Orange County Board of Equalization and Review upholds most assessments, lowers several after inspections

The Orange County Board of Equalization and Review met Jan. 15, 2026, and considered a docket of residential and vacant‑land appeals. The three-member panel—Chair Leon Meyers and regular members Saru Salvi and Richal Vanhook—voted on each case; most appeals resulted in the county’s assessed value being upheld, while a subset of properties received reductions after staff inspections or agreement with appellants.

Several notable outcomes included the board’s acceptance of appellant Matthew McClory’s proposed value, lowering the assessment for 102 Bennington Drive to $405,000 after condition and comparable‑sale evidence were presented. The board also adopted a reduced combined value of $501,900 for two properties owned by Abriata Group LLC at 202 and 204 McCauley Street after county inspection found both structures in need of substantial repair; county staff had recommended $786,700 based on standard adjustments, but the board voted to reduce the assessment further.

Other cases that resulted in no change included a large Chapel Hill home at 110 Hayworth Drive (Trevor G. Hackman), where county staff documented recent renovations and recommended keeping the assessment at $980,000; and a Hogan Glen Court home (Renzun Zhao), where an appellant relied on a Zillow estimate but the board accepted the county’s sales analysis and retained the $701,100 value. In several appeals the county and appellants reached agreement after staff explained inspection findings — for example, Mackenzie M. Severson accepted county adjustments after staff identified an incomplete second dwelling that had been included in building value calculations, leading to a revised assessment of $746,900.

The board recorded motions and votes for each appeal. Motions were typically made and seconded by board members in attendance; recorded votes list Leon Meyers, Saru Salvi and Richal Vanhook as voting for the motions. Where appellants provided written evidence, the minutes list evidence types (photos, GIS maps, sales analyses, property record cards) and staff recommendations (changes to effective year built, quality grades, condition ratings, land adjustments and percentage depreciations).

Appellants’ positions varied: some supplied comparable sales or equity analyses; others cited condition issues or cost‑to‑cure receipts for repairs. Examples of appellant statements recorded in the minutes include Catherine L. Jackson’s statement during two appeals that “I do not agree with the 2025 value change,” and an appellant’s reliance on Zillow estimates to support a lower valuation for 115 Hogan Glen Court. County staff responses recorded reasons for recommended values, including completed renovations, related‑party sale concerns, and the exclusion of out‑of‑jurisdiction comparables.

A procedural note appears in the minutes for the Merritt appeal: the record shows that after the board decided to uphold the assessed value of $401,700, the Jackson Center’s Andrew Simpson emailed to request the matter be moved to Jan. 21; the minutes say the decision may change pending the board’s accommodation of that rehearing request. The meeting adjourned with signatures on the minutes recorded later in January.

The board’s actions at this session reflect standard BOER practice: appraisal staff present inspection findings and sales analyses, appellants offer evidence or accept staff adjustments, and the board votes to accept county recommendations or appellant proposals. Several of the adopted adjustments were the result of on‑the‑record agreement between county staff and appellants following inspections rather than protracted debate.

The full set of decisions, evidence types, and staff recommendations are recorded in the minutes; any appellant seeking further review should consult the county’s published minutes or contact the Orange County Tax Administration for procedural details about rehearings.