2025_10_22 BOER Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Docusign Envelope ID: E1E12D4B-C73D-4424-8A3B-CE4FB0113F17 • On October 9th,the subject property located at 305 Brookside Drive in Chapel Hill was visited by Tanner Valuation Group. The appraisal submitted by the appellant as evidence includes comparable properties located outside of the immediate neighborhood, as well as sales from within the neighborhood dated from 2021 and 2022. • A sales analysis conducted for the subject neighborhood identifies multiple additional sales that occurred within the neighborhood in more recent years—specifically in 2023 and 2024. Notably, a sale on May 30,2023, at 321 McCauley Street supports the current 2025 revaluation of the subject property. • Based on this analysis, the County recommends no value change to the current assessed value. • NBH 7162 Sales Analysis • Comparable Report • Review of comparables provided in appellant's evidence. • Photos • GIS Ma Motion of the Board Accept Coun 's Proposed Value: $795,800 No Change Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Richal Vanhook Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Li's Investment LLC Appellant(if different) Property Address 104 Riverbirch Point I Parcel ID or Abstract 19778526232 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on condition and 2025 flooding. Current Assessed Value $438,600 1 County Opinion $438,600 Time of Hearin 3:27 PM Appellant Opinion $380,000 County Representative Heidi Whetzel Board Decision $399,600(account for portion of land in flood lain Evidence submitted by the appellant: • I bought this house as foreclosure property,paid$160,500, and rent it out as rental property. Everything is out of date, and in need of lots of repairs.I do not agree that this house worth above $400,000. • July 6th the property was flooded. Evidence submitted by the county representative: • The subject property is located at 104 Riverbirch Point in Carrboro. A site visit was conducted on June 11,2025. At that time, a hang tag was left requesting additional information and asking the taxpayer to contact me. • The initial reason for appealing the value was based on purchase price and condition. However, the sale was a foreclosure from 2013 and is not considered a qualified transaction or relevant for the 2025 revaluation. The taxpayer and I have exchanged several emails regarding the possibility of an interior inspection. The taxpayer noted that the property is tenant-