[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",6168855,"mediaKeyId","5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90","parentId",5406764,"title","Residents say new county water works, easements and modular construction lowered usable land and value","audioSeconds",406,"startMs",2007885,"endMs",2414600,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90&start=2007&end=2414","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90/thumbnail_2007885.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6168855/Union-County/North-Carolina/Residents-say-new-county-water-works-easements-and-modular-construction-lowered-usable-land-and-value","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168855-2bab4003d366f0be919e770590accc1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516031&Signature=gF1e~RVOSvN50iVXKvpsihcFjs7Wpu5HY~iTm~te~HeijIXyqn3LQcp7ZO3d5M7-4lt3QsSiJDFKWEh4W1JHYyPd1UrKxYo2ErtSorlOyCuRJa6gVboTV50PN8dbo2ZJ-0XnUIltrNizAMAspzUSBj7PUgyeZrw-AG2X2Fvhjlj7FJzztdr-Pg7rM13fWuMPPxfC4WHOyg5OlqY4nuIir6wHlVXBiSF~ZIhNhD8US29Bcfcrfw4ealRLBjax7DF4ZY2NN-N7mZmPh0GYX9X7sNUBSNMpMqcY0LoUj5i4Rm~TvVE3eeqeoCJmEQVrDjhcBXzZ0wAC0iEjRj~3aV6mLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Union County, NC","date","2025-07-16T12:51:22Z","article","A Union County homeowner told the Board of Equalization and Review that a county water main extension and a newly completed water treatment plant behind a property removed the tree-screening and left a concrete vent and permanent easement that reduce the lot's privacy and usefulness.

Why it matters: Infrastructure projects can change a property's marketability and perceived value. Owners told the board that, although county public works paid compensation for the front-right-of-way work, the back-of-lot effects and a long utility easement were not reflected in the revaluation.

John and Joy (presented as Jacek/Jaczek) described a new concrete vent feature in front of their driveway and said Union County Public Works had acquired the wooded property behind their lot for a treatment plant. \"We cannot put trees back in the front of our property, which was, you know, privacy screening, for a new water main,\" John said. He added that a power-line easement runs along their property and that the home is a modular unit; the taxpayers argued that modular construction commonly sells for less than similarly sized stick-built houses and asked the board to consider the difference.

County staff said they lowered the initial appraisal slightly after running a sales analysis. The county appraiser said he used market sales within a five-mile radius, and that two of three sales cited in a post-1/1/2025 appraisal report provided by the owner were usable for the 2025 analysis; the county noted it cannot use evidence dated after the revaluation effective date of Jan. 1, 2025 for the 2025 assessment but can use prior sales identified in later documents. After the initial appeal the county reported it had reduced the parcel's assessed value modestly (from $5.87 million to $5.66 million for the property as a whole).

Board members questioned whether nearby sales used as comparables reflected the new treatment plant and whether the treatment plant and utility easement had depressed market value for immediately adjacent parcels. The county said the new line does not connect to the homeowner's property (they remain on well and septic), so the water-main installation does not increase the value of that parcel by utility connection. The county acknowledged multiple parcels were affected by the line but said it had not, to date, discounted parcels across the board for the line's presence.

What the transcript shows: The owner provided photographs of the installation and said they had been paid $10,000 for the front-right-of-way work; they said they still cannot fence in portions of the lot that lie within the utility easement. The county presented sales-analysis pages and said it had used two eligible sales from the owner's appraisal in its sales study.

Outcome: The record shows the county reduced its internal reassessment at initial appeal (to $5.66 million from $5.87 million) after applying eligible sales; the board discussion did not record a final different value in open session for this parcel during the hearing block reported here. Owners were told appeals must rely on sales on or before 01/01/2025 for the 2025 assessment.

