Freres Lumber Co., Inc. - Page 30

                                                 - 30 -                                                    

                  Respondent contends that Goss' sale 1 was not comparable                                 
            because it had a log pond, unlike the Walker's mill site.                                      
            Petitioner contends that the log pond served the same purpose as                               
            the log deck for the Walker mill site.  Even if respondent is                                  
            correct about the log pond, respondent does not criticize Goss'                                
            sales 2, 3, or 4.                                                                              
                  Respondent contends that the sale 5 site is not comparable                               
            to the Walker site because the sale 5 site had potential                                       
            environmental cleanup problems.  Respondent alleges that the sale                              
            5 mill site occupied only one-fifth of the land that was sold.                                 
            We disagree.  The Walker mill site had similar environmental                                   
            problems.  Respondent did not include the log deck area in                                     
            computing the sale 5 mill-site area.  We believe the sale 5 site                               
            is comparable to the Walker mill site.  Respondent contends that                               
            the sale 6 site is not comparable to the Walker site because the                               
            sale 6 site was zoned for industrial and agricultural use.  We                                 
            disagree.  Goss reasonably concludes in his report that the                                    
            highest and best use of the Walker site was industrial and                                     
                  Respondent contends that Goss should increase his estimate                               
            of the value of the ancillary land because the land includes a                                 
            solid waste disposal site.  We disagree.  The solid waste                                      
            disposal site had little value because a permit to establish such                              
            a site was inexpensive and easy to obtain.  The site may contain                               

Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011