The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025_11_19 BOER Minutes Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C MINUTES Orange County Board of Equalization and Review Meeting held on November 19, 2025 Board Members in attendance: Chair of the Board Barbara Levine 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 Leon Meyers No Orange County Staff in attendance: Tax Administrator Nancy Freeman Deputy Tax Assessor Chad Phillips Real Property Appraisal Manager Roger Gunn Chief Appraiser Kelly Wells Temporary Appraiser Assistant Rob Teachout Appraiser C le Anderson Appraiser Bill Hiltbold Appraiser Karen Atwater Appraiser Louise Benson-Lochner Appraiser Heidi Whetzel Appraiser Scott Zeman Appraiser Dana Hall Meeting Schedule: No. Time Appellant PIN or Abstract Appeared Appeal Type 1 1:OOPM Thomas Wiliam Cummings 9799506528 Yes Value-Real 2 1:15PM Alison A. Erca 9850729533 Yes Value-Real 3 1:33PM Piyou Zhang 9880147868 Yes Value-Real 4 1:48PM Conor Tighe 9778975832 No Value-Real 5 1:50PM Heydi H. Walsh 9789572314 No Value-Real 6 1:57PM John D. Stephens 9789523354 No Value-Real 7 2:OOPM James R.Taylor 9865703715 No Value-Real 8 2:04PM James R.Taylor 9865701775 No Value-Real 9 2:07PM Colin Devonport 9788924622 No Value-Real 10 2:21PM Small Ruminant&Camelia & 313309 Remote Compromise of Mobile Vet Listing Penalty 11 2:30PM Krishna Sinha (Continued from 9890107574 No Value-Real 9/16/25) 12 2:35PM I George H. Draper IV Trustee 1 9880578234 Yes Value-Real Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C 13 2:51PM George H. Draper IV Trustee 9880478447 Yes Value-Real 14 2:58PM Norbert M. Lechner(Continued 9779904260 No Value-Real from 10/30/25) 15 3:06PM Frank Jean 9778421162 No Value-Real 16 3:34PM Wanda A. Edwards 9778931994 No Value-Real 17 3:37PM Glenn J. Floyd 9779217534 No Value-Real Time B Meeting called to order 1:00 Barbara Levine Meeting adjourned 3:41 Richal Vanhook Consent Agenda: Motion of the Board Accept Proposed Consent Agenda?: Yes Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Notes: Saru Salvi motioned to rescinded original consent agenda vote on PIN 9767695549 and to revise value to $790,000. Richal Vanhook seconded the motion and the motion carried. All BOER members voted for, none opposed. Property Identification: Property Owner Thomas William Appellant(if different) Cummings Property Address 1 1400 Brigham Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9799506528 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on sale price and comparable sale. Current Assessed Value $612,000 ounty Opinion $531,000 Time of Hearin 1:00 PM Appellant Opinion $490,000 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $531,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The subject property was purchased in a fair market sale for$490,000. The purchase occurred in December 2024 with closing January 3,2025. • A similar property at 604 Eden Lane sold for$420,000 on 7/17/2025. Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Evidence submitted by the county representative: • A county appraiser conducted a site review of the property on 11/12/2025. The appellants were home and allowed access to the property. Exterior photographs were taken by the appraiser. Interior photographs were obtained from the MLS listing of the property's sale on 1/3/2025. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of B. Residences in the Briarcliff neighborhood are typically graded in the C to B range with some A's.No change to grade is recommended. 2. AGE: The residence was built in 1971 and has an effective year built of 1994. Based on the interior photos,the county recommends reducing the effective year built to 1971. 3. CONDITION: The residence is currently listed in Average condition. During the property review, the appellants stated that the house sat vacant for three years prior to the sale due to a dispute over the previous owner's estate. Therefore,the county recommends changing the condition to Fair. 4. SALES ANALYSIS: MLS records show the subject property was initially listed in August 2024 for$650,000. The listing price was reduced to $550,000 in September 2024. The property finally sold for$490,000 in January 2025. Aside from updated kitchen appliances,the property was sold in"as-is" condition. Also,the property sat vacant for three years while the former owner's estate was settled. • The County conducted an analysis of four 2024 sales in the Briarcliff neighborhood. The median price per square foot of these sales was $262. These properties were updated prior to sale, while the subject property was sold as-is. Taking this into consideration, the recommended changes would set the property's value at$202 per square foot, or$531,000. • The County recommends the subject property be valued at $531,000 with adjustments to the condition and effective year built. 1. Closing Disclosure dated 1/3/2025 2. Overhead, exterior, and interior photos 3. Appellant's comparable- 604 Eden Lane 4. County's sales analysis 5. Current property record card 6. Proposed property record Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $531,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Alison A. Erca Appellant if different Property Address 8218 Brights Way Parcel ID or Abstract 19850729533 Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition and access. Current Assessed Value $435,900 County Opinion $4.15,800 Time of Hearin 1:15 PM Appellant Opinion $200,000 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $415,800 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Condition of the house: no substantial updates or improvements have been made in 30 years. • No air conditioning and inefficient heating. • No high-speed internet • Bri hts Way is a single lane dirt road maintained by the 8 homeowners. