The Union County Board of Equalization and Review convened in 2025 to hear multiple taxpayer appeals of property valuations set by Union County staff, receiving testimony from property owners and county appraisers before moving into deliberations.

The board heard appeals covering residential remeasurement disputes, vacant‑lot valuations, landlocked parcels and floodplain designations. In deliberations the board voted to keep the county’s values on a number of contested parcels, approve staff recommendations and a 137‑parcel consent agenda, and to table one hearing for additional information.

Why it matters: property valuations fixed by the county determine local property tax bills and can affect the ability of owners to sell or develop land; the Board of Equalization and Review is the statutorily appointed forum for taxpayers to challenge those assessments.

What the board heard and key outcomes
- Residential size and comparable sales: In multiple appeals homeowners challenged the county’s use of comparables or the county’s square footage. In one case the appellant said county comparables used houses with more bathrooms and larger square footage than the subject home; the county replied that its valuation methodology does not adjust for bathrooms and relies primarily on measured square footage and neighborhood comps. After deliberation the board voted to accept the county’s revised valuation for Parcel 06099438 (accepted at $1,035,200). The board also accepted the county’s current valuation for a second residential appeal where the appellant contested the county’s square footage (Parcel 306105182 remained at $643,700).

- Developer / nonprofit lot appeals and regulatory burdens: A volunteer representing the Christian Congregation in the United States (appealing three adjacent vacant lots in the Rosemary Park area) asked the board to reduce valuations and to consider a tax exemption, citing town and development standards in Indian Trail (documented in the hearing as "UDU 01620080") and arguing that heritage‑tree inventory, mandatory street and utility extensions and easement constraints make the lots hard and costly to develop. County staff explained the local lot‑by‑lot method they use in that neighborhood (which assigns different unit values depending on how many contiguous lots are required to create a buildable home site because of septic/perk constraints). The board voted to accept the county’s assessed values on the parcels under appeal (two parcels each set at $85,000 in the record) after the county explained the “per‑home‑site” approach; one related parcel that had not been appealed carried a separate, higher valuation.

- Landlocked and access restrictions: A property owner whose family parcel was recently demolished after storm damage said the remaining 3.95‑acre parcel is effectively landlocked and that county planning had advised the family that development options are severely limited; the owner asked for a lower assessment. County staff relied on local vacant‑land sales and said they had not received documentation of a formal restriction from county planning or health that would change valuation. The board accepted the county value on that parcel (current value held at $171,000).

- Floodplain and large rural parcel: A property with large portions in mapped FEMA floodplain presented photos of recurrent flooding and asked the board to reduce both the land and improvement valuations. County staff described how they applied FEMA‑based discounts to acreage in the different mapped flood zones and provided comparable sales used in the rural land revaluation. The board accepted the staff valuation for that parcel (the county had applied flood discounts; the board did not change the county total) after staff explained the acreage breakdown and discount factors. The owner requested follow up on the floodplain designation; board members asked county staff to confirm designation data and the owner was told how to provide additional documentation if available.

- Cases tabled and administrative items: One hearing (Parcel 08291001) that raised complex floodplain and neighborhood‑subdivision comparability questions was tabled so county staff can compile and present additional comparable land values and the precise inter‑parcel flood adjustments. Olive Branch Partners LLC did not appear and the county’s value on that parcel was accepted. The board also approved staff recommendations contained in addendum A and the consent agenda B (137 parcels) as presented.

Quotes from the hearing
- "The county doesn't value bathrooms separately. We base the majority of our information on square footage and other factors," said county staff during a residential appeal regarding bathroom count and comparables.
- "Removal of heritage trees or qualifying large trees triggers mandatory mitigation or replacement, adding substantial costs and complexity to any development," said Edmar (Ed) Silva, a volunteer representing the Christian Congregation, when describing local Indian Trail development requirements cited in the congregation’s appeal.
- "We did reduce it...we had already sent that out, so we're standing by it," a county appraiser said while explaining an interim square‑footage adjustment to an appellant during a measurement dispute.

What the board did (at a glance)
- Accepted county valuation and left current values unchanged in multiple contested cases including Parcel 06099438 ($1,035,200) and Parcel 306105182 ($643,700).
- Accepted the county’s method and values for several small vacant lots in the Rosemary Park area; two appealed parcels were recorded at $85,000 each for the current tax year after the county explained its contiguous‑lot method tied to septic/perk constraints.
- Accepted county value on a 3.95‑acre, previously developed family parcel where the house was demolished (current value held at $171,000).
- Tabled one large rural/floodplain parcel (Parcel 08291001) for further staff research into comparable sales and the county’s flood adjustment calculations.
- Approved staff recommendations in addendum A and the consent agenda B (137 parcels).

What’s next: Taxpayers who provided additional documentation during the hearing were told they may submit supporting affidavits or health/planning documentation for the record; the board asked county staff to return with the requested comparables and flood‑adjustment details on the tabled parcel before resuming that appeal.