The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025_12_11 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on December 11, 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: Office Assistant Jennifer Rigsbee Deputy Tax Assessor Chad Phillips Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser Scott Zeman Appraiser C le Anderson Appraiser Jimmy Milliken Appraiser Dana Hall Appraiser Bill Hiltbold Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 9:02AM Dumitru Adrian Ilie 9787970735 Yes Value-Real 2 9:15AM Keyway LLC 9870023515 No Value-Real 3 9:19AM William M. Weidemaier 9788066395.058 No Value-Real 4 9:29AM Ariel Adams 9778472066 No Value-Real 5 9:35AM Sam Barbee, Hrs 9788074485 No Value-Real 6 9:46AM Mark D. Boisvert 0804021729 No Value-Real 7 9:52AM Carolyn M. Morton 9768373685 No Value-Real 8 9:57AM Carolyn Hickman Vaughan 9864777022 Yes Value-Real 9 10:20AM Yanping Zhang 9850829673 No Value-Real 10 10:56PM Mingxia Liu 9880556119 Yes Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 9:01AM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 11:02AM Leon Meyers Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 Property Identification: Property Owner Dumitru Adrian Ilie Appellant(if different) Property Address 1 105 Arbutus Place I Parcel ID or Abstract 19787970735 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable land values and parcel size. Current Assessed Value $417,200 ounty Opinion $385,200 Time of Hearin 9:02PM Appellant Opinion $385,200 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $385,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Our neighbor's property at 100 Arbutus PI has had its land value reduced by$32,000 from $240,000 to $208,000 after an informal appeal(Parcel ID 9787973588,before and after appraisals attached). Our land value has remained unchanged at$240,000. • Additionally, our land size is almost half the size of our neighbor's (0.06 vs. 0.1 acres). Parcels located mere feet from each other should have similar valuations and benefit from similar reductions. Consequently, our land value should similarly decrease by at least$32,000 or more to account for the difference in size. • This would bring our total property value to at most$385,200,which is still a significant 48% increase. Such an increase would be closer to the 43%average increase for Chapel Hill instead of the 61%increase as it stands now. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,632-square-foot townhouse in the Woods at Laurel Hill development. The property was reviewed by Tanner Valuation Group. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of B-15. No change to grade is recommended. 2. AGE: The residence was built in 1984 and has an effective year built of 1984. The effective age indicates no major renovations to the property.No change to effective year built is recommended. 3. CONDITION: The residence is currently in Average condition.No change to condition is recommended. 4. LAND VALUE: The lot values in this development range from$208,000 to $240,000 depending on lot size. Interior townhouse units have smaller lots than the exterior units. The subject property currently has a lot value of$240,000 despite being an interior unit with a smaller lot. The county recommends revising the land value to $208,000. 5. SALES ANALYSIS: The county conducted a sales analysis of four sales from Sycamore Run, a nearby townhouse neighborhood on Mallard Court. The analysis determined a median sale price per square foot of$265. The county's proposed value for the subject property would be $236 per square foot. Sycamore Run townhouses are duplex style with a slightly higher construction quality than the subject, so this difference in value is appropriate. • The county recommends the subject property be valued at$385,200 with the revised land value. • Photos of subject • Appellant evidence • County sales analysis • Current Property Record Card Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $385,200 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Keyway LLC Appellant(if different) Property Address 215 Legends Way I Parcel ID or Abstract 19870023515 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on perceived market value, disputed valuation process, and market fluctuations. Current Assessed Value $359,300 ounty Opinion $359,300 Time of Hearin 9:15AM Appellant Opinion $337,300 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $359,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Following my appeal regarding the increased appraised value of this property, I received notice on 8/26/2025 that the property was reassessed at$359,300. While this represents a modest reduction compared to the first reassessment, I still believe that the current assessment is well beyond the market value of the property. The reappraised value represents the peak market value achieved in 2025. The current market value according to Zillow and Trulia is estimated at$337,300. The estimated market value in January 2025 was $347,700. • As stated before,using neighborhood assessed values and sale prices is flawed as almost all homes in this neighborhood are single family homes whereas this property is a townhome. The property that is cited as a comparable property is a townhome,but quite different from ours (2300 sqft, 3bds, 3ba, sold in May 2024 for$512,00 -versus our property: 1334 sqft, 2bds, 2.5 ba, with a May 2024 market value of$363,700). • Given market fluctuations and the downturn in the housing market,it is unfair to use the peak value of the property in 2025. In addition,previous reassessments resulted in a 9.8%increase in 2021 and a 2.9%increase in 2016. The current suggested assessed value would increase the value by 62.9%. As the housing market is unlikely to recover in the near future,I respectfully request a much greater reduction in the appraisal that is, at most, in line with the current value ($337,300). This still would result in a substantial financial burden, as it is based on an unrealized gains. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,320-square-foot townhouse in Lake Hogan Farms. The property was reviewed by Tanner Valuation Group. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of B-10. The grade is consistent with the other townhouses in this section.No change to grade is recommended. Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 2. AGE: The residence was built in 2010 and currently has an effective year built of 2014. No change to effective year built is recommended. 3. CONDITION: The property is in Average condition.No change to condition is recommended. 4. SALES ANALYSIS: The county performed an analysis of four sales of nearby townhouses. The analysis shows a median sale price per square foot of$285. The subject property is currently valued at$272 per square foot. • Based on the sales analysis,no change in value is recommended. • Appellant letter to the board • Photos of Subject • County sales analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $359,300 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 William M. Weidemaier Appellant(if different Property Address 601 West Rosemary Parcel ID or Abstract 9788066395.058 Street, Unit 416 :t Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on incorrect square footage, price per square foot, and comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $689,600 County Opinion $689,600 Time of Hearin 9:19AM Appellant Opinion $561,115 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $689,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Please see attached for details. In brief,the 2025 assessment values the subject property at $537.07 per square foot. As documented in the attached materials,this is excessive for two reasons. First,the county overestimates finished square footage by roughly 7-9%. Second,the assessment treats Unit 416 inequitably and uniquely, seemingly in violation of basic appraisal principles and the county's own appraisal practices,by assigning it a higher per-square-foot valuation than nearly identical smaller units. Relative to a nearly identical comparable, and adjusted for the correct square footage, an appropriate valuation is roughly$561,115. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,284-square foot condominium in Greenbridge Condominiums. The property was reviewed by Tanner Valuation Group. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of A+90. The grade is consistent with the other condominiums in Greenbridge, and no change is recommended to the grade 2. AGE: The residence was built in 2009 and currently has an effective year built of 2012. No change to effective year built is recommended. 3. CONDITION: The property is in Average condition.No change to condition is recommended. 4. SQUARE FOOTAGE: The appeal is based in part on a discrepancy in square footage. The appellant states that the square footage of the subject unit should be 1,186 versus the county's recorded square footage of 1,284. For the Greenbridge condominiums, square footage was calculated from the exterior measurements on the recorded plans in Plat Book 107,pages 53-66 with the measurements rounded to the nearest whole foot. A county appraiser reviewed the subject unit's dimensions on the plat recording(attached in the appeal documentation)and determined that no change in square footage is needed. The appellant's purported 1,186 square feet is presumably calculated from interior measurements by a third-party appraiser or realtor. 5. SALES ANALYSIS: The appeal is based on a sale of Unit 514 for$532 per square foot. While this sale by itself may justify a change in value,additional sales in Greenbridge should be considered as well. The county performed an analysis of five recent sales in Greenbridge. The median sale price of the five sales was $552 per square foot. The subject property is currently assessed at$537 per square foot. Based on the sales analysis,no change in value is recommended. • The county recommends no change in valuation. • Photos of Subject • Plat recording P 107/59 • Current sketch on property record • County sales analysis • Appellant evidence • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $689,600 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 Ariel Adams Appellant(if different) Property Address 1321 W. Poplar Avenue Parcel ID or Abstract 19778472066 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on incorrect data and a bank estimate of home value. Current Assessed Value $460,800 ounty Opinion $416,100 Time of Hearin 9:29PM Appellant Opinion $353,400 County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision $416,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 • Square footage and year built is incorrect I have attached a copy of an estimated home value from my bank, State Employees' Credit Union. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On November 19th,the subject property was visited by an appraiser. During this visit, the house was remeasured, and it was determined that it had been internally coded incorrectly as having a 50%finished second floor. Based on observations from the site visit and the attached photographs,the correct classification should be 50% finished attic space, and the effective year built should be adjusted to 1980. • A sales analysis for Neighborhood 7203 is attached, supporting the recommendation to correct the square footage and revise the effective year built.Although the comparable properties have greater square footage than the subject property,the neighborhood sales provided are more appropriate than selecting comparables of similar size located outside the neighborhood. This difference is evident in the land/lot values of the comparables used in the State Employees Credit Union report—e.g.,201 Alabama Ave. • Based on the information provided,the County recommends a new proposed value of $416,100. • Photos of Subject • Comparable Report • Sales Analysis Report 7203 • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $416,100 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner I Sam Barbee Hrs Appellant(if different) Property Address 1600 Nunn Street Parcel ID or Abstract 19788074485 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on development potential and perceived overvaluation of full-size Northside parcels. Current Assessed Value $165,000 ounty Opinion $110,000 Time of Hearin 9:35AM Appellant Opinion $60,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $55,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • This lot has—1/3rd the normal Northside property's development potential. • Full-size lots in Northside were overvalued by the tax office by at least$75,000. Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a.07 vacant lot with a triangle shape in the Northside District in Chapel Hill. • The base rate of the land was reduced during a BOER ordered neighborhood review from $250,000 to $220,000 with an additional negative size adjustment on smaller lots to account for the Floor Area Ratio restriction in the area resulting in the current value of$165,000. • The County recommends increasing the adjustment on the land from-25%to a size/shape adjustment of-50%to account for the smaller size and triangular shape causing building challenges on the lot, resulting in a revised value from$165,000 to$110,000. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $55,000 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Mark D. Boisvert Appellant(if different) Property Address 3411 Pleasant Green Road I Parcel ID or Abstract 10804021729 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 2022 appraisal,age/condition of home, and swamp on portion of land. Current Assessed Value $348,200 ounty Opinion $322,700 Time of Hearin 9:46PM Appellant Opinion $230,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $322,700 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Recent 2022 appraisal • This is a 45-year-old manufactured home. It has not doubled in value in 3 years. I tried to avoid PMI and was unsuccessful because the property does not appraise above $225,000,property taxes should not be paid above this value. • About 2 acres of the lot is not usable. A swamp area is on that part of the property. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,708-sf manufactured home with 3 bedrooms and 2 baths built in 1979 on 3.8 acres of land located on Pleasant Green Rd. in Durham. • The comps used in the appraisal were in Durham County except for one which a portion of the parcel including a second dwelling was across the county line and taxed in Durham. Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 • The manufactured home is very well maintained and was updated previous to the 2019 sale. • Based on vacant land sales and the shape of the parcel,The County recommends increasing the size adjustment on the land from -10%to -20%resulting in a revised value from$348,200 to $322,700. • Photo of Subject • Listing photos from 2019 sale • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $322,700 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Carolyn M. Morton Appellant(if different) Property Address I I I Westham on Way Parcel ID or Abstract 19768373685 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $1,436,300 County Opinion $1,436,300 Time of Hearin 9:52AM Appellant Opinion $1,374.383 County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $1,436,300 Lochner presented by C le Anderson Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The Appellant filed a formal appeal on June 3,2025. The Appellant stated "I compared my property to more recent sales as well as newer construction, avg 2019 builds vs. my house built in 2014. Addresses reviewed(all Chapel Hill and appraised by county for 2025)Property Sq ft 2025 county appraisal year built 505 Bennett Orchard Trail 3992 $1,344,700.00 2022 6513 Moinear Ln. 3400 $1,156,800.00 2019 6517 Moinear Ln. 3954 $1,391,100.00 2017 Avg cost per sqft=$343 Estimate for my older house=$358". • An Excel spreadsheet was attached that outlines the above information. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • NOTE: An Informal Appeal was filed for 2025 with the same evidence provided that is contained in this report. The Informal Appeal was reviewed by a different appraiser which concluded "No Change -Evidence submitted does not support a value change. Sales within NBH suggest assessment is in line". • Appraiser observations and recommendations: Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 1. The Effective Year Built is the same as the Actual Year Built of 2014. No change is recommended. 2. There are 2 qualified sales in NBC 7945, see the attached Comper and notes. All significant aspects have been bracketed, and the County approved Schedule of Value has been applied consistently. No change of value is recommended. 3. The Appellant provided 3 comparable sales that were not given weight due to the availability of comps in the subject NBC. Comparisons of the price per square foot are not applicable due to the variances in the properties e.g. square footage, quality/grade. 4. No land influences are applicable to the Subject. Land values are consistent throughout NBC 7945. • It is the appraisers position the current assessed value is appropriate and substantiated by Comps 4& 5, no change is recommended. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • NBC GIS • Comper with Appellant comps(3) &NBC comps(2) • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $1,436,300 No Change in Value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Carolyn Hickman Appellant(if different) Jane Hamborsky Vaughan Property Address 201 North Occoneechee Parcel ID or Abstract 9864777022 Street Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties and incorrect data. Current Assessed Value $759,400 ounty Opinion $821,200 Time of Hearin 9:57AM Appellant Opinion $690,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $667,800 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant states that the property next door,207&209 Occoneechee Street,which is one acre in size, sold for$590,000. • The appellant also states that the total living area of the subject dwelling is 3,266 square feet. Evidence submitted by the county representative: Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 • The subject property is a 0.51-acre tract improved with a 3,219 square-foot single-family dwelling located at 201 N Occoneechee Street in Hillsborough. • Appellant Information: o The appellant states that the livable area totals 3,266 square feet,which exceeds the current County record of 2,653 square feet. The appellant provided photos as supporting documentation, noting that the additional square footage reflects a previously unfinished attic space that was converted into