[{"_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",[32,75,87,99,110],{"_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",6745864,"mediaKeyId","5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b","parentId",5345399,"title","Union County board tables Simpson appeal, asks county to map disputed flood and steep-slope acreage","audioSeconds",1133,"startMs",3181000,"endMs",4314000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b&start=3181&end=4314","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b/thumbnail_3181000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6745864/Union-County/North-Carolina/Union-County-board-tables-Simpson-appeal-asks-county-to-map-disputed-flood-and-steep-slope-acreage","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6745864-5ba0367a5c3dc2d6e9e646a7ee899f62/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172649&Signature=FBUnVF1SJk8RfqvqFWFDHeR903yZ6fW27fVh8y~DO3xCT7HhHyZCT9znM7k5uHyRr~zHyVPNeWsx~paTDGMP2YBarNbOhCldc9Fl2vv7dx82CSOEYU4B9FPTHm7bticgVSlv2~STH9fLAe~WdV6nF1Md6ZZEwck7qBcyRuOS7HwfUuD2881kh62BD8wXnGwDHcYRkphYVbox337oefBNEpB2Geibg-lGR87VYF-cuZSiOlTMVNscC4hrKHTydXdbf~xBxhVZ565aiEjCxlBu5h00DdaZh5mgygh-WSchkAiiauAsJHt1xeDqiZR5h0pNOXn1oQ55eDP6XbfhHcK~GA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Union County, NC","date","2025-07-10T03:52:39Z","article","Sean and Rodney Simpson asked the Union County Board of Equalization and Review to reduce the assessed value on a 55.38-acre parcel that they said is effectively landlocked and suffers frequent flooding and steep, unusable cliffs.

Simpson described vehicular access that crosses three private drives and easements, totaling roughly 5,879 feet (about 1.11 miles) from Fish Road. He showed photos and a FEMA overlay and said \"the road... gets shredded up so bad\" and that multiple sections flood in ordinary rain events. He supplied a survey and told the board he has had recurring disputes with a neighbor who sometimes blocks access.

County staff told the board they reviewed acreage sales for the New Salem area and calculated a median of about $9,637 per acre; they reported the parcel was being assessed at an effective roughly $6,695 per acre and that the county had already adjusted the assessment downward to $370,800 to account for no-access issues and floodplain acres. The county used FEMA's floodplain layer (19.8758 acres) and applied a 45% adjustment for those acres.

Board members pressed county staff about topography: several places along the creek exhibit steep contour lines and cliffs the taxpayer described as \"unusable land.\" Members asked the county to provide additional data before a final decision: a precise mapped acreage of the disputed creek/flood island (the Simpson representative estimated about 5.35 acres of creek water) and the assessed values for two immediately adjacent parcels, so the board could check equalization.

After discussion the board voted to table the Simpson appeal and directed county staff to return with (1) a verified map showing the small area Simpson contends is excluded from FEMA flood mapping, (2) acreage estimates for the steep-slope/cliff areas, and (3) the assessed values for the two neighboring parcels identified during the hearing. The taxpayer's detailed packet, photos and legal correspondence about access were entered into the record.

Next steps: County staff will deliver the requested mapping and assessed-value comparisons to the board; the board will reconvene the matter once those data are available.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Equalization and Review | July 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Equalization and Review on Thursday tabled the appeal from Sean and Rodney Simpson of a 55.38-acre parcel, requesting county staff to map disputed flood- and cliff-affected acreage and to produce assessed-value comparisons for adjacent parcels.","taxTitle","Union County, North Carolina","taxId",14197,"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},6745867,"Union County board upholds Filman property values after hearing on road frontage and flood adjustments",463,275000,738000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b&start=275&end=738","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b/thumbnail_275000.jpg","/articles/6745867/Union-County/North-Carolina/Union-County-board-upholds-Filman-property-values-after-hearing-on-road-frontage-and-flood-adjustments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6745867-4c865763079f170bd5fdd29e74fc9d53/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172649&Signature=mNuau7KHex4Is4gKUpTT7XgeFiT3phifGBFXr1i7bHCbyA7yQPqPj00zQJOSHKhVrNA-4g~POQuy9rz3T-eJgYRUZ9qwM30rQbvjrBHAiL0DhImVAxUTro2CPE9v~1wgb7Qyx23VIWoV9yHn4G5G119OZKXSRz3pPAj8mldKdGEqqivOz7pGgxj2BWESQxY2YM14B7hBhth4VSx9bRmGXI2gnsIpWyg2DxbJ7kCrAnzq0psWKpYD0KJTTRRQZAHqzzRBfsWN57yVqPDe2P82MdYpQl6K73s3O8m5JkCYHOAXXj-SZgOyKm9I1q9PGSqV5qF8zaMkg7S9YA2Z--FIhA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review on Thursday upheld the county's assessed values for two parcels owned by Richard Filman after a hearing in which the taxpayer questioned the use of road-frontage comparables and floodplain adjustments.