Ending: The case highlights a common post-revaluation conflict: public infrastructure that compensates owners for right-of-way work can still leave residual effects on privacy, use and perceived market value that owners urge the county to reflect in appeal outcomes. The board urged owners to supply earlier market evidence (dated on or before 1/1/2025) if they want different treatment for 2025 assessments.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Equalization and Review | July 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A homeowner told the Union County Board of Equalization and Review that a county water-main extension and a nearby treatment plant removed screening, created a vent and left easements that reduce the property's usable land and privacy.","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},6168860,"Homeowners challenge large revaluations for lots split by Mecklenburg–Union county line",434,309630,743685,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90&start=309&end=743","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90/thumbnail_309630.jpg","/articles/6168860/Union-County/North-Carolina/Homeowners-challenge-large-revaluations-for-lots-split-by-MecklenburgUnion-county-line","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168860-3295f5414e5afe498b2e4b0c371107af/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516031&Signature=NSta2aqUi9x3-q~VDhDzIiQ~rvdfraEl9ffRnbzohhfg2UPBQflbIGbGHtSSbSj9vMgXSP7cEj-evIKpA-BfmqqrMrIpLRvbuzvxAWXpOlmssI2YP7FaBM~ycsCRQvMSJ7GoHgxVYvXZN5~ryizWpAs89iEfrZ6lpobBqqztOPkNrsn-90KfDknMJNN3nSSJL-0gJqsjleUfMT0M4koBktcY5x3j0RRrjkHZy5PGoGl-bGipSLaE-cGjQHivMOFK3zpf93hMBiyQL6vlEORDqEVqiLzviw9cZlvjanu9-y8FZ6WTxI2wX1Zl515WAQ80RynLj7Qf0QREviKxEUM8GQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Homeowners whose yards cross the Mecklenburg–Union county line urged the Union County Board of Equalization and Review on Tuesday to reduce sharply higher assessments that followed the county'wide 2025 revaluation. Scott and Erica Raul and Susan Petcher both said the county'assigned lot values do not reflect access limits, utility easements and the small amount of land that actually lies inside Union County.

Why it matters: A change in assessed land value can multiply an owner's property tax bill and, in extreme cases, make continued ownership unaffordable. Several owners told the board their parcels had been treated differently in past revaluations and that combining values across two counties produced an outcome that overstated the buildable area in Union County.

Scott Raul said his total assessed land value rose from the low thousands to tens of thousands in the latest cycle. \"I'm going from a valuation of, what, $4,800 to $58,400. That's an increase of 1116%,\" Raul said while addressing the board, describing the parcel as partly landlocked and bisected by the county line. County staff told the board they had applied rural-acreage rates for the Union portion and combined those with Mecklenburg's 2023 valuation for the Mecklenburg portion; the county'appraiser said the combined lot value for that parcel, when both counties are considered, remained below lot prices across the street.

At a separate hearing the same neighborhood, property owner Susan Petcher detailed that a 34-foot Duke Energy easement runs across the rear of her lot and that Union County GIS and tax records list slightly different acreage figures (0.336 vs. 0.366 acres). Petcher told the board she believed an equitable lot value for the Union County portion would be lower than the county's figure after subtracting the Mecklenburg portion and accounting for the easement.

County staff told the board they used the county's rural acreage schedule where applicable and explained that several lots in the neighborhood had not been revalued properly in earlier cycles; the county said current rates make the neighborhood's values more equitable. The appraiser repeatedly cited nearby lot prices that are entirely inside Mecklenburg County as the market context for the combined valuation.

Board members pressed both sides on precise acreage, the location of improvements and whether the utility easement made portions of the lots effectively unusable. The county reported it had reviewed comparable lot sales on the same street and had adjusted some appeals to bring those Union portions in line with neighboring parcels; county staff said they had three Board of Equalization appeals in this same neighborhood on the docket.

What was decided: The board rendered case-by-case rulings during deliberations. For the Raul appeal (property key 06117073) the board voted to sustain the county's assessed value of $58,400 for the Union portion. For Petcher (property key 06117037) the board accepted a reduced Union-portion value of $74,070 after the county recalculated to align the lot with adjacent lots across the street and after discussion of the easement footprint.

Context & next steps: Appellants noted the revaluation'effective date (1/1/2025) limits which sales and appraisals can be considered; the board and county staff reiterated that evidence dated after 1/1/2025 cannot be used to determine the 2025 assessment. Homeowners were told they may provide additional documentation to the county assessor or seek judicial review of assessments under state law if they remain dissatisfied.

Ending: Several taxpayers in the same Hearthstone/Butter Churn neighborhood told the board their intent to continue appeals where they feel the county's acreage or easement calculations leave them with assessments that do not match the usable portion of their lots. The board said it will continue to hear the remaining filed appeals and issue written decisions within about 30 days, per the board's standard timeline.","Homeowners whose yards cross the Mecklenburg'Union line told the Union County Board of Equalization and Review that recent revaluations produced steep increases that, they said, ignore easements and limited access.",{"_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},6168842,"Board splits difference on 1310 Airport Road flex building after debate over depreciation method",721,10979545,11700915,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90&start=10979&end=11700","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90/thumbnail_10979545.jpg","/articles/6168842/Union-County/North-Carolina/Board-splits-difference-on-1310-Airport-Road-flex-building-after-debate-over-depreciation-method","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168842-ceba66c62ac96a15abc8af9799a0f360/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516031&Signature=RsrwhdYCnb6CTK1xvMZDvtr5ctaScFA9C18ZQuneFDFkDzii5JR0x2sHoIEPILmzPdobGtu7kO6~-9YQkFnF~H8QhK~LHbYIFczJy8hauZPJoMT8GbTKcb~QiJdIQnfCkSxUU89k-Uo7dd8~j9gjNDNHLP8RUd1vDFdnK~ziVnG6xyyh2IGIAT7NJmq9nqy1iKmMmHiOxiLYua7WxQ~H54~iM8ccP3P9MEtxLyjQuWjwUZc6iAucEu-UG-Q-7jHsAJUK84Cd27F1L7n-zvw~5ChKAeagUr0V4To9qq74xTr0SOL4f5K2PGjDEpkJbooA0~01Nvv5YIBnJ-HZ3UJNnA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Union County's hearing board considered an appeal from the owner of a 62,312-square-foot flex/industrial building on Airport Road who argued that the county's cost approach used an insufficient depreciation allowance and therefore overstated building value.

