Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Split County Parcel Valuations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowners challenge large revaluations for lots split by Mecklenburg–Union county line
Summary
Homeowners whose yards cross the Mecklenburg'Union line told the Union County Board of Equalization and Review that recent revaluations produced steep increases that, they said, ignore easements and limited access.
Get email alerts on the Split County Parcel Valuations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowners whose yards cross the Mecklenburg–Union county line urged the Union County Board of Equalization and Review on Tuesday to reduce sharply higher assessments that followed the county'wide 2025 revaluation. Scott and Erica Raul and Susan Petcher both said the county'assigned lot values do not reflect access limits, utility easements and the small amount of land that actually lies inside Union County.
Why it matters: A change in assessed land value can multiply an owner's property tax bill and, in extreme cases, make continued ownership unaffordable. Several owners told the board their parcels had been treated differently in past revaluations and that combining values across two counties produced an outcome that overstated the buildable area in Union County.
Scott Raul said his total assessed land value rose from the low thousands to tens of thousands in the latest cycle. "I'm going from a valuation of, what, $4,800 to $58,400. That's an increase of 1116%," Raul said while addressing the board, describing the parcel as partly landlocked and bisected by the county line. County staff told the board they had applied rural-acreage rates for the Union portion and combined those with Mecklenburg's 2023 valuation for the Mecklenburg portion; the county'appraiser said the combined lot value for that parcel, when both counties are considered, remained below lot prices across the street.
At a separate hearing the same neighborhood, property owner Susan Petcher detailed that a 34-foot Duke Energy easement runs across the rear of her lot and that Union County GIS and tax records list slightly different acreage figures (0.336 vs. 0.366 acres). Petcher told the board she believed an equitable lot value for the Union County portion would be lower than the county's figure after subtracting the Mecklenburg portion and accounting for the easement.
County staff told the board they used the county's rural acreage schedule where applicable and explained that several lots in the neighborhood had not been revalued properly in earlier cycles; the county said current rates make the neighborhood's values more equitable. The appraiser repeatedly cited nearby lot prices that are entirely inside Mecklenburg County as the market context for the combined valuation.
Board members pressed both sides on precise acreage, the location of improvements and whether the utility easement made portions of the lots effectively unusable. The county reported it had reviewed comparable lot sales on the same street and had adjusted some appeals to bring those Union portions in line with neighboring parcels; county staff said they had three Board of Equalization appeals in this same neighborhood on the docket.
What was decided: The board rendered case-by-case rulings during deliberations. For the Raul appeal (property key 06117073) the board voted to sustain the county's assessed value of $58,400 for the Union portion. For Petcher (property key 06117037) the board accepted a reduced Union-portion value of $74,070 after the county recalculated to align the lot with adjacent lots across the street and after discussion of the easement footprint.
Context & next steps: Appellants noted the revaluation'effective date (1/1/2025) limits which sales and appraisals can be considered; the board and county staff reiterated that evidence dated after 1/1/2025 cannot be used to determine the 2025 assessment. Homeowners were told they may provide additional documentation to the county assessor or seek judicial review of assessments under state law if they remain dissatisfied.
Ending: Several taxpayers in the same Hearthstone/Butter Churn neighborhood told the board their intent to continue appeals where they feel the county's acreage or easement calculations leave them with assessments that do not match the usable portion of their lots. The board said it will continue to hear the remaining filed appeals and issue written decisions within about 30 days, per the board's standard timeline.