Filman told the board the county's valuation had increased \"from about approximately 700,000 to 1,400,000\" for the combined parcels and argued the county had relied on sales of properties with road frontage while his parcels \"have no road frontage.\" He asked the board to reduce the combined value to about $1,000,000.

County appraiser Brent Marshall said staff ran separate analyses for the parcel with the 2021-built house and for the land itself. He told the board that comparables were selected from the neighborhood and larger nearby parcels and that the county applied a 45% reduction to 4.26 acres that lie in the floodplain. Marshall said the county's land rate \"is $17,317 an acre,\" which is near the median derived from sales the county reviewed.

Board members questioned Filman and county staff about access, present-use enrollment and whether forestry or agricultural classifications applied to parts of the holdings. Filman said he accessed the property by a right-of-way across a neighbor's land and reiterated that \"properties that do not have road frontage cannot be valued the same as properties that have road frontage.\" County staff confirmed parts of the holdings are enrolled in the agricultural/present-use program and described how that reduces the assessed value.

In deliberations the board voted to uphold the county's assessments for both parcels. The board recorded the motion to accept the county values after county staff explained their per‑acre and dwelling analyses and the floodplain and present-use adjustments.

The board noted taxpayers will receive written notice of the board's decisions by statute within 30 days.

Votes and next steps: Board members voted to uphold the county's valuations for both Filman parcels; the county will issue written notices of the decisions.","The Board of Equalization and Review heard appeals from Richard Filman over two adjoining parcels whose assessments rose sharply after the 2025 revaluation. County appraisers defended their use of comparable sales, a 45% floodplain discount for 4.26 acres, and present-use adjustments; the board ultimately upheld the county values.",{"_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},6745852,"Board records settlements, no‑shows and two clerical amendments to prior actions",1949,5611000,7560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b&start=5611&end=7560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b/thumbnail_5611000.jpg","/articles/6745852/Union-County/North-Carolina/Board-records-settlements-noshows-and-two-clerical-amendments-to-prior-actions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6745852-31478e0bcd471216f5d769798a45af1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172649&Signature=D8lT5XXzLkhhNSMGwXeybaMkwxBNwpp6wjqeMn9xLufthaQJZNODfz9pK4-2OYUu4aKDPaoCkQDMgS441fgeOpkZ2~9LO1gLYla545v~a7meRdaOOy5oUcpD0IuXLtL-WUOonR9NAMyHpocltop-NyRmJX7ITDq5FIXer3HJQBmSSmqmR6NkBkOgI0AeleFkTyVNtbzSgwang2u22~SCRMpnjc8I9P8LLd8yHYDQNaEDLK2Ghn~P~7IJv4I40oJYb5tzsZz2uADDjCv9cT4x8v0EZlGA6uQtZF3h0s3niTn5F6oVUqdo1FkkHnFQ8FG3h5xqpMdQmF1cKajQ~6sODg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Union County staff reported several settlements and no-shows during the hearing cycle; the board approved the staff recommendations and recorded two amendments to values previously reported on the June 26 agenda.

Staff said one family case (not present) had submitted condition documentation late and staff and the taxpayer agreed to a reduced value; county staff noted the revised value would be checked by permit inspections. The board accepted the staff recommendation on that case and other staff-settled items listed on the addendum A spreadsheet.

Clerk and staff also noted a run of no-shows: several taxpayers did not appear and staff recommended accepting the county's value for those parcels. The board voted to accept the county values for the no-shows noted in the meeting packet.

Finally, the board approved two clerical amendments to values recorded from the prior meeting (June 26): one Adler Trust parcel and one Daniel Redmond parcel were corrected to updated values and the board voted to amend the earlier motions accordingly.

The county will send statutory written notices to affected taxpayers and will perform any follow-up site inspections described in the settlement agreements.","During deliberations the board recorded several staff‑taxpayer settlements, multiple no‑shows treated as default confirmations of county values, and approved two corrections to values listed at the June 26 session.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6745856,"Board upholds Union County valuations for multiple Lowe's stores after county cites market medians and MAI appraisal",0,7685000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b&start=7685&end=7685","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b/thumbnail_7685000.jpg","/articles/6745856/Union-County/North-Carolina/Board-upholds-Union-County-valuations-for-multiple-Lowes-stores-after-county-cites-market-medians-and-MAI-appraisal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6745856-02cc8362764dc972efeb0dc8fff84ba3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172649&Signature=LOPaCVaX~1teFxoc0Jb6aXJaEMP9Vs7TLn5OoYceO5eLT0RcCzbQ2S2TW-wvLybic1GJc7naLpWprk1hEDQI6o3iPLHV6~4~j2yuNek032I96oCtVEtG2PWxSFbAjgMPRYsR-I~0eAQR-CW~5HLEGsX~Jj~zmIVzLQFrNc~pVydGLRQ2WOx7IJ3q5W991TXWEimqKFp6j1SkS0SUlIpMhXquru9JwbzdxNXsW7Xse45yIcS-LCwX4jb5PVGRAOH1-9XmHKUZKCA165CZUg-BsiprsugUcubz0TD-yHN21zgr5kD60VN6DuDOil5XWRTazMTa-ATDMGvZ2zBvsFA1KA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Union County staff presented a consolidated market and income analysis for four Lowe's/Home Depot retail-warehouse properties and asked the Board of Equalization and Review to retain the county's existing valuations.