Why it matters: Depreciation rates in cost-based appraisals materially affect assessed values for older industrial or flex buildings; for owners and lenders the chosen depreciation schedule can change assessed value by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What the owner said: The owner's representative presented email analysis from SC Hondros and Associates and argued the county used a 34% depreciation figure while independent technical guidance suggested an effective depreciation in the 60% to 75% range for similar older tilt-wall and multi-section industrial buildings. Using an intermediate 50% depreciation the owner's representative produced a lower building value and a total combined parcel value near $5,000,000.

County response: County staff said the subject property had significant permitted improvements and an active long-term tenant (Collins Aerospace) that had completed interior improvements to roughly 20,000 square feet and added HVAC systems; the county said those renovations reduce the effective depreciation and supported a lower overall percentage (34%). Using Marshall & Swift cost tables and recent sales, county staff reported a combined value of about $5,435,300.

Board ruling: After hearing both sides, the board voted to adopt an intermediate assessment, effectively splitting the difference between the parties' positions. The board-set assessed value for the combined parcel (city and county split portions) was recorded in the board's action as $5,275,700.

Ending: The case illustrates how permitted tenant improvements and occupancy can counteract functional obsolescence in older industrial buildings, and how boards often weigh technical depreciation advice against evidence of recent capital expenditures and leasing activity.","An owner's representative argued that the county understated depreciation for a 62,312-square-foot flex/industrial building at 1310 Airport Road; the county pointed to recent tenant improvements and a major tenant lease when defending a lower-depreciation cost-based value. The board settled on an intermediate assessed value.",{"_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},6168847,"Small commercial garages on Stallings Road spur debate over land-per-acre assumptions",526,7927010,8453330,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90&start=7927&end=8453","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90/thumbnail_7927010.jpg","/articles/6168847/Union-County/North-Carolina/Small-commercial-garages-on-Stallings-Road-spur-debate-over-land-per-acre-assumptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168847-bdd07976ddbb563a7b8a2c78d488b8ac/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516031&Signature=AalygyvwmWllq4K3MerwkjFxV-KwJnQp8Wu7I-35uJJnxlEIsYi9GH0cH-1CovyBwaCXQ1CGPaxVuDr~2J1k45Rvsi3JbRuPjwdC16qqg6MBOsWWk6bHbBx24puH-svs1-IMiVwyLR7J1eFLi56XYXs~~sCQltjMcXPn1kpFA~EdJTm93vj0ELkrggAEHVlh07BFB6qBLPXqQDpyKPa6wUqndkWQ7PQIkawoAw7gaP2DAHtsIFHWSUPd6pbw801vJmCXqQyzSD58K-3EMpSPKvCbsP1i0DU0O2FpgTJn~J~6S-0AdeJUHkuXgD0DwlTcOr6RKoqbtYYa38-NKNqfGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Three small commercial properties on Stallings Road were the subject of a grouped appeal at Wednesday's Board of Equalization and Review, with the owner's representative arguing that county land-per-acre assumptions produced inflated assessments when applied to aging metal-framed service garages and small commercial units.

Why it matters: Small commercial properties often depend on local traffic patterns and zoning; changes in zoning language and 'town-center' planning can alter permissible uses and therefore affect both the land and building values.

The owner's agent argued that the county's dollar-per-acre land rate essentially allocated the same premium to every parcel in the strip, producing inconsistent building valuations per square foot across adjacent lots. He presented alternative appraisals and a spreadsheet showing percentage increases from 2024 to 2025 for the three Stallings Road parcels and said his appraiser's values came in lower on two of the three properties. The appellant's representative also noted the town of Indian Trail's land-use decisions and signage changes around the 'town center' that make automotive uses less desirable and harder to re-lease.

County staff said the parcels are valued using the county's commercial land schedule for high-traffic sites (town-center frontage), supported by nearby land sales and a consistent site-rating approach. The county's cost approach incorporates Marshall & Swift building costs and age-based depreciation; differences in assessed per-square-foot building values across the strip come from varying building size and effective age, county staff said.

