- 20 -
Hoeger's assumptions related to his computation of the 10-
percent diminution percentage incorporated many of the factors
that are relevant to the determination of the fair market value
of the MLR easement. While taking into account the restrictions
in the MLR easement, Hoeger focused his analysis on comparing
petitioner's property to other high recreational amenity
properties in "high end development" markets. However, Hoeger
assumed that the highest and best use of petitioner's property
was as a recreational homesite before and after the imposition of
the MLR easement, giving no consideration to any potential lost
development in petitioner's property attributable to the MLR
easement.
Although Hoeger's assumptions were in part correct, most of
his comparable sales were questionable. Hoeger's analysis was
divided into the following parts: Sales 5 and 6, sale 7, sale 8,
sales 9 through 11, sales 12 and 13, and sales 14 and 15. Sales
5 and 6, sales 9 through 11, and sales 12 and 13 suffered from
unverifiable assumptions related to the determination of the
diminution percentage attributable to the conservation easements
involved in those sales. The analysis of sale 7 contained
misinformation regarding critical facts surrounding the sale.
Sales 14 and 15 were questionable because the conservation
easement involved in sale 14 was dissimilar to the MLR easement.
Accordingly, only one sale (sale 8) does not suffer from some
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011