[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6558239,"mediaKeyId","3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5","parentId",3274502,"title","Owner says neighbor's 'junk' and encroachment cut marketability; board affirms assessor after denying site visit","audioSeconds",1155,"startMs",7121000,"endMs",8276000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5&start=7121&end=8276","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5/thumbnail_7121000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6558239/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Owner-says-neighbors-junk-and-encroachment-cut-marketability-board-affirms-assessor-after-denying-site-visit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558239-b67385e861fc03e36d65aad78152487e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436923&Signature=awo0OfrI6vCD5Q8JLkSBN70TnB-VnEB39Y5elmv4REgSL0Wmsgow5QYbdDeVG2GJUnZTYVVuOjg2vld8AMnpCF-2Gfa-02nVw02QgPOr2lDAf4s0Tt90aYJpdFyAtB4MkzsD93KQQltC3r6IO7tXYgtHmUAc1WOhNp~8ZI-eJxI1jhLhqCFVoWHYWX6cguua1lDVyY9z2FN0d-X52gVtaF2KnWHeXKxOyT~0yA6Sh8HvFmc32eZ0gX25Bp~BWHGeFxx0wxK4MMyO3e0wKJGUuZQ-0Nd88gkFgMj9NEUC3ksJUd1wY1EzgujREhssFZ3Pqf4cqtqAH95Nveehnq1AVA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Albemarle County","date","2025-05-12T18:35:52Z","article","A Keswick area landowner asked Albemarle County's Board of Equalization on May 12 to lower his property's assessed value because a neighboring parcel hosts numerous outbuildings, stored material and parked vehicles that the owner said spill onto his lot and harm marketability.

The appellant submitted photographs and recited portions of the county code's definition of \"junkyard\" to argue the neighbor's use amounted to an unlawful or detrimental use of land that depressed his property's sale price. He said he had two real estate firms review the property and that both told him a buyer paying near $1 million would not tolerate the adjacent site conditions.

Assessor's staff acknowledged they received complaints and had applied a 5% land adjustment and a 5% improvement adjustment to reflect the neighboring property's condition and screening; Community Development staff had not yet completed a site walk or enforcement action. The appellant had filed complaints online; staff described the county's enforcement process and the potential timeline for corrective action.

During the hearing the board voted not to conduct a separate on‑site inspection and then voted to affirm the assessor's 2025 valuation for the property. The board recorded one member voting against the assessor's recommendation and requested that county staff follow up with the appellant about enforcement steps and timelines.

Action: Board denied the appellant's request for a site visit and affirmed the assessor's 2025 assessment after a recorded vote (motion carried, one opposed). The assessor had already included a 5% access/land adjustment and a 5% improvement adjustment to account for neighboring conditions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Albemarle Board of Equalization Meeting, 5/12/25","oneSentenceSummary","A landowner asked Albemarle's Board of Equalization to reduce his 2025 assessment because of a neighboring property he described as a \"junkyard\" that encroaches on his lot; the board declined a site visit and affirmed the assessor's value, applying small reductions already in the tax record.","taxTitle","Albemarle County, Virginia","taxId",4417,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558243,"Board rejects Staybridge Suites' request to lower valuation grade; assessor's income approach held",3487,2316000,5803000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5&start=2316&end=5803","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5/thumbnail_2316000.jpg","/articles/6558243/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Board-rejects-Staybridge-Suites-request-to-lower-valuation-grade-assessors-income-approach-held","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558243-cc70eb200b79295cce6f334dbd3f1eb8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436923&Signature=DoxicR5yYtclAvD06SM3OLXPqgi1ludqOThNqQxsP2kvIfywCUMAuCEpwzOwUlVLJlSKTdvcdpyloEa8GTOIKHWLzJqXo~Z25jE7vta4XF0TD2QszNeGRFIT33H5k74ABLQ5gwZeH9IVMafI0JgB3k0zNEALjXN2Dcp6DZsOxdIKkzMALCketFgHQ1SeP~qSfXhdFtO0g-kMb1c-GyqW-X9zQ0ayr0qgBBY2if50FfdRe33uk2AYw0K4kCGYTUedHD~EcZ9hkvBWAMRO8LosKZEr6mgUhcOWOMovyyvybkoEIWraWY0PhdKNIZKkFKcfGRd8sGTz0aWhu0CAt92H9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ownership and management of the Staybridge Suites at the airport asked Albemarle's Board of Equalization to reclassify the property from grade 1 to grade 3 (or 4) for the county's lodging valuation schedule. The hotel representative argued the property—built in 2019 and an extended‑stay brand—operates in a less desirable market on the north side of town, posts lower ADR and RevPAR than the county's model average, and is approaching a brand property improvement plan (PIP) time frame that will require capital investment.