livable square footage that's heated and cooled with drywall and flooring. Accordingly,the County recommends updating the property record card to reflect 3,219 livable square feet, accomplished by adjusting the second-floor finished area from US 15 to US40. • Comparable Sale Review: o The appellant submitted one nearby comparable sale for consideration; however, County staff found that this property differs significantly due to its larger lot size and multiple additional improvements (two repair garages and a utility building) contributing$25,100 in additional assessed value. The main dwelling on the comparable parcel also reflects a lower construction quality and older condition, resulting in a lower price per square foot. • Equity and Neighborhood Analysis: o Staff performed a neighborhood sales and equity analysis of similarly graded homes in the area. This included 332 W Tryon Street, a property directly across from the subject, which is comparable in both size and grade. • Recommended Adjustments: o Increase livable area from 2,653 square feet to 3,219 square feet. o Reduce the effective year built to the actual year built, from 2022 to 2017. • Following verification and analysis, County staff recommends a revised assessed value of $821,200 for the subject property. • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Equity Analysis • Sales Analysis(Appellant's Comparable) • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $667,800 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Yanping Zhang Appellant if different Property Address 119 Whirlaway Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 9850829673 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable listings and condition of parcel. Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 Current Assessed Value $1,865,300 County Opinion $1,865,300 Time of Hearin 10:20AM Appellant Opinion $1,200,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $1,865,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • 212 Whirlaway Lane is currently on the market in our neighborhood. This house is much nicer custom build than our house and has a swimming pool and professional landscape. The house is 9,068 square feet and listed for$1,875,000 at$207/square foot. Thus,the opinion of our house value of$1,200,000 at $197/square foot is very reasonable. • The most recent comparable sale is 101 Whirlaway Lane,which is a 8,438 square foot house built on an open 3.25 acre lot. This house was sold on 6/20/2024 for$1,550,000 for $184/square foot. Our house is 6,098 square feet on a 4.01 acres lot. However, half of the lot is wooded hill and cannot be used for anything. The opinion of our house value of$1,200,000 equals a value of$197/square foot, which is higher than the most recent sale in our neighborhood. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject Property Overview: The subject property is located at 119 Whirlaway Lane in NBC 7502. The home was built in 2009 and contains 6,098 square feet of living area. • Sales and Equity Review: County staff reviewed the submitted sale and prepared both a comparable sales report and an equity analysis,which included the appellant's sale as well as additional neighboring properties. These analyses were used to evaluate the subject's position within the market for NBC 7502. • The results indicate that the subject property's valuation is consistent with the market- supported range for this neighborhood. While the value-per-square-foot may appear higher when compared to some larger homes,this is a direct result of the CAMA valuation model and Schedule of Values adopted by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, which yields different rates for larger, custom-built homes based on economies of scale. • Recommendation: Based on the evidence submitted and the analysis performed,the County recommends no change to the current assessed value. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Maps • Comper Report Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $1,865,300 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 I Mingxia Liu Appellant(if different) Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 Property Address I 10 Timberlyne Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9880556119 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $499,500 ounty Opinion $497,600 Time of Hearin 10:56AM Appellant Opinion $454,610 County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $497,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • "I am writing to formally appeal the 2025 assessed property value for 10 Timberlyne Road (PIN 9880556119), which increased from$290,600 in 2024 to $499,500 in 2025,representing a 71.89%increase. This increase is significantly disproportionate when compared to other properties on Timberlyne Road. Based on public records and the table included below the average increase for comparable homes on the same street is 56.44%. A detailed comparison is outlined in the attached table,which includes assessments for 19 homes on Timberlyne Road. Our property: 71.89%increase, Street average: 56.44%increase. Range for others: 41.26%to 62.39%This 71.89%reassessment increase is the highest on the entire street and is at least 10 percentage points higher than any other comparable property, despite our home being similar or smaller in size and features than many nearby properties. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • There is a trellis over the deck on the left side of the house and was labeled open porch. I updated the sketch by incorporating this area and a lower deck into one. This change reduces the building value$1,900. • Please see the analysis report. Comparison properties presented by the appellant are shown in blue. Yellow cells indicate variance from the subject in land value, story height, living area square footage, grade and yard items more than$7,000(the subject's yard items total$4,600). Close comparisons listed below the grey line are within 500 sf of the subject,multistory and graded C+10 like the subject. The total appraised value of the subject is below the mean and median of close comparisons and the$288 total value per square foot is also below the mean and median of recent sale prices per square foot. These numbers indicate the subject is currently undervalued. The home is accurately depreciated by its effective year built being equal to the year built of 1979. • The county recommends no changes other than the deck corrections to the sketch. Building value would reduce $1,900 to $183,000 and total property value would change from$499,500 to $497,600. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Analysis Report Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $497,600 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Docusign Envelope ID: DDD996A4-9AEB-4186-AE75-797CE2829130 Chair of the F&IoSigned by: Leon Meyers LMAZOMM-t-, 12/22/2025 Recording Seer ieusig�edyby: Jennifer Rigsbee A�UW '"' ��S�u, � 12/22/2025 Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on December 11, 2025 Board Members in attendance: Chair of the Board Leon Meyers Yes Regular Member Saru Salvi Yes Regular Member Richal Vanhook No 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 Yes Orange County Staff in attendance: Tax Administrator Nancy Freeman Office Assistant Jennifer Rigsbee Deputy Tax Assessor Chad Phillips Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser Jimmy Milliken Appraiser C le Anderson Appraiser Heidi Whetzel Appraiser Dana Hall Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:OOPM Jeffrey B. Neelon 9788488688 Yes Value-Real 2 1:37PM Balwinder S. Bhupal 9789794348 Yes Value-Real 3 2:10PM Balwinder Bhupal 9779274372 Yes Value-Real 4 2:33PM Thomas O. Mills Trustee 9846853837 Yes Value-Real (Continued from 10/30) 5 2:44PM Nancy Faith Gell 9779523772 No Value-Real 6 3:06PM Jianhua Huang 9890419641 Yes Value-Real 7 3:25PM Jian Dong 9870622002 No Value-Real 8 3:32PM Kayvan M. Lavassani 9860838278 Yes Value-Real 9 3:54PM Mirnela Byku 9787060747 No Value-Real 10 3:57PM Edith Innis 9874821555 No Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 1:OOPM Leon Meyers Meeting adjourned 4:04PM Leon Meyers Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Property Identification: Property Owner Jeffrey B. Neelon Appellant(if different) Property Address 215 Hillsborough Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9788488688 Unit A Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties' value per square foot. Current Assessed Value $606,200 ounty Opinion $571,200 Time of Hearin 1:OOPM Appellant Opinion $388,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $536,200 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Our house has .I I acres of land and is appraised at$490,000.00 or$102.26 per square foot. There are discrepancies with our neighbors who all have better lots. • The best comparison is 213 Hillsborough located behind and adjacent to us. .51 acres, $581,000.00 at$25.65 per square foot. 214 Hillsborough is a block away at .54 acres, $700,000.00 and$29.76 per square foot appraisal. 211 Hillsborough, .21 acres, $700,000.00, $76.52 per square foot. Road frontage. 217 Hillsborough, .18 acres, $700,000.00, $89.72 per square foot,Road frontage. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 972-sf home with 2 bedrooms and 2 baths built in 1937 on a.11-acre lot in the historic district of Chapel Hill off Hillsborough Street, also owning a 1/3 undivided interest in the commons area(PIN 9788488782). • Based on equity, The County recommends increasing the land adjustment from-25%to-35%to be more comparable to the neighboring property of 219 Hillsborough St as they are similar in size and also owners of the undivided interest in the common area. This would result in a revised value from $606,200 to $571,200. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $536,200 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner I Balwinder S. Bhu al Appellant if different Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Property Address 1931 Shad lawn Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9789794348 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on inability to obtain building permit for parcel. Current Assessed Value $132,500 County Opinion $132,500 Time of Hearin 1:37PM __Appellant Opinion $35,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $39,800 presented by Dana Hall Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Not buildable, went to get permit to build but Orange County denied it. • Jeff Essen was called as a witness and presented evidence on behalf of the appellant. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject Property Overview o The subject property is a vacant lot located at 931 Shadylawn Road(Lot#1)in NBC 7421. • County Review o The parcel currently has a—50%land adjustment applied to account for the overhead power lines and the right-of-way easement associated with the Town of Chapel Hill. These factors are already reflected in the existing valuation. o No documentation was provided indicating that Orange County Environmental Health has denied a building permit or septic authorization for this parcel. Without evidence of such a determination,there is no basis for additional reductions. Additionally, the property appears to be located in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction. • Recommendation o Based on the information available,the County recommends no change to the current assessed value. • Photo of Subject • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $39,800 Made the motion Barbara Levine Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Balwinder Bhu al Appellant if different Property Address 901 Homestead Road Parcel ID or Abstract 19779274372 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on"No connection to other sewer system." Current Assessed Value 1 $506,700 1 County Opinion 1 $505,500 Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Time of Hearin 2:10PM I Appellant Opinion $350,000 County Re resentative Dana Hall I Board Decision $505,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • No connection to other sewer system Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On November 20, a site visit was conducted at the subject property located at 901 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill. During the site visit,it was observed that the house appears to be occupied, consistent with the appellant's statement that the property is used as