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a 1,098 square foot single family home with 1 bedroom and 1 bath built in 1817 with a later addition, on 10.97 acres of land on Brights Way in Chapel Hill. • An additional 20%design depreciation is currently on the house for the style and age and a- 20%adjustment on the land for topography, easement, and access. • Based on the condition of the house, The County recommends changing the *Condition from Average to Fair, *Grade from C to C-10 and *Condition of the carport from Average to Fair. • These proposed changes would result in a revised valuation from$435,900 to $415,800. • Image of subject • GIS Image • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Piyou Zhang Appellant(if different) Property Address 108 Macrae Court Parcel ID or Abstract 19880147868 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on percentage increase and condition. Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Current Assessed Value $696,900 County Opinion $696,900 Time of Hearin 1:33 PM Appellant Opinion $506,900 County Representative Bill Hiltbold Board Decision $696,900 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • I am appealing the 2025 assessed value of my property at 108 Macrae Court,Chapel Hill,NC (Parcel ID 9880147868),which was increased from$419,100 in 2024 to $696,900 in 2025 —a 66%increase in one year. This change does not reflect actual market conditions or the property's current value. My home is a 2,662 square foot,4-bedroom,2.5-bath single-family home, built in 1996, in average condition with no significant upgrades or renovations. • My house was built in 1996 and has had no major renovations or upgrades since construction. Key items that reflect deferred maintenance or dated condition include: Original kitchen and bathrooms (nearly 30 years old) -Worn flooring and outdated fixtures -HVAC system over 15 years old These factors impact the home's marketability and resale value when compared to recently updated homes in the neighborhood,many of which have sold in the $670,000— $680,000 range despite being modernized. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Please see the analysis report. The 2023 and 2024 sales are listed at the top and summarized below the black line. The close comparisons are almost identical to the subject in finished area, year built, effective year built(they are depreciated equally to the subject), all have grade A- 15, and equal in bath/fireplace counts. The subject is presently$4,000 to $11,000 less than the mean and median of the close comparisons. Price per square foot of the subject is less than the mean and median of close comps. and between the mean and median of sale price per square foot. The subject appears valued correctly within this neighborhood. 1. Photo 2. GIS Map 2. Analysis report 3. Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $696,900 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 Conor Tighe Appellant if different Property Address Lot 23, Hill Street Parcel ID or Abstract 19778975832 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on land value of neighboring properties. Current Assessed Value 1 $80,000 1 County O inio 1 $80,000 Time of Hearin 1:48 PM I Appellant O inion 1 $61,600 Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C County Representative I Kelly Wells Board Decision $80,000 No change in value Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Land value of neighboring properties -60%encumbrance Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a.17-acre vacant lot in the Lloyd/Broad area in Carrboro. There is an OWASA easement across most of the back of the parcel that measures .013 acres. • There is currently a-60%adjustment on the land. • Tanner Valuations Group reviewed the appeal and recommended no change in value. As such, the County recommends no change in value. • Image of subject • GIS Map • Current property record card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $80,000 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 He di H. Walsh Appellant if different Property Address 229 Huntington Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19789572314 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on discrepancy in data, comparable sales, 43.13%increase, February 2020 appraisal. Current Assessed Value $1,177,400 ounty Opinion $1,177,500 Time of Hearin 1:50 PM Appellant Opinion $915,600 County Representative Kelly Wells Board Decision $1,177,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Discrepancy in data: bedroom count • Comparable sales • 43.13%increase • February 2020 appraisal Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is a brick, single family home with 3,999 square feet, 5 bedrooms and 4 full baths built in 1984 on a 1-acre lot located in Coker Hills in Chapel Hill. Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C • Tanner Valuations Group reviewed the appeal and suggested correcting the bedroom count from 5 to 4 and correcting the deck on the back. Based on sales of similar homes in the area, no reduction in value is warranted. The corrections would result in a value change from $1,177,400 to $1,177,500. • Photo • GIS map • Sales and Equity Analysis • Current property record card • Proposed property record card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $1,177,500 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner John D. Stephens Appellant(if different Property Address 113 Bolinwood Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 9789523354 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $1,037,900 County Opinion $968,500 Time of Hearin 1:57 PM Appellant Opinion $968,200 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $968,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant mentions one comparable sale, 101 Songbird Lane, and one equity comparable property, 105 Bolinwood Drive, as supporting evidence for their opinion of value. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject Property Overview: The subject property is located at 113 Bolinwood Drive in Chapel Hill. County staff conducted a physical inspection of the property for verification and photographs. • Appellant's Submitted Comparables: The appellant submitted 105 Bolinwood Drive as an equity comparable. The appellant also submitted 101 Songbird Lane as a comparable sale. Although this sale closed after January 1, 2025, it was listed as pending in MLS in December 2024, so County staff reviewed it as part of the analysis. • County Sales Analysis and Findings: County staff completed a sales analysis of three comparable properties that sold within the subject's neighborhood.After reviewing these sales and comparing them to the subject property,the County recommends the following adjustments: Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C - Reduce the Quality Grade from A+20 to A+10 - Reduce the Effective Year Built from 2003 to 1998 • These recommended changes would bring the subject property's value per square foot more in line with the comparable sales used in the neighborhood analysis. • Recommendation: With the recommended adjustments applied, County staff recommends a revised assessed value of$968,500 for the subject property. • Subject Photo • GIS Map • Sales Analysis • Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Susan Taylor Dean Appellant(if different) Property Address 511 Cornelius Street Parcel ID or Abstract 9865703715 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on the land value only. Current Assessed Value $239,600 ounty Opinion $194,900 Time of Hearin 2:00 PM Appellant Opinion $65,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $194,900 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant submitted two appeals, one for PIN 9865701775 and one for PIN 9865703715. Based on the information contained on the appeal forms, it is apparent the appellant confused the properties on the forms,placing appeal information for 519 Cornelius Street on the appeal form for PIN 9865703715 and placing appeal information for 511 Cornelius Street on the appeal form for PIN 9865701775. • From the information contained on the appeal form for 9865701775,the appellant states her estimate of value is based on the land value only as the residence is uninhabitable and in need of remodeling or being torn down. • No other evidence was submitted to support the appellant's opinion of value. Evidence submitted by the county representative: Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C • The subject is a 31,363 square foot lot that is zoned General Commercial and is currently improved with a 1937 residence containing 833 square feet.The subject is listed in Poor condition and has additional depreciation of 90%to account for the current residential improvements having little contribution to value for the commercially zoned property.The property was listed for sale in February 2021 by Century 21 for$275,000 but was not on the market as of January 1, 2025. • Based on an exterior inspection,the County recommends applying an additional -10% for a sharp slope on the east side of the property for a total land market adjustment of-57%. • The recommended adjustment would reduce the land value from$236,900 to $192,200 and the overall value from$239,600 to$194,900. • Photo • GIS Map • Zoning Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $194,900 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Susan Taylor Dean A ellant if different Property Address 519 Cornelius Street I Parcel ID or Abstract 19865701775 • Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on an unidentifiable home selling for $150,000 and because the home is in a"low-income area" and "needs extensive remodel and landscaping." Current Assessed Value $289,000 ounty Opinion $287,600 Time of Hearin 2:04 PM Appellant Opinion $165,000 County Representative Roger Gunn Board Decision $287,600 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • ** The appellant submitted two appeals, one for PIN 9865701775 and one for PIN 9865703715. Based on the information contained on the appeal forms, it is apparent the appellant confused the properties on the forms,placing appeal information for 519 Cornelius Street on the appeal form for PIN 9865703715 and placing appeal information for 511 Cornelius Street on the appeal form for PIN 9865701775. Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C • From the information contained on the appeal form for 9865703715,the appellant states her estimate of value is based on an unidentifiable home selling for$150,000 and because the home is in a"low-income area" and"needs extensive remodel and landscaping." • No other evidence was submitted to support the a ellant's opinion of value. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a 37,026 square foot lot that is zoned General Commercial and currently improved with a 1972 manufactured home with a stick-built addition. The subject is listed in Average condition but has design depreciation of 90%to account for the current residential improvements having little contribution to value for the commercially zoned property. • The property was listed for sale in February 2021 by Century 21 for$375,000 but was not on the market as of January 1,2025. • Based on an exterior inspection,the County recommends changing the roof cover from Shingle to Metal, changing the condition of the residence from Average to Fair and depreciating the outbuildings 99%for their lack of contribution to the commercial property value. • The recommended adjustments would reduce the building value from$9,000 to$8,000,the yard items value from $400 to 0, and the overall value from$289,000 to $287,600. • Photo • GIS Map • Zoning Map of Subject • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $287,600 Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Colin Devon port Appellant if different Property Address 4 Iris Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 9788924622 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on comparable properties. Current Assessed Value $790,000 ounty Opinion $790,000 Time of Hearin 2:07 PM Appellant Opinion $725,000 County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $760,095 0%land adjustment Evidence submitted by the appellant: Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C • Comparable Houses Sold within 18 months of Jan 1,2025, appraisal date, in a very close proximity to the appraised property, at$745,000.Attaching the transaction amounts for these comparable houses (Comp#1 and Comp#2), and a map indicating their close proximity. These comparable houses, very close by, also seem to have larger livable areas, (please see details from a previous appraisal of 4 Iris Lane, also attached)Thus, as both also have larger lots(one much larger), the sale value of 4 Iris Lane is likely a little lower than these actual sales. Estimate of 95-98%of their value. 97%gives $725,000, hence the appeal. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 4 Iris Lane in Chapel Hill. A site visit was conducted on November 12, 2025. The home appeared to be in average condition. Currently the Actual Year Built and Effective Year Built is 1964. This is a conservative Effective Year Built, reflecting the home has an effective age of 61 years. • The Appellant supplied three neighborhood sales. It is agreed these are the best comparables available in NBC 7525. The analysis of these comps is two-part,reviewing land values and then separately reviewing the improvements. • The subject land is inferior to all comparables due to size. The AC-9 land value reflects this with the subject having the lowest land value assessment. • The subject is superior to all comps concerning finished square footage. This along with having the oldest Effective Year Built and a lower construction grade,yields a lower assessed value per square foot($267). The assessed value for the improvement was derived from applying the cost factors from the approved Orange County Schedule of Values. These values are also applied to the comparable sales to derive their building values. • Combining the land value to the individual building costs,yields the total assessed value. The assessed value of the subject falls well below the comparables (Average $200,000+)due to the factors noted above. • Sale values of comparables occurring in 2021 and 2023 are not the sole basis of determining assessed value of the subject as of l/l/2025. As has been noted there are several significant aspects that are factored. Land values and improvement values have been applied equitably to all properties. • Based on this analysis, the current assessed value is considered supported,and no change in value is recommended. 1. Subject property photo 2. Property record card 3. Comparable properties photos 4. Sales analysis 5. GIS Ma Motion of the Board Value Changed as Follows: $760,095 -5%land adjustment Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Property Identification: Property Owner Small Ruminant& Appellant(if different) Camelia&Mobile Vet Property Address Business Personal Parcel ID or Abstract 313309 Property at 110 Merlot Lane Statement of Appeal: Request to remove penalties associated with business personal property tax discovery notice. Current Assessed Value N/A County Opinion Applied statutory listing enalties for 2022-2024 Time of Hearin 2:21 PM Appellant Opinion $0 County Representative Karen Atwater Board Decision Compromise of listing penalties in the amount of$230.18 anted Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Request to remove penalties associated with business personal property tax discovery notice. It was explained to me there was equipment that I was not taxed on,that was added/listed on my 2025 tax form by my accountant. I'm not sure how/why this happened but assure you that I have always filed and paid my taxes in full and on time. I came immediately to address this. I've paid the balance of my business taxes minus the penalties and hope that you may forgive the penalty. Receipts are attached for reference. I always pay my bills as soon as I get them and appreciate your attention and consideration of this matter. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The 2025 Business Personal Property Listing form was received timely. • In the Machinery&Equipment Group there was an amount in the addition column, on the 2021 acquisition row, to indicate cost for assets that were purchased in 2021 that were not already showing on the listing form. • In this situation,when acquisition costs not previously listed are indicated,the county can issue a discovery for up to five previous years. • Discovery for the added acquisition was created for tax years 2022 through 2024 and mailed 7/29/2025, allowing 30 days to respond. • When no response was received, the discovered values were billed 9/17/2025. • Shortly thereafter, on 9/23/2025, Dr Cannedy came to the office to understand and address the situation. Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C • He had been out of the country for a month. • Payment,minus the pending penalties, for these discoveries was made on this date as well. • The account is in good standing. Only these associated listing penalties remain outstanding. • Appellant appeal-Small Ruminant -includes appeal email, discovery notice, 2025 listing form,balance due statements (balance due represents penalty amounts only), receipt for payments already made • County evidence- Small Ruminant -includes BOER Summary,2025 listing form(addition highlighted), discovery notice,tax bills (balances due represent penalty amounts only), copy of NCGS 105-312 NCGS: • 105-312 Discovered property; appraisal; penalty. • 105-312 (h) Computation of Penalties • 105-312 k Power to Compromise Motion of the Board Compromise of listing penalties in Compromise of listing penalties in the amount of$230.18 for tax years the amount of$230.18 granted. 2022-2024. Made the motion Barbara Levine Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Krishna Sinha Appellant if different Property Address 401 Lakeshore Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 9890107574 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on January 2025 purchase price. Current Assessed Value $1,063,000 ounty Opinion $952,100 Time of Hearin 2:30 PM Appellant Opinion $925,000 County Representative Jimmy Milliken Board Decision $952,100 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • We purchased the house in January 2025 for a price of$925,000. Therefore, for tax purposes, the assessed value of the home as of January 1,2025, should align to the actual transaction rice in January 2025 of$925,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Subject property is located at 401 Lakeshore Lane. A sales analysis was created and based on that analysis, an adjustment of the grade from A+20 to A-10 was needed to align the property with other neighborhood sales. Per the sales listing for the subject,the fireplaces are not operable. The County suggests adding 2%functional obsolescence for the fireplaces not Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C working. Adjusting the grade from A+20 to A-10 and adding 2%functional obsolescence for fireplace issues would create a revised value of$952,100,which is within 3%of the subject's January 2025 sales price. • Sales Analysis • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • Property Photo Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $952,100 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Blanche R. Curry Appellant(if different) George H. Draper IV Trustee Property Address 20 Mafolie Court Parcel ID or Abstract 9880578234 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on 1/15/2025 purchase price. Current Assessed Value $434,900 County Opinion $341,700 Time of Hearin 2:35 PM Appellant Opinion $320,000 County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $341,700 Lochner Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant filed a formal appeal on 7/22/2025. • The appellant requested a reduced assessed value due to purchase of subject on 1/15/2025 for $320,000. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject is a vacant parcel with 7.28 acres in NBC 7980. • It is recommended to apply a-45%Market factor on the property due to: 1. Power line easement 2. Limited frontage on Mafolie Court 3. Road noise from Interstate Hwy 40 • This reduction is substantiated by signed contract for purchase in December 2024 for $320,000, closing occurred on 1/15/2025. Even though it is an adjoining property to the appellants residence,purchase agreement appears to be close to arms-length, substantiated by time on market per the MLS information. Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C • This will be a reduction in value of$93,200, from$434,900 to $341,700. 