The assessor's office reviewed operating statements (using 2023 as the base year for the 2025 assessment), inspected the property and found it in \"excellent condition,\" and said the county's lodging model treats this Staybridge Suites as a limited‑service, newer property (grade 1) with a flat rate cap of 8.5%. Staff explained they used the hotel's actual income and expense statements in the income approach and included a replacement reserve in the model. The appellant asked the board to adopt a higher cap rate (9.5% or 10%) consistent with a lower grade; the assessor said the hotel's income and condition support the lower cap rate.

After discussion the board voted to affirm the assessor's valuation and grade for the Staybridge Suites. The assessor noted the county uses the Smith Travel Research chain scale to place hotels in class, and the county's model uses reported income and standardized replacement reserves to derive the final value.

Action: Motion to affirm the assessor's 2025 assessment for the Staybridge Suites was approved by the board; no change to the grade or cap rate was ordered.","The hotel's owner asked the Board of Equalization to change the property grade and cap rate applied to their Staybridge Suites near Charlottesville Albemarle County Airport; the board affirmed the assessor's grade 1/limited‑service valuation and 8.5% cap rate.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558248,"Board affirms assessment for landlocked lot; owner told options to change access and value",1354,2440000,3794000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5&start=2440&end=3794","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5/thumbnail_2440000.jpg","/articles/6558248/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Board-affirms-assessment-for-landlocked-lot-owner-told-options-to-change-access-and-value","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558248-7621426af1e9258b919b2eaa39424555/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436923&Signature=eXuqLPQ5kYlH7-2yE-OMJHedzdcBMup0QpUXQBaMNNB6S1a~6ky8ebTo9fiDnBk4jY3kI4e~1tfBjcbb8wWgNBj9e3opcE4Ch7bDrNBfxcJT~VUtic3gnn0BukS-S9wH5iHD0V323PGLipC62-VvTllcfztOYekbuc91LNUfkkw8zbOgG3d9qbmTo1-igDZgGi2gJ7IauYUYGUhIYIhHpPU-GfXHEzpWgNuLLeSZocParYPrtnhDZRP5ky3D4LEueO2t5-L7MwFFSdkdPuFM~f2paKxhoRObF80eiMkkTDRzaXPyP5cA3ZBhlN3vQOxohut1KrmsXB3rP0iTz9agvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Equalization unanimously affirmed the assessor's 2025 valuation of a rear, partially landlocked lot on May 12, after the owner argued the parcel was not truly developable and should be assessed at a lower value.

The appellant said the back parcel is effectively landlocked by the driveway routing, questioning whether a future buyer would want to drive past the owner's house and through a narrow easement to reach the lot. The assessor's representative told the board that county records show legal access was provided when the parcel was subdivided and that Community Development staff advised the assessor the parcel is developable, with only a small portion of the tract affected by stream protection and topography. The assessor said the office had already applied a 15% reduction for the lot's access through another parcel and an additional 20% reduction on the residual acreage for topography and water protection overlay where applicable.

Board members discussed remedies the owner might pursue, including combining the parcels or legally vacating or altering the easement; staff advised those are separate legal processes and not immediate fixes to change the assessment for 2025. After questioning, the board voted to affirm the assessor's value for the lot as assessed.

Action: The board voted unanimously to affirm the assessor's 2025 assessment (assessed land value cited at hearing: $148,700). The assessor's office said the owner could pursue other legal property changes outside the equalization hearing to change future valuations.","A property owner appealed a higher assessment for a rear lot accessed by an easement; the board affirmed the assessor's value after the county said the back parcel was legally developable and the assessor had applied a 15% access reduction.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558253,"Board debates whether 101‑unit portfolio should be taxed as condos or apartments; keeps condo approach",1623,730000,2353000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5&start=730&end=2353","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5/thumbnail_730000.jpg","/articles/6558253/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Board-debates-whether-101unit-portfolio-should-be-taxed-as-condos-or-apartments-keeps-condo-approach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558253-44d47381ea0f3e24255403a4907bbd21/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436923&Signature=VElr2nWJi7ZA1pdafkJwywkXE-p7SnDsIvWImroF7SJnTjbHccki30WS~zieKNDFupWNV4o6SESVua3c7SRm9k~zT9audv6HBVZldCSyhHCG86xqtkDqCLqvwPvBx0yVe1bNLELnjoRtI6XT-BnHXKtnYImBd8hnNlcy3hc-4dzNr1unX9V0zh-ISt4PN~hfm~fxZ2RSt40ZkwVxxQoHA~ix6rTLUbXhKEqC30P3CXwWu2wiwI2vQEv~pmHsUmdsdRhe5xZWXrcS~5TwyCaIbaSUXCNiZbEwoYMvScqTJ6NBp7vv-TljEryDtpoL8jBk1DM4X80XKY7p4-tncIzzXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the May 12 hearing the owner of 101 units in the Country Green (Villas at Southern Ridge) development asked Albemarle County's Board of Equalization to value their holdings as a multifamily property rather than as individual condominium units. Appellant representatives said the investor operates the tranche as rental apartments, cited a November 2024 portfolio sale for $11 million, and submitted a CBRE appraisal that used an income approach with a 6.5% cap rate. The assessor's office countered that a majority of units in the overall development remain individually owned, exterior maintenance and replacement reserves are governed by the condominium association, and historically the assessor has treated the parcels as condo units since conversion in 2007.

