Orange County NC Website
Docusign Envelope ID:3F8FF723-F74B-4D5B-A034-43FF8E859565 <br /> • The recommended changes would reduce the current assessed value of the property from <br /> $918,900 to $851,000,a total of$67,900. <br /> • Current Property Record Card <br /> • Proposed Property Record Card <br /> • Photos of Improvements <br /> • GIS Map <br /> • Comper report <br /> Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $851,000 <br /> Made the motion Richal Vanhook <br /> Seconded the motion Saru Salvi <br /> Voted For All BOER Members <br /> Voted Against ... <br /> Property Identification: <br /> Property Owner Blair L. Pollock Appellant(if different) <br /> Property Address 6421 Heartwood Drive Parcel ID or Abstract 19871530365 <br /> Statement of Appeal: Request a reduction in value based on incorrect data on the current property card <br /> and comparable sales. <br /> Current Assessed Value $575,800 County Opinion $548,600 <br /> Time of Hearin 2:57 PM Appellant Opinion $437,000 <br /> County Representative Louise Benson- Board Decision $548,600 <br /> Lochner <br /> Evidence submitted by the appellant: <br /> • The Appellant filed a formal appeal on June 26,2025. The Appellant provided 2 appraisal <br /> sketches outlining the heated square footage with a request to be corrected from 1,953 square <br /> feet to 1,761 square feet. Additionally,the Appellant provided comparable sales concerning the <br /> land valuation. See the appeal for details concerning both. <br /> Evidence submitted by the county representative: <br /> • On 9/12/2025 a site visit was performed by this appraiser. The taxpayer was in attendance and <br /> allowed access to the site to observe grade, condition/maintenance,and construction standards. <br /> Exterior measurements and photos were taken of the residence. <br /> • Observations/Corrections to property record include: <br /> 1. Per the appraisals provided by the Appellant concerning square footage: <br /> a)The heated square footage should be 1,761 square feet: Upon review the County records <br /> now reflect 1,683 square foot(previously1,954 sq ft).Due to the software utilized by the <br /> County,rounding/variations occur. Concerning the appellant's application of$160.80/square <br /> foot,it is noted there are complex algorithms that take into consideration many factors(e.g. <br /> economies of scale, quality,etc.)when determining the value per square foot. A figure of <br /> $160.80 is not applicable. The square footage adjustment reduces the assessed value$19,700. <br />