1. Current Property Record Card 2. Recommended Property Record Card 3. MLS Photos 4. GIS Ma Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $341,700 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner George H. Draper IV Appellant(if different) Trustee Property Address 101 Foxridge Road Parcel ID or Abstract 9880478447 Statement of Appeal: Request conversation with a county appraiser regarding valuation. Current Assessed Value $1,534,100 County Opinion $1,534,100 Time of Hearin 2:51 PM Appellant Opinion Not Provided County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $1,534,100 No change in value Lochner Evidence submitted by the appellant: • No revised 2025 assessed value was noted by the Appellant. • Appellant only stated, "wish to speak to an appraiser." Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The appellant filed a formal appeal on 7/22/2025. • Per the appellant's request,this appraiser phoned the appellant. Conversation generally was concerning the appellant's other appeal for parcel 9880578234. • The appellant stated he suspected this parcel was not in need of an adjustment, but he was going to contact his real estate broker to confirm. As of 1 l/15/2025 no evidence or further communication from the appellant has been received. A follow-up email was sent, and a voicemail was left for the appellant on 11/13/2025. • Due to no evidence from the appellant,no change in the current value is recommended. Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: 1 $1,534,100 No change in value Made the motion Richal Vanhook Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Voted For I All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Norbert M. Lechner A ellant(if different) Property Address 311 Oakland Lane I Parcel ID or Abstract 19779904260 Statement of Appeal: Determine whether property is a townhome or a condominium. Current Assessed Value 327,300 County Opinion Townhome, $327,300 Time of Hearing 2:58 PM Appellant Opinion Condominium,Unknown Value Opinion County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision Townhome, $327,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • In a prior BOER meeting on 10/30/2025,the appellant stated that the subject property is a condominium rather than a townhome and should have no land value assessed. • The BOER voted on a continuance for the county to review whether Village West is a townhome or condominium development. • In the prior BOER meeting, the appellant testified that the Village West homeowner's association had looked at estimates to replace the exterior siding of all units in the development. An initial estimate put the cost of replacement at$33,000 per unit,to be paid by the property owners. • Also, during the meeting, county staff reviewed the deed of the subject property filed in Register of Deeds 6255/501. The deed describes the subject property as a condominium. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • Orange County Land Records reviewed documentation for Village West and concluded that no Declaration of Condominium has been filed in the Orange County Register of Deeds. • Also,there is no mention of a condominium in the plat of Village West filed in Plat Book 30, page 1. • Since there is no Declaration of Condominium,the subject property should continue to be assessed as a townhome. No change to the current valuation is recommended. 1. Overhead and exterior photographs 2. Plat of Village West(P30/1) 3. Subject property deed(6255/501) 4. Land value analysis 5. Current(proposed)property record Motion of the Board Other: Assess as townhome. $327,300 no change in value Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Frank Theodore Jean Appellant(if different) Property Address 1331 Rose Walk Lane I Parcel ID or Abstract 19778421162 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition/maintenance, recent purchase, comparable sales, and online value estimate. Current Assessed Value $396,600 ounty Opinion 1 $374,000 Time of Hearin 3:06 PM Appellant Opinion $364,200 County Representative Scott Zeman Board Decision $374,000 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Condition/Maintenance: We experienced catastrophic damage in January of this year due to burst fire suppression sprinklers in the attic. This resulted in all three floors being taken down to the studs and all flooring removed. This will no doubt have an impact on our ability to sell the house, should our advanced age require we look for a single floor residence. • Recent Purchase: Our townhome was listed at $315,000 when we purchased it on 6/20/2022. This was at the peak of the COVID bubble, and houses stopped being bid up soon after. Given our age and the age of our nearby grandchildren,we felt we did not have the time to wait for things to settle and bid over$60,000 above the listing price. It is unreasonable to expect to be able to recover that overbid in two and a half years,much less sell for the current tax appraisal. • Recent Comparable Sale: • Five properties used as comparables in current tax appraisal (see attached comparable report) sold for an average of$209 per square foot. Three nearby townhomes sold recently that are closer in size to mine: 218, 300, 306 Cedarwood Ln -average price per sq ft= $224 per square foot. • Realtor.com estimates the value of the property at$364,200. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • A county appraiser conducted a site review of the property on 11/12/2025. The appellant was at home and allowed access to the exterior and interior of the property. Photographs were taken by the appraiser. No interior photographs were provided. • Appraiser observations and recommendations: Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C 1. GRADE: The residence has a grade of B,which is consistent with townhomes in the Rosewalk neighborhood. No change to grade is recommended. 