Board action and outcome: The board considered the appellant's evidence and the county's sales and cost approaches. During deliberations the board adopted the county's recommended values for the Stallings Road parcels (parcel keys 07126264 and 07126269 among others noted in the appeal packet). The record shows the board approved the county appraisals and retained the county's assessed values for those parcels.

Ending: The dispute illustrates two recurring appraisal tensions: (1) whether a single land-rate can fairly be applied across a small, variably sized strip of commercial parcels; and (2) how to balance local zoning or master-plan shifts against recent sales when older commercial buildings face limited re-use options.","Owners of three older commercial buildings on Stallings Road disputed county land-rate assumptions and resulting assessments. Appraisers for the owners argued the county's per-acre land rates were too high and suggested higher depreciation for aging structures; county staff said their land rates are supported by recent sales and site ratings.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6168852,"County and appraiser clash over 89% jump in assessed value for 600 Radiator Road warehouse site",988,4002675,4991295,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90&start=4002&end=4991","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5406764-6a140805cbde1a0d5a127d2296d44b90/thumbnail_4002675.jpg","/articles/6168852/Union-County/North-Carolina/County-and-appraiser-clash-over-89-jump-in-assessed-value-for-600-Radiator-Road-warehouse-site","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6168852-81ed9a6dc0a6b3e5facaaee5d2ea9409/orig.mp4?Expires=1770516031&Signature=Dp7cXuHlUqhI9XX5unfmDjHudR2EM1ribx3Wa-WhhGEsDu0J6o481h24jfmTTT8Z6rX0QbZ50lTezr5p8Gjr8z56OWWDSAXMD5lLgx44P9wV9NMpI40B2g2XQxNfz8hTCpkKO-COklzjPdOUbCoUChohwieNRiYG1Iu3NVbMbLZ2uluM6TSiUleqkDae7OUN7k-i0RH5w6DdIi04n4L7lSpwXPxz6raMj-8swhy~EvOGnTe5c7fxBrlBfsOgUSHWlglyUaOvK9zU0OY8yTlULIRAc20k-Z1cGYAbrAqp3cg-DtFfrSDLkDt7atuSMQHZzFKx70w-BHvu9ZfU4mmviA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Union County Board of Equalization and Review heard competing valuations Friday for a 63-acre industrial site at 600 Radiator Road, where the county's 2025 revaluation nearly doubled the total assessed value and the property owner's consultant presented a lower market estimate.

What happened: Gabriel (Gabe) Gray of DMA appeared for Selwyn Property Group and told the board the county's new total — roughly $16.2 million, an 89% increase over 2024 — overstated current market value for the two warehouses on the parcel. DMA's sales-comparison analysis, focused on Charlotte-metro industrial sales adjusted for age, ceiling heights and size, produced an indicated combined market value just under $12 million.

Why it matters: Large percentage changes on major industrial parcels affect local tax revenues and owner cash-flow for industrial landlords and users. Selwyn's consultant argued the subject buildings are older, with lower ceiling heights and functional obsolescence relative to modern distribution warehouses, and said those factors materially reduce dollar-per-square-foot indicators.

County response: County appraiser Joe Hunter told the board the county's assessment method reflected activity since the 2021 appraisal. He said a 2021 MAI appraisal prepared for a lender had indicated a significantly lower figure while the large building was then vacant, but subsequent leasing activity materially changed marketability: a large tenant (Corson) later leased nearly the entire 227,000-square-foot building, and upgrades occurred in the smaller building, including roughly $1 million in permitted improvements. Hunter said his own sales analysis (10 comps of similar size/age across the region) supported the county's assessment and that a median sale price per square foot in his comparable set was roughly $57 psf; the county's current assessment equates to about $48.59 psf across the site.

Board action: After questioning both sides and reviewing the MAI appraisal and county sales set, the board voted to sustain the county's assessed value of $16,233,200 for parcel 7087007.

Ending: The case underscores the tension in industrial markets between older, lower-clearance buildings and newer distribution-grade product; improvements and tenancy can rapidly change market value for large industrial assets, and the board relied on leasing and sales evidence in ruling in favor of the county appraiser.","An audit by DMA on behalf of Selwyn Property Group disputed an 89% revaluation increase for a 332,000-square-foot industrial parcel at 600 Radiator Road. The county counters that market leasing and a 2021 MAI appraisal justify the higher figure; the board voted to sustain the county's $16.23 million assessment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents say new county water works, easements and modular construction lowered usable land and value

Homeowners challenge large revaluations for lots split by Mecklenburg–Union county line

Board splits difference on 1310 Airport Road flex building after debate over depreciation method

Small commercial garages on Stallings Road spur debate over land-per-acre assumptions

County and appraiser clash over 89% jump in assessed value for 600 Radiator Road warehouse site