Union County hearing: Board upholds most property assessments after appeals

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review met to hear property valuation appeals and, after a deliberation phase, voted to uphold the assessor's value in the majority of cases heard that day.

The board’s work focused on residential and commercial valuation disputes — including rural lots in Weddington, individual neighborhood homes in Providence Downs, and several commercial parcels and bank branches in Wesley Chapel and Indian Trail. Appellants presented concerns about condition, upgrades, comparable sales and income approaches; county staff defended the reappraisal methodology, use of comparable sales, and income/cap-rate analyses.

Votes at a glance

- Hearing 1 — Property 06096002D (Gregory and Sandra Musin): Board voted to uphold the county value, $850,700. Motion carried (voice vote).Mover/second: Mr. Ashcraft / Mr. O'Keefe (as announced during deliberations).

- Hearing 2 — Property 06180402 (Ting Ting Wong and Jian Wu Lou): Board voted to uphold the county value, $1,354,000. Motion carried (voice vote).Mover/second: Mr. Benson / Mr. Ashcraft.

- Hearing 3 — Property 06204240 (Mrs. Patel): Board voted to uphold the county value, $1,749,200. Motion carried (voice vote).Mover/second: not specified / Mr. Benjamin (as recorded).

- Hearing 4 — Property 07064327 (Paul and Brandy Moyer): Board voted to uphold the county value, $503,500. Motion carried (voice vote).Mover/second: not specified / not specified.

- Hearing 6 — Property 08324085 (Raynard Weidman): Appellant was present but left early; the matter was to be rescheduled.

- Hearing 7 — Property 06111047 (Patricia Jones): Board voted to uphold the county value, $815,300. Motion carried (voice vote).Mover/second: not specified / not specified.

- Hearing 8 — Property 06048007 (Village Commons Phase 1 LLC — Wells Fargo branch): Board voted to uphold the county value, $2,772,000. Motion carried (voice vote).

- Hearing 9 — Property 06048599 (Village Commons Branch LLC; vacant land near Target/Publix area, Wesley Chapel): Board voted to uphold the county value, $5,773,600 (county land valuation). Motion carried (voice vote).

- Hearing 10 — Property 06162022 (Culpeerson Road 1 LLC): Board voted to uphold the county value, $977,200. Motion carried (voice vote).

- Hearing 11 — Property 06162022E (related Culpeerson parcel / retention/pond parcel): Board voted to uphold the county value after the county applied an 85% reduction for retention ponds, value $119,300. Motion carried (voice vote).

- Hearing 12 — Property 05114012 (Galley Plaza LLC — restaurant/neighborhood center): Board voted to uphold the county value, $2,750,500. Motion carried (voice vote).

- Hearing 13 — Property 07084315 (Indian Trails Partners LLC): Board voted to uphold the county value, $2,763,100. Motion carried (voice vote).

- Addenda: The board also approved Addendum A (staff/taxpayer agreed adjustments) and Addendum B (assessor notices where taxpayers did not respond) as presented during deliberations.

How the board decided

Board members and county staff repeatedly contrasted two approaches: (1) the assessor’s use of current local comparable sales, land-rate tables and schedule values for lot features, and (2) appellants’ reliance on localized comparisons, condition-based adjustments, or income/cap-rate analyses for commercial sites. County staff emphasized use of district‑level sales and downward adjustments where appropriate (for example, the county applies a consistent 85% reduction for retention/pond parcels). Appellants pressed for condition adjustments (missing permits, older finishes, or lack of comparable vacant-lot sales in a platted subdivision).

Several board members asked detailed questions about methodology, including how the assessor treats unplatted “rural” tracts versus platted subdivision lots, how pools and recent improvements are handled in the schedule of values, and how income approaches (cap rates) were derived for commercial tenants. County staff pointed to their sales and cap‑rate samples and to recorded plats or permits where relevant.

Notable clarifications from the hearing record

- County staff said retention/pond parcels are routinely discounted (85%) for tax purposes; that policy was applied to the parcel used for stormwater in the large shopping center. - A pool installed in 2023 at one house was assessed using the county schedule value; the county noted the permit and schedule entry that added value in the reappraisal. - For several rural Weddington lots, staff explained that parcels outside a platted subdivision are priced from a rural table (one-home-per-lot pricing) rather than the subdivision allocation method. - Where taxpayers supplied an income analysis, the county asked for lease copies and explained the office’s cap‑rate derivation based on local commercial sales and CoStar data; county analysts also removed property taxes from expense streams when running income‑cap calculations, per standard ad valorem practice described in the hearing.

Why it matters

The Board’s rulings will stand as the official determinations for the appealed assessment year pending any further appeals available by statute. For property owners who argued condition or income factors, the board generally deferred to the assessor’s market-based tables and comparable-sales analyses when county staff documented their methodology and supporting sales.

What’s next

The Board adjourned after approving addenda and scheduling resubmissions where appellants had left or requested later dates. Taxpayers who appeared but did not prevail were reminded of the county’s notice process and any additional documentation they may submit for future appeals.

Source and process note: The article summarizes the day’s formal hearing record and the board’s deliberations as captured in the hearing transcript. Quotations and attributions used in the article come only from speakers recorded in the hearing (see speakers list).