is adjusted downward 20%for access. Similarly, the next most similar sized comp of 5.21 acres is valued at$13,743 an acre but also does not have road frontage and is accessed by a private access/utility easement. The two other comparables, a 2.72-acre and a 22.81- acre parcel were not considered because of their significant size differences. • Upon review, the County does recognize that the subject has somewhat of an unusual shape and a creek running through the front of the site,both of which are hindrances to development. For this reason,the County recommends applying a-25%market adjustment to the property to account for its shape and the creek influence which would reduce the overall valuation of the subject to $107,200 or$12,656 per acre. • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $107,600 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Voted For I All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Maury D. Klein Appellant(if different) Property Address 510 Quinn Court I Parcel ID or Abstract 19769497169 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the condition of home,yard item value, and comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $814,900 ounty Opinion $739,700 Time of Hearin 2:36PM Appellant Opinion $586,800 County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $739,700 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" square footage 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/square foot & $142/square foot respectively,but those homes have much more orthodox floor plans. Therefore, $135/square foot 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 $245,000 or even$150,000 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 Evidence submitted by the county representative: • This single-family residence has low and sloped ceilings. The single-story portion has a finished attic but none of the ceilings are more than 7 feet above the floor. The second floor over the garage has a vaulted ceiling with the center portion above 7 feet. I calculate the living area for the entire house at 3,685,the same as an earlier fee appraisal. A small addition since calculates to a present area of 3,734 sf. • The neighborhood analysis lists the appellant presented comparisons (shown in blue)and the 3 qualified recent sales as more than 500 square feet smaller than the subject and 2 of them have a land discount for power lines. The subject is presently between the mean and median of total value and sale price per square foot of the close comparisons. • The county recommends changing the story height from 1 to 1.25, effective year built from 1990 to the year built of 1988 and adding a 10%functional depreciation for the low ceilings in the finished attic. If the Board accepts these adjustments the building value would decrease by $75,200 to $462,900 and total property value would decrease from$814,900 to $739,700. Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 • Photo • GIS Map • Analysis report • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $739,700 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Gabriel Adam Jones Appellant(if different) Property Address 102 Michaels Way Parcel ID or Abstract 9779050159 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on perceived incorrect assessment of year-to- year percentage increase from original purchase date appraisal value. Current Assessed Value $782,900 ounty Opinion $782,900 Time of Hearin 2:59PM Appellant Opinion $672,152 County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $782,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Incorrect assessment of year-to-year percentage increase from original purchase date appraisal value. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 102 Michaels Way in Chapel Hill. A site visit was conducted on November 12, 2025, and the home appeared to be in average condition,with an Actual Year Built of 2001 and an Effective Year Built of 2009.No evidence was provided by the appellant. The property was purchased in October of 2020 for an amount equal to $188 per square foot, which is lower than all of the comparable indicators. The assessed value is$249 per square foot, which aligns with the market data. Based on the size, age, grade, and the overall sales analysis,the current assessment is supported, and no value change is recommended • Subject Property Photo • Current Property Record Card • Comparable Properties Photos • Sales Analysis • GIS Map Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $782,900 No Change in Value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner John Rubin Appellant(if different) Property Address 105 Bolton Place I Parcel ID or Abstract 19779922471 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on lot size and easement, offer to purchase, and a comparable sale. Current Assessed Value $300,000 County Opinion $270,000 Time of Hearin 3:04PM Appellant Opinion $200,000 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $270,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • At 0.27 acres, 105 Bolton Place is one of the smallest lots in the Ironwoods neighborhood. The lot also has a drainage easement, making the buildable area even smaller. • An unsolicited buyer has offered to purchase the lot at 105 Bolton Place for$193,000. • A similar vacant lot at 105 Oldham Place was put up for sale in May 2025 for$200,000. The lot sold for$160,000 on November 14, 2025. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 0.27-acre unimproved lot in the Ironwoods neighborhood. The appellants own and reside on the adjacent property. • A county appraiser conducted a site review of the property on 12/3/2025 to take photographs and check the drainage easement. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: 1. LAND VALUE: A A0%adjustment should be applied to account for the drainage easement and for the lot being smaller than average for the Ironwoods neighborhood. 