2025_12_11 BOER Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Docusign Envelope ID: EFC2B295-7589-48A0-88CA-A5037E1D20D9 Time of Hearin 2:10PM I Appellant Opinion $350,000 County Re resentative Dana Hall I Board Decision $505,500 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • No connection to other sewer system Evidence submitted by the county representative: • On November 20, a site visit was conducted at the subject property located at 901 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill. During the site visit,it was observed that the house appears to be occupied, consistent with the appellant's statement that the property is used as a rental income property. As such,the property has access to a sewer system. • Per the appeal submitted, our property record card originally indicated two full bathrooms. This has been corrected to reflect the current count of one full bath and one half bath, resulting in a reduction of the building value to a proposed$121,000. • With no additional documentation provided to support further value adjustments,the County recommends updating the bathroom count on the property record card and reducing the total assessed value to $505,500. • GIS Map • Current Property Record Card • Proposed Property Record Card Motion of the Board Accept Count 's Proposed Value: $505,500 Made the motion Leon Meyers Seconded the motion Saru Salvi Voted For All BOER Members Voted Against Property Identification: Property Owner Thomas O. Mills Trustee Appellant(if different) Continued from 10/30 Property Address 14030 Legato Lane Parcel ID or Abstract 9846853837 Statement of Appeal: Request reduction in value based on land condition and comparable sales. Current Assessed Value $627,300 ounty Opinion $627,300 Time of Hearin 2:33PM Appellant Opinion $500,000 County Representative C le Anderson Board Decision $627,300 Evidence submitted by the appellant: • The appellant states that the subject property's land should not be compared to other properties that are flat because much of the lot is encumbered by floodplain,buffers, an easement and a leach field. The appellant provided three photos as supporting evidence. The appellant provided additional supporting documentation along with several comparable sales.