Union County board hears property appeals, trims one assessment for power-line impact

The Union County Board of Equalization Review met to hear property-value appeals from local taxpayers, weigh county appraisal staff's methodology and rule on adjustments to the 2025 reappraisal.

The board's most prominent discussions included two nearby Wolf parcels whose classification as rural versus subdivision was disputed, a Bartolucci lot whose owner argued a large power-line right-of-way and setbacks reduce buildable area, and several appeals where owners cited failed perk tests or recent sales.

Taxpayer Janet Wolf told the board her family's recorded 1987 plats show a private road, numbered lots and a clearly labeled phase 2, and she asked that parcels 09375132 and 09375133 be treated like nearby mixed-development subdivisions. "What I'm asking is for fair and equitable, I am a subdivision just like these," Wolf said during her presentation. County staff responded that market-area identification relies on sales characteristics, contiguity and the ability to produce reliable vacant-sales data; staff said a recently filed plat label does not by itself change the market area when parcels lack the uniformity and sales needed to define a separate market area.

Jane Bartolucci, representing parcel 06132026, described a narrow 1.5-acre lot bisected by a Union Power right-of-way and told the board that the power-line towers and setback rules mean the property has substantially less usable, buildable land. "The land increased 270% and it seems unfair," she said, asking the board to reconsider the county's valuation. County staff told the board they had used vacant-sales data in the same market area and had checked setbacks with the town of Weddington, which indicated the lot is technically buildable; staff said they did not apply a power-line adjustment in their standard analysis.

After deliberation, the board reduced the assessed value of parcel 06132026 by 10%, citing the power-line right-of-way and setback as materially affecting the usable parcel area. The board's motion to lower the value carried on a vote of members present.

In another contested case involving a parcel where the owner had a failed perk test and floodplain/topography constraints (parcel 09037006C), county staff explained a package of adjustments (no-perk, no-access and flood influences) that lowered staff's recommended value. The board voted to reduce that parcel's assessed land value by $40,000.

On a separate appeal (parcel 05117063), the board accepted the county's valuation of $725,700 after staff presented comparable sales and a market analysis noting that sales after 01/01/2025 could not be used in the 2025 reappraisal.

The board also approved the staff-recommended addendum of settled hearings and the consent agenda items and accepted several clerical amendments to previously reported values.

Why it matters: The board's decisions set the official assessed values that determine local property tax bills and establish precedents for how the county groups parcels into market areas, treats right-of-way impacts and applies no-perk/no-access adjustments. Several taxpayers told the board the increases imposed real financial pressure; board members repeatedly emphasized that statute places the burden of proof on the taxpayer and that staff must use sales data as of the appraisal date (01/01/2025).

Looking ahead: The board concluded deliberations, approved the staff recommendations and scheduled follow-ups as needed; the county will notify taxpayers of final decisions within 30 days, and the board discussed scheduling for next meetings.

Quotes used in this article are taken directly from the hearing transcript and are attributed to the speakers listed in the meeting record. The board's formal outcomes (motions and vote results) are reported as announced in the deliberation phase.