2. SALES ANALYSIS: An extraction analysis of six sales in Ironwoods justifies the valuation of$300,000 per lot. The analysis yielded an average land value of$304,950 and a median of$313,300. • Regarding the sale of 105 Oldham Place,the sale occurred after the revaluation date of l/l/2025 and should not be considered for equity reasons. Even if the sale were to be considered, it appears to have been a distressed sale involving a power of attorney. • The county recommends a revised valuation of$270,000 with a-10% adjustment for the drainage easement. • Photos of subject property • Appellant letter and evidence • Supplemental letter and evidence • Sales analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $270,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Patricia L. Neville Appellant(if different) Property Address 1501 Old Greensboro Parcel ID or Abstract 9768134660 Road Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on road construction reducing parcel size and visible cell tower. Current Assessed Value $347,000 ounty Opinion $332,900 Time of Hearin 3:22PM Appellant Opinion Not Provided County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision $332,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The state moved the road closer to our house,which reduced the acreage of our 2.2-acre lot. In addition, a cell phone tower was installed directly in our front yard view, creating a nuisance and negatively affecting the value of our property. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On November 19,2025, an appraiser conducted a site visit to review the formal appeal submitted. During the visit, it was observed that several cars and trucks were using the Old Greensboro Highway for travel, resulting in slightly more passing traffic than would typically be expected on a normal two-lane state-maintained road. The view from the front yard was also documented, including the visible cell phone tower. The taxpayer additionally noted that the tower's lights at night create further inconvenience. • For these reasons, the County recommends a-10% land influence adjustment,reducing the value of the 2.2 acres to a proposed$127,200. • Photo of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $332,900 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Property Owner Melissa Cramer Appellant(if different) Property Address 1108 Willow Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19799420864 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on land valuation, flood zone/insurance-cost, and condition of home. Current Assessed Value $469,000 ounty Opinion 1 $351,500 Time of Hearin 3:27PM Appellant Opinion $330,000 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $351,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Land valuation: The property is located in a FEMA-designated high-risk flood zone. • Flood Insurance Costs and Damages: Flood insurance costs of$2,421 per year and over $11,000 in flood-related repairs this past year. • Market Penalty for Flood Risk: Homes in high-risk flood zones typically sell for 5%to 15% less than comparable properties outside such zones • Required Capital Improvements-To bring the home to a marketable condition, the following major updates are necessary: o New roof: $20,000—$30,000 o New HVAC system: $15,000 o Updated kitchen: $30,000—$50,000 Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 2,131-square foot single family residence on 0.59 acres in the Briarcliff neighborhood. The property was significantly affected by Tropical Depression Chantal in July of 2025. • A site visit by an appraiser was performed on 12/3/2025 The appellant was at home and allowed access to the property's exterior for photographs and a review of physical characteristics. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of C+10.No change to grade is recommended. 2. AGE: The residence was built in 1966 and currently has an effective year built of 1991. No change to effective year built is recommended. 3. CONDITION: The property was flooding during Tropical Depression Chantal with floodwaters reaching the bottom of the rear porch. Since the flooding occurred after January 1, 2025,no change to condition can be supported for 2025. However, the condition can be adjusted for 2026 if necessary. 4. LAND VALUE: A-50%adjustment should be applied to the land value to account for the flood zone. The land value would be reduced to $150,000 from the base lot price of$300,000. 5. ECONOMIC DEPRECIATION: A -20%Economic deprecation factor should be applied to the building value to account for flood insurance costs. • With these changes,the county recommends the subject property's value be revised to $351,500. • Photos of subject • Appellant letter to the board • Invoice for crawl space repair • Flood insurance documentation Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 • Roof repair estimate • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $351,500 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Justin M. Chandler A ellant(if different) Property Address 9900 NC 57 Parcel ID or Abstract 10910246642 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on yard items no longer on property. Current Assessed Value $722,874 County Opinion $817,874 Time of Hearin 3:35PM Appellant Opinion $465,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $817,874 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Structures and land items appraised are no longer on the property. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a single-family home with 1,080-sf, 3 bedrooms and 1 bath built in 1900 on 80.52 acres of land with a paved racetrack and several outbuildings. • A site visit was conducted by Tanner Valuations Group; the property was gated but they noted buildings that were no longer on the property as well as new outbuildings and that the home was updated with an addition. • Another site visit was arranged with the owner,but when the appraisers arrived, they were asked by the owner not to leave the vehicle to measure the buildings due to dogs on the property. • No plans or permits could be found as the property is in PUV. The homeowner did not provide plans for the home renovation or new outbuildings. The home and buildings were measured using Google aerials. • The County recommends updating the sketch,home information and outbuildings: o Home: ■ increasing the square footage from 1,080 to 1,792 ■ adding combo heat and A/C, ■ increasing the grade from D to C ■ increasing the effective year built from 1930 to 1980. o Outbuildings: ■ removing 2 garages 3 storage buildings,2 sheds,pavement, and fence ■ adding garage ■ adding pole barn as lean-to Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 • These proposed changes would result in an increase in total market value from$722,874 to $817.874. