Board reviews RWSA‑leased Buck Mountain parcels; assessment adjustments upheld, motion to inform assessment approved

The Albemarle County Board of Equalization heard a multi‑hour appeal from a lessee, Samuel Miller, represented by Bob Beard, challenging assessments for three parcels leased from RWSA in the Buck Mountain watershed. The dispute centered on whether parcels should remain in lower residual‑acreage categories (RS2/RS3) or be reclassified as RS1 and then reduced for lack of access and restrictive easements.

Miller and his representative argued the parcels are effectively landlocked and subject to restrictive easements that bar surface disturbance, limiting marketability. They presented a private appraisal study and sales comparisons they said support a larger access adjustment than the assessor applied. Miller’s materials showed prior assessed values, reclassification effects and proposed multipliers: he suggested an access multiplier around 0.438 (roughly a 56% reduction) and pointed to a peer sale in 2021 that sold for about $450,000 as evidence the assessor’s adjustments understate the access impact.

Assessor staff described their methodology: they consolidated comparable parcels into RS1 as a starting base rate and then applied adjustments for location, size, topography, access and the restrictive easement. Staff said those combined adjustments produced a lower net assessment for the parcels than some prior assessments once the restrictions were applied. Staff reported using an access adjustment in the range of roughly 40–42%; they also noted adjustments for size and slope and the effect of restrictive covenants that limit surface disturbance.

Appellant and assessor clashed on process and comparability. Miller said reclassifying parcels to RS1 raised the base rate sharply (he cited a jump from about $496,000 to roughly $635,000 before applying restrictions) and then relied on large post‑class adjustments; he argued the assessor should have retained RS2/RS3 with different adjustments instead. Assessor staff said their approach aligns parcel treatment across multiple RWSA parcels and that applying RS1 with explicit access and restriction discounts yields an equitable result for the parcels in question.

Board members and staff debated the evidentiary weight of a 2012 study used by the appellant’s appraiser versus more recent sales and the assessor’s current review. Several board members said the assessor’s contemporaneous review and the licensed commercial appraisal submitted by the appellant were both relevant; one board member summarized that either RS1 or RS3 classification could be supported depending on how the adjustments are allocated, and that the assessor had addressed the restrictive easement and access concerns.

After discussion, a motion was made on the record relating to application/parcel ID 29‑4983 (and related application numbers cited in the hearing). The board voted in favor of a motion described in the hearing as to "inform the assessment" for the cited applications; the motion passed unanimously. The transcript records the panel concluding the motion passed with the assessor’s office.

The hearing record shows the parties exchanged documentation about historical land‑use status (the parcels had previously been in a land‑use program and were removed), the terms of a restrictive easement limiting surface disturbance, and multiple valuation approaches. The final administrative action recorded in the hearing was the board’s vote on the motion to inform the assessment; the assessor’s office indicated it will continue reconciling classification and adjustment methodology across the related RWSA parcels and that further review and standardization may occur beyond the three appealed parcels.