The county said it collected 14 sales of comparable big-box warehouse stores (13 Lowe's, 1 Home Depot) with a median dollar-per-square-foot of about $124 and a median sales price near $16.6 million. The county also referenced an M.A.I. appraisal performed in 2021 (used previously) and said indexing that earlier appraisal to present market conditions produced values near the current county figures.

Appellant submissions used substantially higher capitalization rates (8% to 8.5%) in their income-capitalization approach; county staff said the observed median cap rate from sales was about 5.2% and noted the cap-rate difference drives material valuation changes. \"Those were the cap rates that were reported at the time of sale... the highest cap rate we even had was 7,\" the county reported while explaining its income approach.

After discussion the board voted to uphold the county valuations for the Lowe's parcels presented (Waxhaw, Indian Trail, and the multi-parcel Lowe's site). The board also approved related staff recommendations to leave the current values unchanged for those commercial parcels.

Votes at a glance: Waxhaw Lowe's (parcel 06162700) ' county value upheld; Indian Trail Lowe's (07069118C) ' county value upheld; four-parcel Lowe's site (09216076A/77A/78/88) ' county values upheld.

Why it matters: For large commercial properties the cap rate and choice of comparables drive assessed values; the board accepted the county's market rule and the 2021 MAI appraisal as consistent with the local market data.

What the county will do next: County staff will continue to monitor market transactions and update valuations when appropriate per revaluation cycles and professional appraisals.","County staff presented sales and income analyses for several Lowe's/Home Depot discount-warehouse stores, citing a median comparable price of about $124 per square foot and a median cap rate near 5.2%. The board voted to keep the county's valuations for the Lowe's properties.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_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},6745860,"Board upholds county assessment for Hollyhock trust property after taxpayer disputes per‑square‑foot comparables",862,5838000,6700000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b&start=5838&end=6700","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5345399-39dd1012f28c23fd0f37c07aeaa6a75b/thumbnail_5838000.jpg","/articles/6745860/Union-County/North-Carolina/Board-upholds-county-assessment-for-Hollyhock-trust-property-after-taxpayer-disputes-persquarefoot-comparables","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6745860-c70af6aba0cc4364bf97177c1cea999b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172649&Signature=kdbicLPX~a82wqdNUjzUGcy7B5Kl48fnn9yDoDk3qM2bkvNZk~A58Wspwte5hnoxxnlJDG-ozDZLaQkIa1oHm5xDJgBS1F3KXPyyAUYV~ZIVhAziEu30JMLgjAbexXzVsRCiPWFEHDFROwkrSk5vklxvlqs2tEQQOyGlJup1Jr0IV1i0jQUEmlZNSr98fkbMMBSplGPCn-NDHEJYqo3BgHRFQpN4aLYcvjprQHwkU28Ji3JPLoSDoCtdjNhpFf1bGpg6XUDlJ8GanFe1iHaQ~4J5r~aw-FxgcRU9ELfw5Qj9s1iQ83FHtD-ED59K1Wr1-WaGF7zs145bFWdAmiWPWg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Yuri (Yuri) Careman appeared for the Hollyhock 1 and Hollyhock 2 revocable trusts and disputed the county's assessed value on a single-family home in a neighborhood near Twin Lakes. He said the county's per-square-foot assessment exceeded neighborhood levels and offered three comparables within roughly 2.5 miles.

Careman cited the county's highest comparable price per square foot of $298 and said his home had been assessed at $331 per square foot: \"my house was assessed at $331 per square foot.\" He calculated that, using nearby comparables, his home should appraise in the mid-$700,000s rather than the county's figure.

County appraisers said they used two neighborhood comps and added two additional, smaller comps to build a market analysis, applied square-footage adjustments and concluded a market value of about $827,700 (the county later presented $820,700 in deliberations). The appraiser described the subject and comps as \"average\" quality and said the sales used were the best available within the neighborhood and a roughly five-mile radius when necessary.

Board members questioned differences in square footage and school-district boundaries cited by the taxpayer. After discussion the board voted to accept the county's valuation. The board recorded a motion to uphold the county figure in deliberations.

Outcome and next steps: The board voted to uphold the county assessment. The taxpayer may pursue further review as allowed under county and state procedures.","Owner representative Yuri Careman argued the county overvalued his house by applying a $331 per‑square‑foot assessment while nearby comparables showed lower per‑square‑foot figures; the board accepted the county's market analysis and upheld the assessment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Union County board tables Simpson appeal, asks county to map disputed flood and steep-slope acreage

Union County board upholds Filman property values after hearing on road frontage and flood adjustments

Board records settlements, no‑shows and two clerical amendments to prior actions

Board upholds Union County valuations for multiple Lowe's stores after county cites market medians and MAI appraisal

Board upholds county assessment for Hollyhock trust property after taxpayer disputes per‑square‑foot comparables