- 37 -
Tidwell and Hearn correctly concluded that the highest and best
use of Parcel A was residential in nature.
There is little question that parcel A has only limited
access to Highway 280. We do not think, however, that this is
sufficient, as petitioner generally suggests, to conclude that
the highest and best use of parcel A is not commercial. Although
the 300 feet of Highway 280 frontage parcel A does have would
likely require substantial modification to facilitate
accessibility, the accompanying costs could be accounted for in
the valuation process. Even if, as one of petitioner’s witnesses
claimed, regulations promulgated by the State highway commission
may prevent or restrict such access due to the proximity of this
frontage to the entrance of the Bell property, Cahaba River Road
provides a means of alternative access to parcel A. In fact,
such latter access might be preferable for commercial
development. In any event, the extent to which parcel A is less
attractive from a commercial development perspective, due to the
lack of convenient access to Highway 280, can be sufficiently
accounted for in the process of value estimation and should not
be construed as denuding the parcel of commercial utility.
We are unwilling to accept petitioner’s contention that the
so-called buffer zone separating Cahaba River Road from that
portion of parcel A annexed by the city of Birmingham in 1985
imposed an absolute barrier to the accessibility of parcel A from
Cahaba River Road. At best, the record establishes only that a
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011