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

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.