Union County board upholds steep reassessments after Monroe rezoning; landowner disputes market value

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review on an administrative hearing on property appeals upheld the county’s 2025 reassessments for five parcels owned by Mitchell and Kathleen Barbee along Concord Highway near the bypass. The taxpayers challenged large percentage increases in assessed value that followed a City of Monroe rezoning and recent development near the bypass.

The dispute centered on five adjacent parcels totaling about 16.425 acres. The county presented maps, traffic counts and recent sales near the bypass to argue the parcels’ “highest and best use” had shifted after Monroe rezoned the corridor to RCMX (regional corridor mixed use), a designation the county said became effective 01/01/2024. “When the zoning changes, it’s a permitted-use change,” Union County staff told the board, adding that nearby projects — including a 360-unit Ridge development, planned grocery and hotel sites and a QT gas station purchase across Concord Highway — signaled commercial demand for land near the bypass.

Mitchell Barbee, represented by attorney Steven Bennett, said his family has owned the parcels for years, described the physical constraints on parts of the land (small houses, dilapidated farm buildings, steep slopes down to a creek) and said several parcels are landlocked without deeded access. Barbee and a local broker, Eric Story, submitted an affidavit and unsolicited offers the owner had received; Barbee said offers he’d gotten were generally in the $25,000–$35,000 range for individual parcels. Story’s affidavit included lower opinion-of-value figures than the county’s assessments and listed an adjacent 17-acre grouping that had been listed on MLS and expired unsold.

County staff countered that Monroe’s rezoning and a cluster of nearby commercial and residential projects materially changed the market. The county showed North Carolina Department of Transportation traffic counts of about 20,000 vehicles near one exit (2023 data) and presented multiple recent land sales and an “equity map” indicating higher per-acre pricing close to the bypass. The county also said that under commercial zoning the appraiser does not treat parcel lines in isolation when an owner holds contiguous parcels and that topography is routinely addressed by grading in commercial developments.

After the presentations and board questions, the Board voted on the individual parcels and left the county’s 2025 assessed values in place for each parcel: Parcel 09177031B ($35,400); Parcel 09177032 ($263,700); Parcel 09177031C ($548,100); Parcel 09177031D ($730,700); and Parcel 09177031 ($2,482,900). The record shows the board heard objections from the taxpayer about access, the timing of notice and evidence in the county packet; the county responded the rezoning and new sales data supported its approach.

The hearing record includes the board’s procedural instructions at the start of the session and a reminder from the chair that “by statute, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer” to show assessments are erroneous. The board and staff also discussed whether owner consolidation of parcels would change marketability; some members suggested combining parcels could affect saleability and value, a point Barbee said he would consider.

The board will notify taxpayers in writing of its final decision in the usual 30-day timeframe.