Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
DocuSign Envelope ID:6933A5D1-3883-438D-A6BB-A5D247790AOE <br /> Property Identification: <br /> Property Owner Chapel Hill Pre School Appellant if different Jeanne Wakefield <br /> Property Address 108 Mt. Carmel Church Rd Parcel ID or Abstract 9787298186 <br /> Statement of Appeal: <br /> Chapel Hill Preschool attorney, Christina Pearsall presented on behalf of the appellant and requested that <br /> the Board grant the exemption for educational purposes and on the basis that no corporate entities or <br /> individuals have been financially enriched over the organization's period of operation and the property is <br /> operating as an educational institution. <br /> Current Assessed Value $1,541,000 County Opinion Deny Exemption <br /> Time of Hearin 3:00 PM Appellant Op inion Grant Exemption <br /> County Representative Shavonda McLean Board Decision Grant Exemption <br /> Evidence submitted by the appellant: <br /> Previous Evidence: <br /> • May 10,2022 Board of Equalization&Review meeting notice to appellant <br /> • Consent to Remote Hearing form <br /> • Email from appellant requesting that the Board grant the exemption <br /> Additional Evidence: <br /> • Email with attachments <br /> 1. Infant Room Lesson Plan Samples <br /> 2. Teaching strategies family conference form <br /> 3. Assessment Sample <br /> 4. Sample Assessment Report <br /> 5. Curriculum <br /> 6. Teaching Strategies <br /> 7. Infant-Toddler Communication for Parents <br /> 8. NC Foundations <br /> 9. Article about Teaching Infants <br /> 10. Article about Scaffolding when Teaching Infants <br /> 11. STEM with Infants and Toddlers <br /> 12. Brain Development <br /> • Email from Christopher B McLaughlin on interpretation of GS 105-278.4 <br /> Ms. Pearsall stated it is the belief of the appellant that the financial statements of the organization that <br /> were requested by the board are irrelevant based on GS 278.4. Ms. Pearsall used Duke University as an <br /> example of an educational institution that charged market rates and is exempt. She further cited an <br /> email from School of Government representative, Chris McLaughlin,to support her view. The <br /> appellant stated that in the Eagle Nest case,the court was referencing GS 278.7,and not GS 278.4,and <br /> the decision in the Eagle Nest case should not apply to the subject appeal.The appellant stated that all <br /> excess proceeds from the program have been reinvested to provide quality care for the children and that <br /> the Board of Directors is comprised of volunteers and community members. <br />