a rental income property. As such,the property has access to a sewer system. • Per the appeal submitted, our property record card originally indicated two full bathrooms. This has been corrected to reflect the current count of one full bath and one half bath, resulting in a reduction of the building value to a proposed$121,000. • With no additional documentation provided to support further value adjustments,the County recommends updating the bathroom count on the property record card and reducing the total assessed value to $505,500. • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $505,500 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Thomas O. Mills Trustee Appellant(if different) Continued from 10/30 Property Address 14030 Legato Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 9846853837 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on land condition and comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $627,300 ounty Opinion $627,300 Time of Hearin 2:33PM Appellant Opinion $500,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $627,300 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,buffers, an easement and a leach field. The appellant provided three photos as supporting evidence. The appellant provided additional supporting documentation along with several comparable sales. Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 7.15-acre tract improved with a 3,376 square-foot single-family dwelling located at 4030 Legato Lane in Efland. County staff conducted a site visit for verification and photographs. • The appellant notes that the subject property shouldn't be compared to flat, level farmland due to several factors limiting land utility, including floodplain, buffers, an easement and a leach field. The appellant estimates that approximately 44%of the land is unusable as a result of these constraints. • Following a field inspection and desktop review, County staff agrees that at least 44%of the land is effectively unusable. This reduced utility is reflected in the current assessment through a-55%land adjustment, indicating that the subject is not being valued as flat, fully usable farmland. • Staff reviewed a sales analysis using the appellant's Orange County comparable sales. The appellant's sales from Alamance and Person Counties were excluded from consideration. Despite being smaller than the subject in terms of livable area,the three comparables are all older than the subject property. Two of the comparables have more than one story,unlike the subject which is a one-story home. • Based on the land analysis,physical inspection, and comparable sales review, County staff recommends no change to the current assessed value of$627,300. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Aerial Photo of Appellant Comp#1 • Analysis Report Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $627,300 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner I Nancy Faith Gell Appellant if different Property Address 1 102 Rock Spring Court Parcel ID or Abstract 19779523772 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition and comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $477,300 County Opinion $477,300 Time of Hearin 2:44PM Appellant Opinion $420,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $477,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • We respectfully request your further review of our appeal on the value of our home at 102 Rock Spring Court. We believe that the revaluation of$477,300.00 is an overvaluation based Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 on the fact of being compared to homes that have effective year built dates 16 to 25 years later than our home and other variables including renovation status, storm water runoff remediation needs, and current economic concerns. There were no obvious adjustments for comparison when homes have had significant remodeling vs.homeowners who are just trying to keep their homes safely maintained. We believe that the values are not taking into consideration the challenges of storm water runoff control needed for many of these homes to be able to sell near valuation which is at risk for increased challenge with the amount of building going on. Chantal has given us a glimpse of that! We have been working on stormwater control measures, which is a growing concern and estimate there will be many thousands of dollars for the optimal control measures. We did not see any homes actually similar to ours that sold in 2024 in the comparable based on effective year, square footage,number of stories (none for example were single story), or number of bathrooms. This doesn't even take into account the level of remodeling which may have exceeded ours. As far as trying to compare, the closest comparable in the last year I could find 9779621954 had over 400 additional square feet, another one and a half stories, another bedroom and another half bath with a modern kitchen and fresh wood floors(based on Zillow pictures). Understandably it had a higher value but if we extrapolated to add over 400 square feet, another one and a half stores, another bedroom and another half bath with a modern kitchen and fresh wood floors (based on Zillow pictures) to our home, I'm sure it would cost more than the approx. 72K difference in the valuation and hence If we subtracted those items from their value of 549 K,I think we would find a value of significantly less than the 477K. Comparables in this neighborhood are complex due to variation in bedrooms,bathrooms,habitability of lots, square footage and modernization. As we look around Spring Valley,we see that many of the homes have had windows replaced and kitchen, bathroom, added decks/porches and renovations/rebuilds.Although we do take care of our home and though we would like to do these neighbor comparable upgrades, we are currently senior citizens living on fixed incomes and cannot make all these upgrades at this point in time. Our likely next projects will involve window replacement if we can figure out a way to afford that. This is something visible from the exterior and can easily cost us 10,000 if we hope to have comparable windows. We priced this about two or three years ago so it has undoubtedly increased. And as mentioned the