2. AGE: The residence was built in 2006 and has an effective year built of 2011. The attached MLS listing indicates the kitchen has been updated.No change to effective year built is recommended. 3. CONDITION: The residence is currently in Average condition. Regarding the water damage to the floors from the burst sprinklers,the damage occurred after January 1, 2025 and cannot be considered with this appeal. The damage was fully repaired at the time of the appraiser visit. No change to condition is recommended for 2025. 4. DESIGN FACTOR: The subject property is one of the smallest units in the Rosewalk neighborhood,with 1,240 square feet and two bedrooms. Its current value is based on sales of units with larger square footages and more bedrooms. The county recommends adding a-10% design factor for the subject being a smaller unit in a neighborhood with typically larger homes. The design factor would reduce the building value by$22,600. 5. SALES ANALYSIS: The appellant has provided five recent sales in the Rosewalk neighborhood. Four occurred in 2024 and one occurred in 2023. The appellant also has provided three sales from the Weatherhill neighborhood(Cedarwood Rd). The Weatherhill community is older and has a lower construction quality than Rosewalk, so the latter three sales are not considered comparable to the subject property. • The County's sales analysis uses four 2024 sales from Rosewalk. The sales have larger square footages than the subject property, and only one is an end unit like the subject. The analysis indicates a median sale price of$227 per square foot for properties with a median square footage of 2,334. If this rate is to be applied to the subject property, an adjustment should be made to account for the fact that smaller residences are typically more valuable on a per- square-foot basis. Additional consideration should be given to the fact that the subject is an end unit. The county's proposal would set the subject's value at$302 per square foot. • With the recommended change above,the county recommends a value of$374,000 for the subject property,which is below its June 2022 purchase price of$376,500. 1. Overhead and exterior photos 2. MLS listing for 2022 sale of subject 3. Appellant's comparable report 4. County's sales analysis 5. Current property record 6. Proposed property record Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $374,000 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Property Owner Wanda A. Edwards A ellant(if different) Property Address 136 Wentworth Street I Parcel ID or Abstract 19778931994 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition of land, home, and yard items. Current Assessed Value $256,600 ounty Opinion $250,700 Time of Hearin 3:34 PM Appellant Opinion $195,100 County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision $250,700 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • Current assessed value of shed is $3,000. I appeal this valuation based on the condition of the shed which has siding that needs to be replaced. Additionally,there are concerns with leaks in roof. The shed is also on the downslope of the property. Current assessed value of home is $163,600. 1 am appealing this based on condition of the home. There are loose railings on front and rear porches with damaged boards. There is an unexplained noise in shower wall that sounds like running water in pipes. All flooring is original to home and there are significant squeaking floors. All windows are original to home. There are numerous cracks in siding of home. There is crack in wall near coat closet and others that suggest foundation issues. There is a crack in bathroom sink in primary bathroom that needs replacing. There are significant nail popouts in drywall throughout home. My estimated valuation is based on(total land=$90,000) +(building= 103,600)+(shed=$1500)_$195,100 • Environmental/Land Issues: Additionally,the lot is sloped, and lot is wooded, surrounded by trees on municipally owned land. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On November 7,2025, a site visit was conducted by an appraiser. The homeowner was present during the visit but did not permit interior access to the property. After discussing the issues noted in the appeal related to the interior,I captured the exterior photographs provided in the county's evidence. • The photos include an image of the shed on the property, and I do not recommend any change to its current assessed value of$3,000. The lot already carries a-50%market reduction, which remains appropriate for the subject property. • Based on the information the appraiser could verify,the County recommends adjusting the property's condition from Average to Fair. This change would result in a revised value of $250,700. • Photographs • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card • GIS Ma Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $250,700 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C Voted Against ... Property Identification: Property Owner Glenn I Floyd Appellant(if different) Property Address 105 Dove Street Parcel ID or Abstract 19779217534 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on"adverse