Summary
At a June hearing, the Union County Board of Equalization and Review affirmed most county valuations, granted a 40% shape adjustment on one Weddington parcel, accepted several late exemption applications and released one discovery bill after a taxpayer inquiry.
The Union County Board of Equalization and Review met to hear property-tax appeals and application disputes and left most assessed values intact while granting targeted relief and accepting several late filings.
Taxpayers presented appeals on lakefront and vacant land valuations, untimely exemption applications and a discovery bill. Laura Varela, a taxpayer who owns a Lake Monroe lot, told the board she purchased her home in 2021 for $480,000 and said the property’s assessed value rose from $513,000 to $840,000 under the county’s 2025 revaluation. "We purchased the property in 2021, for 480,000," Varela said during her hearing. County staff responded that waterfront comparables are limited and that their selected waterfront sales support the county’s valuation.
The board voted to accept the county’s valuation for the Varela property, leaving the assessed value unchanged. The motion to accept the county's valuation was made and seconded during deliberations; the board recorded the motion as approved and directed the county to notify the taxpayers of the board’s decision in writing as required by statute.
On a separate appeal for a long, narrow vacant parcel in the Weddington area, represented at the hearing by Greg Musen, the board discussed whether the county’s rural-per-acre approach produced equitable results given the lot’s irregular shape and the presence of nearby multifamily/rental properties. County staff explained the parcel was being valued on rural per-acre comparables because it is not in a platted subdivision and because nearby duplex/multifamily properties are valued on an income approach rather than by standalone land values. County representative Nick Barker noted the county’s rural median per-acre rates and said the subject was being treated consistently with adjacent rural parcels.
After discussion about buildable area and likely development scenarios, the board applied a 40% shape adjustment to that parcel’s assessed land value to reflect the reduced utility of the irregular portion of the lot. The board voted to apply a 40 percent influence for shape to the parcel’s assessment; the motion was seconded and carried.
Several procedural appeals of untimely filings were also decided. The board accepted late exemption or program applications in multiple cases where taxpayers supplied explanations or submitted letters: Carla Richmond’s untimely application was accepted; Rhonda Bradley’s late-filed application (submitted by letter) was accepted for review; and Charice and Gregory Gunther’s late application for a forestry (or other) program was accepted for review. In each instance the board voted to accept the late filing so county staff can process the application and determine eligibility.
The board reviewed a discovery-bill appeal from Sandra Helms, who said she had been surprised to learn she might owe taxes because the benefit (a senior/other exclusion) had carried over from a prior owner’s application. County staff explained that, under the statutes governing discovery of improperly applied exclusions, the county is required to recoup benefits that were improperly granted and to look back five years (2019–2024 in this review). After hearing Ms. Helms explain she believed the discount had transferred with the deed and that she did not realize she was receiving it, the board voted to release (waive) the discovery bill for the period in question.
The board also approved the county’s agreed staff recommendations (addendum A), accepted the unresolved consent agenda values where taxpayers did not appear (addendum B), and accepted the county’s recommendations for the group of appeals represented by an agent (addendum C). One appeal (Angela and Eric Franklin) was rescheduled at the taxpayers’ request and did not receive board action.
The board’s decisions were rendered in open session; county staff reminded taxpayers that written notice of each decision will follow by statute and that appeal rights remain available under state law.
Votes at a glance - Hearing 1 (Lake Monroe lot, taxpayers Laura and Uvaldo Varela): motion to accept county valuation; motion carried; assessed value to remain as set by the county. - Hearing 2 (vacant, irregular-shaped Weddington parcel, taxpayers Kevin and Kyle Musen; represented by Greg Musen): motion to apply a 40% influence (shape adjustment) to the parcel’s assessed value; motion carried. - Hearing 3 (Bowman, taxpayers not present): motion to accept county valuation; motion carried. - Hearing 4 (Evans, taxpayers not present): motion to accept county valuation; motion carried. - Hearing 5 (Franklin): rescheduled; no board action today. - Hearing 6 (Carla Richmond — untimely application): motion to accept the late application; motion carried (board directed county to process application). - Hearing 7 (Rhonda Bradley — untimely application, letter provided): board accepted late application for review; motion carried. - Hearing 8 (Charice and Gregory Gunther — untimely forestry application): board accepted late filing for review; motion carried. - Hearing 9 (Sandra Helms — discovery bill): motion to release the discovery; motion carried (discovery waived in the board’s action). - Hearing 10 (Addendum A — staff-settled recommendations): motion to accept staff recommendations as presented; motion carried. - Hearing 11 (Addendum B — consent agenda where taxpayers did not appear): motion to accept as presented; motion carried. - Hearing 12 (Addendum C — agent tax-proper group): motion to accept county valuations as presented; motion carried.
The Board reminded taxpayers that the burden of proof in valuation appeals is on the taxpayer and that the effective date for the county’s revaluation is Jan. 1, 2025. The Board also reiterated that written decisions will be mailed in accordance with statute and noted that some appealed properties may see different tax-bill impacts depending on countywide revenue-neutral adjustments made by the Board of County Commissioners.
The Board recessed after oral deliberations and then returned to make formal motions; all final actions recorded at this meeting will be communicated to the taxpayers in writing.