storm water control measures are an ongoing home improvement cost we would need to make the price tag worthy of the valuation. As noted in our earlier appeal, the comparable on the comper site of sales in the last six months had effective build dates at least 20 years younger than ours 1984 vs.their 2005 (117 Creekview and 604 Bolin)and 2010(1538 Pathway). The actual build dates were nine years later on two of the three. These homes were from 33%to 162%larger than ours so obviously not good references for value of my home in any fashion. Among the sales within 10 miles on comper, we did not find any comparable sales in the last year that were within 100 square feet of our home but were surprised to find land value of land with lots sized twice as much as our lot also being valued at 275K e.g. 604 Bolin Creek To find better benchmarks,we looked at nearby homes with recent sales info in homes that still exceed the size/condition of our home but priced closer that are valued significantly below the value of our valuation. According to Zillow,these other 3 bedroom/2 bathroom Carrboro single family residence homes within 100 square feet of our home that are newer and larger than ours and in better condition sold under the revaluation of our property within the last three months of our earlier appeal: 402 Berryhill Drive(brick 1472 square feet) sold for 400K on 3/14/25 129 Weatherhill Pt in Carrboro sold for$450K on 3/28/25 -another larger(1518 sq feet), newer home(built in 92) • We love our home and the location and are proud to be in an appreciating neighborhood in every sense of the word. We hope we can continue to afford to live here which includes our ability to pay taxes,which of course is directly tied to valuations. Hence,we want to make sure we have the most reasonable valuation. We know Orange County values affordable housing and has looked at sites for building. Affordable housing also means that current Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 residents are able to afford the taxes based on valuations. As senior citizens,we appreciate and want to support essential municipal services, infrastructure, and schools. It is noteworthy that valuation should take into consideration today's concerns including tariff fears and widespread economic uncertainty. We believe that the house value should be lowered to align with these realities. We believe that the house value should be lowered to align with the realities identified above. The fact that taxes are based on home value also points to the need for this revaluation to be double checked. Thank you in advance for your further consideration. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a one-story home located at 102 Rock Spring Court in NBC 7774. The dwelling was built in 1984 and contains 1,368 square feet of living area. The subject's Effective Year Built(EYB) appropriately reflects the actual year built, while several comparables have more recent EYBs due to upgrades or renovations. • Rock Spring Court has some topographical variation; however,the terrain is generally consistent throughout the street and does not create a unique condition warranting an additional adjustment for the subject. • NBC 7774 is considered lot-valued, and when sales activity does not demonstrate minor differences in land size as a price-driving factor, the land component is not modified. • Additionally,the 2025 valuation is not influenced by external factors such as Tropical Storm Chantal, current economic conditions, or tariffs. These items occurred after or outside the valuation period and therefore do not impact the assessment. • Comparable property 604 Bolin Creek Drive is situated on a larger lot;however, it includes a stream running through the rear yard as well as a sewer easement,both of which adversely influence usability and market behavior. • All comparables used in the analysis are multi-story homes, while the subject is a one-story home, which is reflected in their respective price-per-square-foot ranges. • A sales analysis was completed focusing on price per square foot. The results indicate that the subject property's current valuation falls within the supported market range of the comparable sales. • Based on the analysis,the County recommends no change to the current assessed value. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Maps • Analysis Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $477,300 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Property Owner Jianhua Huang Appellant(if different) Property Address 106 Covington Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19890419641 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition. Current Assessed Value $391,100 ounty Opinion $391,100 Time of Hearin 3:06PM Appellant Opinion $305,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $373,400 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • We are submitting this letter to appeal the property tax assessment for our home located at 106 Covington Drive, Chapel Hill,NC 27514. • After reviewing the Orange County Property Record about the land value and building value of our property,plus numerous physical issues with the property,we believe it warrants a reassessment. Many cracks and fractures interior and exterior, subsidence of the foundation. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 106 Covington Drive in NBC 7450. The parcel is lot-valued at$250,000, and the dwelling was built in 1988 with 1,452 square feet of living area. • County staff reviewed the land pricing of the submitted comparables: 0 9890-51-2638 and 9890-53-3147 are located in NBC 7426, which carries abase land rate of$300,000 under the AC-9 pricing model. 0 9799-86-2827 and 9799-87-4049 are located in NBC 7414, which is lot-valued at $145,000 per lot. • These variations in neighborhood codes,base rates, and valuation methods account for the differences among the submitted land values. • The subject dwelling was built in 1988 and has an Effective Year Built(EYB)of 1988,which is appropriate given the information available. The building also carries an existing 20% physical depreciation to reflect its condition. • Based on the evidence submitted and the analysis conducted by County staff,the County recommends no change to the current assessed valuation. