Union County board tables WF Harris Development appeals after taxpayer delivers appraisal material late

3617147 ยท May 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

WF Harris Development LLC asked to present three Stallings Road parcels together and the board agreed to table multiple hearings to allow the county time to review recently submitted appraisals; one separate parcel was withdrawn.

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review on Wednesday agreed to table several appeals filed by WF Harris Development LLC after the taxpayer's representative said full appraisal reports arrived too late for county review.

Representative Richard (spelling as given in hearing packet) told the board that his appraiser, Kyle Catlett of BBG Real Estate Appraisal Services, had sent summary materials only the day before and full reports were still being transmitted. The taxpayer asked to present three parcels together (several Stallings Road parcels and a related Airport Road parcel) and offered to submit electronic copies for the county to review. County staff and board members said they needed time to examine the appraisal data before taking evidence.

Why it matters: Tabling gives both the taxpayer and the assessor's office time to analyze appraisal reports and preserves the parties' ability to present full evidence. It also clarifies which appeals remain active and which have been withdrawn.

The board moved to table hearings 1, 2 and 3 as the taxpayer requested. Later the board also voted to table hearings for the two Airport Road parcel numbers (referred to in the hearing as J80 and J90). At a later point hearing number 6 (parcel 09369006) was withdrawn by the taxpayer as 'no contest.'

During discussion the taxpayer argued two adjoining parcels (identified in the packet as J80 and J90) effectively function as a single deeded property and should be considered together; county staff explained that municipal boundary lines had resulted in separate parcel numbers and that assessors must allocate land value to each parcel. The taxpayer said the owner was elderly and reluctant to change municipal-tax status by consolidating parcels for tax purposes.

Board members emphasized the county needed the full third-party appraisal reports before further action; motions to table were made and carried on the record. The tabled hearings will be rescheduled once the county has had time to review the submitted appraisal materials and both sides are prepared to proceed.