- 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
agricultural.
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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011