Albemarle BOE affirms assessor’s valuation in Sheehan property appeal

At its June meeting, the Albemarle County Board of Equalization affirmed the county assessor’s 2025 property assessment for parcel 059E1020J00900 after a hearing by homeowner Jason Sheehan, who challenged the valuation of a standby generator, the addition of finished square footage above a garage and several neighborhood-adjustment factors.

Sheehan told the board he installed a whole‑house generator several years ago and that the assessment line item for the generator had risen unexpectedly; he disputed the assessor’s valuation method and said the county’s “generator value table” supplied after the assessment did not reflect a cost‑approach calculation. “I appreciate the Board of Equalization listening to my appeal,” Sheehan said during his presentation.

County Assessor Calvin Lynch and field appraiser Lewis defended the office’s methods. Lynch said generators are valued using current cost new and then depreciated, not by using the original purchase price. “You don’t determine the value of a generator based on the cost new 4 years ago when it was put in. You base the value on generators based on the cost new now, and then you depreciate it,” Lynch said. He told the board the assessor’s office currently uses $10,025 as its generator value in the model and that the office’s study shows a typical whole‑house generator cost (before depreciation) of about $14,000 for next year’s valuations.

A second line of dispute was whether the space above the garage is finished and whether it contains a half bath, which would increase finished square footage and affect per‑square‑foot valuation. Lewis, the field appraiser who inspected the exterior, described looking up through partly open blinds and seeing a field of light that led him to conclude the second‑floor area included drywall and therefore was finished space. “When you’re looking up like that, if you can see drywall anywhere beyond just the window frame, you can assume that’s a finished space,” Lewis told the board. Lewis said he called Lake Anna Timberwood Homes LLC, the contractor that worked on the house, who recalled the upstairs being finished for an office and at one point described a half bath in the plans before revising to a half bath.

Sheehan disputed the county’s record of the property’s internal condition, said he had not been given an adequate value table for the generator and that the county’s own building‑permit record did not show a final certificate of occupancy for the 2016 renovation. He told the board he declined interior inspection by assessor staff because of prior “unprofessional” interactions with an assessor’s employee and because he preferred an independent inspector if the board wanted interior verification.

County staff explained other parts of the valuation: a neighborhood adjustment factor (res factor) of 1.55 applied in Ednam Forest was used to align the neighborhood median assessment ratio; the office presents sales from 2024 to support the neighborhood trend and said some sales outside the immediate subdivision were used when there were few high‑end sales in the neighborhood. Lynch also said the county consolidated a number of subjective grade categories into fewer grades across the county assessment to simplify the model; that change affected some properties’ grade designation between assessments.

After questions from board members and extended discussion about inspection records, photographs, permits and comparable sales, a board member moved to “leave the assessment as it is.” Another board member seconded the motion; the board voted in favor and the motion passed, with the board noting the assessor’s current assessment would stand. The board and county staff discussed allowing Sheehan to present an independent inspection or allow a mutually acceptable inspector at a later date for consideration in the next assessment cycle; the board said the current assessment would remain in effect unless new, verifiable interior evidence were presented and considered in a subsequent reassessment.

The hearing record shows the main factual items in dispute: the assessor’s treatment of a whole‑house generator (current model value $10,025; county staff projected $14,000 for future valuations), whether the second‑floor area above the garage is finished and contains an additional half bath, the application of a 1.55 neighborhood multiplier for Ednam Forest, and the absence of a final certificate of occupancy in the county permit record for the 2014–2016 renovation. The Board of Equalization’s decision at this meeting affirmed the assessor’s valuation pending any future, verifiable inspection evidence submitted by the property owner or an independent inspector.