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $373,400 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner I Jian Dong Appellant if different Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Property Address 1309 Sylvan Way Parcel ID or Abstract 19870622002 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on increase as compared to historical appraised value. Current Assessed Value $552,300 ounity Opinion 1 $552,300 Time of Hearin 3:25PM Appellant Opinion $400,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $552,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • We are writing to formally appeal the 2025 appraised value of our property. The recently assessed market value of$552,300 does not reflect the true market value of the property based on both past appraisals and current market conditions. Over the past several years,the appraised value of our property has remained relatively consistent with market trends. Based on that history and the current housing market,we believe a more accurate current market value is approximately$400,000. In addition,the local housing market has experienced a noticeable decline. This downward trend in property sales,the sharp increase in the appraised value, and the resulting rise in property taxes would place a significant financial burden on us. We respectfully request that your office re-evaluate the assessed value of our property. Please let me know if any additional documentation is needed to support my appeal. Thank you for your time and consideration. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 309 Sylvan Way in NBC 7908. The home was built in 2000 and contains 2,512 square feet of living area. • County staff conducted a sales analysis of properties within the subject's neighborhood. The reviewed sales data indicates that the subject property's current assessed value falls within the market-supported range for similar homes in NBC 7908. The analysis shows the existing assessment is consistent with neighborhood market trends and comparable property valuations. • Based on this analysis, the County recommends no change to the current assessed value. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Maps Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $552,300 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner I Ka an M. Lavassani Appellant if different Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Property Address 1200 Tuckers Pond Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9860838278 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparables and environmental factors due to the water retention pond in the back of the property. Current Assessed Value $668,300 ounty Opinion 1 $668,300 Time of Hearin 3:32PM Appellant Opinion $497,080 County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $668,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Comparables and environmental factors due to the water retention pond in the back of the property. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 200 Tuckers Pond Drive in Chapel Hill. A site visit was conducted on November 12, 2025. The appellant's concerns regarding the retention pond, backyard slope, and yard usability are already reflected in the assessment. The subject property currently receives a-15%land adjustment specifically for these issues. The County analyzed six verified neighborhood sales from 2023-2024,which range from$234 to $286 per square foot, with an average of$255 per square foot. • Based on these verified sales and the existing land adjustment,the current assessed value is fair and market supported. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $668,300 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Mirnela B ku Appellant if different Property Address 101 Parkview Crescent Parcel ID or Abstract 19787060747 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value.No supporting evidence provided. Current Assessed Value $912,000 ounty Opinion $912,000 Time of Hearin 3:54PM Appellant Opinion $800,000 County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $912,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: 9 No supporting evidence provided. Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 L Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 101 Parkview Crest in Chapel Hill. A site visit was conducted on November 6, 2025,by Tanner Valuation Group. The County analyzed four verified 2023-2024 neighborhood sales, which range from $233 to$305 per square foot,with an average of$276. The subject's assessed value is$278 per square foot, aligning directly with this market-supported range. The home is similar to the sales in size,grade, acreage, and land value. The Effective Year Built of 2016 reflects both the structure and a full interior renovation completed in 2018,making it more updated than most comparables. For these reasons,the current assessment of$912,000 is considered fair, equitable, and market supported. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $912,000 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Edith Innis Appellant if different Property Address 1507 Spring Overlook Parcel ID or Abstract 9874821555 Lane Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on "Property Conditions." Current Assessed Value $651,100 County Opinion $651,100 Time of Hearin 3:57PM Appellant Opinion Not Provided County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $651,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Property Conditions Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 3,206-sf single family home with 4 bedrooms and 3 and 1/2 baths, built in 2017 on an average size lot in the Forest Ridge subdivision located in Hillsborough. • No supporting evidence or opinion of value was provided. Based on sales of similar homes in the area, The County recommends no change in value. • Photo of Subject • GIS Map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $651,100 No Change in Value Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Barbara Levine Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Chair of the igned by: Leon Meyers[ FE 12/22/2025 Recording Secre Yocu Signed by: Jennifer RigsbeeLYAAAAA"�Y I��Stit gzae�ssca�sza 12/22/2025