Union County board upholds most county property valuations after day of appeals

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review met to hear property valuation appeals from multiple taxpayers, weighing development constraints, access issues and floodplain/topography limits before largely approving the assessor's values or modest reductions.

Why it matters: The board's determinations will determine property tax bills for owners of residential lots, commercial parcels and scattered investments across Union County. Many appellants argued that access limitations, streams, steep topography, or pending road projects make parcels difficult or impossible to develop and therefore worth less than the county's appraisal.

Taxpayers and their representatives repeatedly made the same themes during the session: parcels described as landlocked, narrow or constrained by floodplain or steep contour lines; pending or proposed North Carolina Department of Transportation projects (including parts of a proposed Waxhaw Parkway) that create uncertainty over sellability or usable area; and older commercial buildings with limited reuse potential.

Tom Crouch, a representative who spoke for several LLCs that appealed, described recurring concerns in several cases: "we can't sell it anyone because there's so much unknown," and in other parcels noted that the land is "completely landlocked" with no legal access. County appraisers responded with neighborhood sales analyses and a consistent methodology they said was applied across parcels. Joe Hunter, county appraiser, told the board the assessor's office used sales and equity comparables and, where appropriate, took reductions for access or floodplain: "we feel like that's fair and equitable."

The board moved into deliberations after hearing all appeals. For most contested parcels the board voted to accept the county value; in a few cases members approved modest adjustments the county had already made or granted staff-recommended settlements. In one case the board agreed to a further reduction after a petitioner described a building the fire department and police used for training and a structure effectively at the end of its useful life.

Votes at a glance (selected items from the meeting): - Property key 05063030A (Waxhaw Parkway Farm LLC): county analysis held; board approved county value as presented. - Property key 05063034 (Waxhaw Parkway Farm LLC): county value accepted (subject raised: DOT Waxhaw Parkway alignment uncertainty). - Property key 07084273 / 07084274 / 07084328 (Liquid Management LLC — multiple small, landlocked lots near Highway 74/Indian Trail, and a parcel near Plyler Road): county discounts for access were discussed; board sustained county values (county had applied 25% access reductions where appropriate). - Property key 06024036 / 06024030 (Downtown Wesley Chapel LLC — two adjacent lots near Potter/Weddington): county reduced values for sewer/capacity issues; board accepted county numbers. - Property key 06141045 (Wash 1 LLC — older car wash on Waxhaw Parkway): county and appellant presented differing income/market perspectives; board accepted county value. - Property key 07084323 (Indian Trail RV & Boat Storage LLC): appellant argued a higher market cap for outdoor RV storage; county ran a cost approach and local comparables; board approved county value. - Property key 07090006Q/07090006B (Sun Valley Commons lots — retail/medical building and adjacent parcel): county presented sales and cost analyses and was largely sustained by the board; appellant emphasized tenant sensitivity to tax/CAM increases. - Property key 07129343 (Stallings Point LLC; near Old Charlotte Road/Elmwood Apartments): appellant argued DOT right-of-way and relocated power easements had materially reduced developability; county found comparable sales; board accepted a county reduction and left the value at the adjusted county amount.

What the board said: At the start of the hearing the chair reminded attendees of legal standards: "By statute, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that the assessment is erroneous," and explained procedural rules for presentations and rebuttals. During multiple appeals board members pressed taxpayers and staff for specifics on access, FEMA floodplain designations, and whether DOT projects were funded or simply on planning maps.

What the county said: County staff repeatedly explained their methodology: using local vacant-land median prices where available, applying consistent discounts for access or floodplain constraints, and applying cost or equity comparables for commercial structures. As Hunter put it regarding several constrained parcels: "we use the same methodology that on this parcel that we use on every other parcel in the county."

What taxpayers said: Appellants focused on uncertainty or development costs. Tom Crouch summarized a frequent theme: "...the unknown is what is scaring off a lot of buyers and devaluing it for us right now." For some parcels he said the presence of a stream, steep contours or absence of sewer meant practical development was infeasible without "very extensive grading" or acquiring adjoining access rights.

Next steps and practical effect: The board's vote means the county will issue formal decisions according to its process; several appointees asked the county to verify deed stamps, acquisition history or more detailed access/easement records during deliberations. Taxpayers who remain dissatisfied retain any administrative or statutory appeal rights under state law.

Ending note: The board conducted more than 20 hearings in the session, moving through a broad assortment of vacant, commercial and special-use parcels. Most outcomes reaffirmed the county's valuations or modest county-led adjustments; petitions that pointed to clear physical constraints, active DOT takings or documented loss of building utility were more likely to yield a reduction or to be handled through an agreed staff addendum.