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $817,874 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Evans Estates REI LLC Appellant(if different) Property Address Lots 3 and A,G and B Parcel ID or Abstract 9861028152 Farm Lane Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on limitations that diminish the marketability and usability of the property. Current Assessed Value $471,900 ounty Opinion $294,900 Time of Hearin 3:39PM Appellant Opinion $152,400 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $294,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Inappropriate Comparables Used in Valuation• The proposed value appears to be based on nearby subdivision developments (i.e.. Tuscany and South Creek)with completed homes starting at$600,000+. This is not an appropriate comparison for my property,which is raw, undeveloped land. •My property is located in the Rural Buffer Zoning District,while many of the comparables are in the Chapel Hill District,which has different zoning regulations, infrastructure, and desirability factors. •No adjacent or nearby properties (within 1 mile) are similarly situated all are developed with residences or income-producing improvements. Overvaluation Relative to Actual Market Value Based on research of comparable land sales within 1 mile,no similarly-sized undeveloped parcels have sold for values supporting the proposed assessment. The significant site preparation costs,regulatory hurdles, and usability restrictions severely diminish the market appeal and potential resale value of the property. • Overhead Powerlines and Easements: • A significant portion of the property is impacted by overhead powerlines, rendering approximately 1.1 acres unusable for building,animal housing, or irrigation due to safety and aesthetic concerns. •Utility easements further restrict land use, requiring me to maintain vegetation and granting utility companies access for installation and maintenance. This property has significant natural and man-made limitations that diminish its marketability and usability: Creek and Floodplain Impacts: •A creek crosses the entrance to the property, creating .8 acres of unusable land per Orange County UDO creek buffer requirements. •Crossing the creek for access requires substantial engineering: two 90-inch Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 metal pipes(7.5 feet each) costing$241,248 to cross the creek and create a private driveway. - The front portion of the property experiences annual flooding and is swampy,further reducing utility. Topographical Challenges: •The back acreage contains rocky terrain that cannot support grass growth and has perc issues in some areas,limiting septic and building feasibility. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property consists of 11.9 acres located in NBC 7011,which carries a base land rate of$130,000 per acre under the AC-9 pricing model. This base rate was established using the extraction method, supported by two 2024 sales: 1514 Arthur Minnis Road and 124 Zoia Lane. The attached analysis also includes a display of comparable properties enrolled in the Present Use Value(PUV)program, 6707 Union Grove Church Road. • County staff reviewed the submitted information,including the recorded plat. The current assessment includes a—20%land adjustment to account for shape and stream influence. Upon further review, additional factors affecting usability and marketability were identified, including: Significant topographical limitations: Overhead power line encumbrances, and two 130-foot stream buffers that restrict development potential. • To appropriately reflect these combined constraints, staff recommend increasing the land adjustment from—20%to—50%. • Applying the revised—50%land adjustment results in a new land value of$294,900. Therefore, the County recommends modifying the land adjustment as outlined. • Analysis • Sale Map • Plat • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $294,900 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: FP—rope FP—roperty Owner Ade emi Ogunleye Appellant if different Property Address 629 Council Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 19768684975 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $1,260,600 ounty Opinion $1,155,500 Time of Hearin 3:55PM Appellant Opinion $900,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $1,155,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 • Two closest property sales do not support this valuation. 639 Pine Acres is nearest sale and closest valuation for area: 3 bed, 1,525 sq ft home on 1.52 acres sold for$115,000. Compare to our 3.5-acre lot and 3 bed home at 4,600 sq ft is a multiple of four,not 10. 209 Newberry Lane is another comparable sale but different neighborhood. 3,600 sq ft, 5 bed home on a smaller lot,however, has proximity to Hatch and on city sewer and water which raises value considerably, sold at 825,000. There is no comparable home size sale in past 2 years in this neighborhood, so caution in assessment is reasonable. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 629 Council Lane in NBC 7042. The home was built in 2022 and contains 4,613 square feet of living area. • County staff reviewed the submitted data and conducted an analysis of the subject's neighborhood. There were limited sales available, and no sales of homes comparable in size or land characteristics to the subject property. Based on this review,the subject property appears to be over-improved for the neighborhood,prompting the need to extend the search beyond NBC 7042. • County staff analyzed properties both within the neighborhood and two comparable properties outside NBC 7042. Since land rates vary between neighborhoods,the analysis focused primarily on the building component to evaluate how the subject compares to similar high- square-footage dwellings. • Based on the findings,the County recommends applying additional 10%depreciation for functional obsolescence due to the subject property's over-improvement relative to the surrounding market. This adjustment results in a revised value of$1,155,500. • With the application of functional obsolescence depreciation,the County recommends adjusting the value to $1,155,500. • Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Maps • GIS Map • Photo of Subject Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $1,155,500 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner John D. Billing Appellant(if different) Property Address 8712 Dodsons Crossroads Parcel ID or Abstract 19749998564 Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on third-party appraisal to establish value backdated to 12/31/2024. Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Current Assessed Value $674,000 County Opinion $497,700 Time of Hearin 4:09PM Appellant Opinion $488,500 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $497,700 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Third-party appraisal to establish value backdated to 12/31/2024. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1-bedroom, 1.5-bathroom barn dominium-style residence located on 16 acres. It is 882 square feet of living space over a 2,107-square-foot unheated workshop/garage. • A county appraiser performed a site visit on 12/3/2025. The appellant was at home and allowed access to the exterior of the property for photos and verification of property characteristics. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of C+10. No change to grade is recommended. 2. AGE: The residence was built in 2015 and has an effective year built of 2015.No change to effective year built is recommended. 3. CONDITION: The residence is currently in Average condition.No change to condition is recommended. 4. YARD ITEMS: The current property record indicates a 12'x16' storage building which was not observed on the property during the site review. The structure should be removed, lowering the property value by$4,900. 5. LAND VALUE: Based on the third-party appraisal and county sales analysis below, a- 30%land value adjustment should be applied for topography. This would reduce the land value by$171,400. 6. SALES ANALYSIS AND THIRD-PARTY APPRAISAL: The third-party appraisal values the subject property at$488,500. The appraisal was completed on 9/18/2025 and retroactively dated to 12/31/2024.All comps used in the appraisal are qualified sales occurring in 2024. • The county performed an analysis of four sales of improved properties. The sales had a median price per square foot of$389. The county's proposal would set the value of the subject property at$564 per square foot. It should be noted that the comps are traditional residences with larger square footages than the subject. There is a lack of recent sales data for barn dominium-style residences with similar square footage and land sizes to the subject property. • The county also performed a land value analysis of recent vacant land sales. Four nearby properties sold at a median price per acre of$31,550. The county's proposal would set the subject's land value at $399,800, or$24,988 per acre. • The county recommends a value of$497,700 for the subject property. This value can be considered as a compromise between the price per square foot analysis and the price per acre analysis. • Photos of Subject • County improved property analysis • County unimproved property analysis • Third-party appraisal • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $497,700 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner John D. BillingAppellant(if different) Property Address 32.1 acres near Honeypot Parcel ID or Abstract 9759260937 Lane Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on the fact that the property does not perc and has issues with access. Current Assessed Value $483,900 ounty Opinion $215,100 Time of Hearin 4:19PM Appellant Opinion $250,000 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $215,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • This property is impaired by failure to perc and for access (large expenditures/investments needed to access property). Both of these factors heavily detract from market value. • Comparing to PIN 9759083867,both PINS went through informal appeal. After appeal, we have adjoining properties with similar perc characteristics (no perc site found,very limited to no ability to develop). However, PIN 9759083867 was valued(after informal review) at a drastically different(lower)valuation per acre than this PIN. • The appellant has provided a soil evaluation dated April 2014. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • A county appraiser performed an in-office review of the subject property and the appeal evidence. • The subject property and the adjacent PIN 9759083867 were appealed during the 2025 informal appeal period. Both parcels had soil evaluations performed by Chandler Soil Corporation in 2014. The adjacent PIN received a-75%land value adjustment while the subject property received a-55%adjustment. • In addition to the inability to perc, the subject property is landlocked without an access easement. • The county recommends revising the subject property's land adjustment to -80%because of the inability to perc and lack of access. The revised value would be $215,100. • GIS Map • Plat reference P98/151 • Soil evaluation by Chandler Soil Corporation • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board I Accept County's Proposed Value: $215,100 Docusign Envelope ID: 167B6114-F2FE-40FE-B240-9F96B7861224 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... ... Chair of the igned by: Leon Meyers 12/22/2025 Recording Secr cuSigned by: Jennifer Rigsbe �S�t t' 12/22/2025