Board members discussed whether the parcel presented an \"interim use\" as apartments and the practical differences between control of a single‑owner portfolio and ownership of scattered condominium units. Several members said the county lacks a clear legal pathway to treat the parcels as a multifamily building because the owner does not control the homeowners association and because prior assessments had consistently applied individual unit valuations. The board resolved the policy tension by preserving the condo assessment method and enlarging the bulk‑ownership (multi‑unit) discount from 15% to 25% to capture the buyer's limited control and the market's likely volume discount on a sale of many units at once.

Action: The board voted to keep the units valued as condominiums but to increase the multi‑unit ownership discount to 25%. The assessor's office said it would compute the exact dollar impact and provide updated totals for all affected parcels.","Appellant argued assessor should value 101 units in Country Green as a multifamily property; the board declined to reclassify but agreed the owner should receive a larger bulk‑ownership discount.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":104,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6558259,"Albemarle board keeps property taxable as condos, boosts multi-unit ownership discount to 25%",2248,105000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5&start=105&end=2353","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3274502-be2e241d3554ad1bc010ca1c742d05b5/thumbnail_105000.jpg","/articles/6558259/Albemarle-County/Virginia/Albemarle-board-keeps-property-taxable-as-condos-boosts-multi-unit-ownership-discount-to-25","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6558259-8e77e22c0a2479ebaa41c529d0983211/orig.mp4?Expires=1770436923&Signature=jv27cOxj3EPQct4497RosOSwlcZW9K0LkSrvkMgWk~KLUXIQYdfyN8VU~H67OYQnC7wkYWVpGUTmD-qLr9v5SyxNGqZlBzwKImZMt8kcFlxu7VV9Rb77mF~Rd2EVSIh1krq-wtZkjOpRQVbnvgu430EXSM99RtjaK548pyA2RK2Zpooflvj~drZqStEvAFwih2TKqYbVfZV0goQJQXfy-3e~AEVHfZTH7u97WHscMPIq0zZuCHV~yOlRTkuKx0oLslXweSIFnTxyPlmTjgPemNJrlRs8zACQ4MgG2svpV3aELMf1osjTBTZRwR45PEEbvjsoFGfpcoeIZ1D12bisfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Albemarle County Board of Equalization on May 12 voted to keep the appraiser's method of valuing a 101‑unit tranche of The Villas at Southern Ridge as individual condominiums but raised the multi‑unit ownership discount applied to the improvements from 15% to 25%. The change will lower the overall assessment for that set of parcels; board members said they preferred adjusting the existing condo assessment rather than reclassifying the property as multifamily.

The appeal was filed by the owner of the 101 units (appellant), who pointed to an $11 million November 2024 portfolio sale and a CBRE appraisal that valued the portfolio at about $9 million. Appellant representatives argued the assessor's income approach overstated market rents and expenses and that the recent sale better reflected market value. The assessor's staff said the units historically had been assessed as individual condos since conversion in 2007 and argued the market still supported that approach because only a portion of the 240‑unit development is owned by the investor and because private owners still hold the remaining units.

Board discussion focused on whether the portfolio should be treated as an interim multifamily holding or remain valued as individual condominium units. Several members said the market evidence supported treating the property as condos for tax purposes but that the owners of many contiguous units face a loss of effective control and a bulk‑sale discount that should be reflected in the assessment. A member summarized the compromise: keep the condo valuation approach but increase the bulk ownership discount to recognize the practical limits of a large single owner inside an HOA.

Motion and vote: A board member moved to keep the assessment methodology as condominiums and increase the discount for multi‑unit ownership from 15% to 25%; another member seconded. The board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The assessor's office said it would compute and deliver the precise new assessed values for the hundred‑and‑one parcels to the appellant.

Why it matters: The change reduces the assessed value for the investor's 101 units without changing the county's broader method of valuing fractured‑condominium holdings. Board members framed the decision as a compromise that provides relief to the plaintiff while preserving the assessor's sales‑comparison and unit‑by‑unit approach for the remainder of the development.","The Board of Equalization kept a 101‑unit portion of The Villas at Southern Ridge assessed as individual condominium units but increased the multi‑unit ownership discount from 15% to 25%, lowering the property's assessment after hearing an appeal from the owner of 101 units.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Owner says neighbor's 'junk' and encroachment cut marketability; board affirms assessor after denying site visit

Board rejects Staybridge Suites' request to lower valuation grade; assessor's income approach held

Board affirms assessment for landlocked lot; owner told options to change access and value

Board debates whether 101‑unit portfolio should be taxed as condos or apartments; keeps condo approach

Albemarle board keeps property taxable as condos, boosts multi-unit ownership discount to 25%