- 39 -
cannot be commercial in nature. Petitioner does not, however,
advance a meaningful argument with respect to these two factors.
Parcel A is indeed an awkwardly positioned large piece of real
estate. However, we fail to see how these factors lend material
support to the conclusion reached by petitioner.
Much of the testimony offered by petitioner through its
witnesses involves the availability of utilities on parcel A. In
particular, petitioner maintains that the establishment of sewer
facilities to parcel A would likely be cost prohibitive.
Considering the testimony by the several witnesses called by
petitioner, we can appreciate that parcel A suffers in this
regard, but this should not be considered unusual. At issue is
the development of a piece of undeveloped real estate, and it
would seem that such development commonly occurs on real estate
lacking direct sewer facilities. It seems odd that petitioner
maintains that the lack of immediate sewer connections on parcel
A presents an insurmountable hurdle with respect to commercial
development while simultaneously contending that such an obstacle
does not equally impair residential development. In any event,
the extent to which parcel A is burdened by the lack of immediate
sewer connections can be accounted for in valuing the parcel.
Petitioner has expended an enormous effort in its attempt to
convince this Court that Hearn and Tidwell were both correct in
concluding that the highest and best use of parcel A was
residential rather than commercial as of the date of decedent's
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011