Union County board lowers assessed value for Huey Road parcel to $394,700 after appeal

At a hearing of the Union County Board of Equalization and Review, members agreed to adjust the assessed market value for a Huey Road parcel owned by Springer Charlotte Roth IRA to $394,700 after considering county appraisals, three broker-supplied comparables and testimony about parcel size and road condition.

The adjustment came after the property owner, identified in the hearing as Springer Charlotte Roth IRA, questioned the valuation of a 22-year-old manufactured home on 5.11 acres and presented broker-supplied comparables and photographs. "I was shocked when I got my valuation," the taxpayer said, and added that part of the parcel is wooded and not usable for development.

County appraiser Nick Parker explained the county's approach, saying he had expanded the map for context and pointed to the parcel's location near the Lancaster line and Providence Road. "My name is Nick Parker. I'm an appraiser of [the] tax office," Parker said while showing the parcel and comparables. County staff told the board their analysis used five comparables and that their internal recommended value for the parcel had been upheld through the appeal review process.

Board members pressed county staff on how land and structure values were separated and how acreage influenced unit value. One board member said larger tracts should carry a lower per-acre value and asked the county to explain component parts of the valuation. County staff said the office treats each property as a single unit but applies adjustments to components and uses land sales and improved-sales modifiers to reach a total market value.

The taxpayer and several board members raised two specific points: the parcel sits on a private, largely unpaved road that the neighbors maintain and which the taxpayer said does not reliably support garbage trucks, and Meadow Woods Hunt Club sits behind the property. The taxpayer said a nearby listing had drawn an out-of-town offer that withdrew after the buyer visited and observed the private-road condition and heard noise from nearby shooting. The county staff acknowledged the road condition and the hunt club as facts presented, but said there was no proprietary sales-data evidence in the county's records showing a quantifiable effect of the hunt club on value.

Board member Jim moved to set the assessed value at the figure the board computed from the motion (recorded and later rounded by staff), and the motion was seconded and carried. After the vote the chair directed the county to record the adjusted assessed value in the system; county staff noted the system will show the rounded figure of $394,700.

The board also handled two other routine items during the session: it accepted the county's recommended value for a separate parcel where the taxpayer was not present, and it approved staff recommendations for a group of previously settled hearings.

The board informed attendees that taxpayers will receive written notice of the board's decision and that deliberations occur after hearings; staff also reminded participants that only property owners or licensed appraisers may testify as value experts and that sales used as comparables must be dated on or before the January 1, 2025 revaluation date.

Documentation submitted at the hearing included three broker-supplied comparables and an aggregated online-sites average provided by the taxpayer's realtor; county staff said the realtor's aggregate average was in the range of the county's recommended figure but that their internal comparable set produced a different median. The county and the taxpayer agreed the county would research some of the broker-supplied sales records to confirm comparability for the administrative record.

The board adjourned after completing the scheduled hearings and accepted staff direction to update the records and provide written decisions to the taxpayers involved.