physical and environmental characteristics that impact its desirability and marketability." Current Assessed Value $527,300 ounty Opinion $527,300 Time of Hearin 3:37 PM Appellant Opinion $495,000 County Representative Dana Hall Board Decision $527,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • I am writing to formally appeal the proposed tax assessment for my property located at 105 Dove Street in Carrboro,NC (Parcel ID: 9779217534). The current assessment has increased from$477,000 to $527,000a 10.5%increase. I believe this valuation does not accurately reflect the property's actual market value due to specific adverse physical and environmental characteristics that impact its desirability and marketability. Grounds for Appeal: 1. Proximity to Flood Plain and Drainage Limitations The property is directly adjacent to a designated flood plain, and portions of the lot exhibit swamp-like features during and after periods of rainfall. These conditions limit the usability of the land and present challenges for drainage, landscaping, and potential future development or expansion. These factors would be expected to negatively impact the market value relative to similar properties not affected by such issues. 2. Unpaved Road Frontage. 105 Dove Street is situated on an unpaved section of the roadway, which affects both accessibility and curb appeal. The lack of paved frontage not only detracts from the property's appearance but also creates maintenance burdens and lowers the property's desirability compared to other properties in the area with standard paved access. 3. Comparable Properties and Prior Valuation. The prior assessment of$477,000 more accurately reflected the property's market value when considering these factors.No substantial improvements have been made to the property since the last assessment, and environmental conditions remain unchanged or have worsened due to increased rainfall and continued runoff challenges in the area. 4. Photographic Evidence. Enclosed are recent photos of the property showing standing water and the swamp-like conditions, as well as the unpaved road access. These visuals reinforce the concerns cited and should be considered in evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed increase. Requested Action Given these considerations, I respectfully request that the assessed value be reduced to $477,000, consistent with the prior valuation and reflective of the property's current condition and market limitations. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I am available to discuss or provide additional documentation at your convenience. Sincerely, Glenn Floyd Owner, 105 Dove Street 919-636-2920 bzfloyd@gmail.com Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On November 18, 2025 the subject property was visited by an appraiser. A floodplain is indicated on the aerial GIS map; however, it is located nearly two lots away from the subject property. The lot itself appears to have a very level slope based on both the available photographs and observations made during the site visit. Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C • A sales analysis was conducted for the property and indicates that its current valuation is well supported by qualified comparable sales—particularly the sale of 208 Quail Roost Drive, which closed on November 12, 2024,for$610,000. • Based on the above information,the County recommends no change in value. • Pictures • GIS Map -Floodplain • Comparable Report • Sales Analysis - 7202 • Current Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept County's Proposed Value: $527,300 Made the motion Saru Salvi Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members ... Voted Against ... ... Consent Agenda Parcel ID Owner Name Current Recommended Reason for change Date Value Value Signed 9788688432 Todd Edwards $4,065,800 $3,123,700 Based on recommendation from TVG: 11/14/2025 Trustee reduce land value and grade based on equity of like properties. 9778387200 John T. $406,400 $367,400 Applying a market adjustment to the land 11/07/2025 Montavon value to account for the ingress and egress associated with the condominiums across the street 9779322339 John $504,800 $470,900 Changing EYB 1997 back to AYB 1987, OP 11/06/2025 Elwood Brandon converted to SP, adding 144 sqf of heated area, adding-10 topo. 9870429171 Ann Taft $453,100 $407,000 Changing grade B to C, EYB of 1995 back to 11/14/2025 AYB of 1985, changing the condition of the home from poor to fair. Deck has a $0 value. 9767785307 Perry Smith $445,300 $347,600 Adding 20%adjustment for functional 11/15/2025 depreciation, EYB of 1982 back to AYB of 1967, adding-10 topo on land. 9778266500 ECP CH West N/A N/A The county would like to make a 11/17/2025 End LLC recommendation to grant full exemption based on review from the county attorney 9880346537 FBRT 86 North N/A N/A The county would like to make a 11/17/2025 Owner LLC recommendation to grant full exemption based on review from the county attorney Docusign Envelope ID: F69F6FC6-EFB7-4BA4-AC17-3EC64A01A42C 9865503608 West Village N/A N/A The county would like to make a 11/17/2025 Acquisition LLC recommendation to grant a 75%exemption based on review from the county attorney Chair of the Bo cusigne d by: �a�a a � Barbara Levine else 12/29/2025 Recording Secr6buf :46 d by: Rob Teachout 1'u� Lo 12/29/2025