- 43 -
The parties agree that parcel B lacks access to I-459 and
has access to Highway 280. Petitioner contends, however, that
the limited amount of access to parcel B significantly burdens
the property. Petitioner further argues that any benefit parcel
B experienced due to its access to Highway 280 at the time of
decedent's death must be discounted to account for pending plans
by the State of Alabama to modify Highway 280. Such
modification, petitioner contends, might eliminate access to
Highway 280 altogether.
Respondent replies to petitioner’s concern regarding future
modification plans of Highway 280 by pointing to St. Clair County
v. Bukacek, 131 So. 2d 683 (Ala. 1961). Respondent explains that
St. Clair County would require the State of Alabama to compensate
the owner of parcel B if such modification resulted in denying
that owner access to Highway 280.
We agree with respondent. At the time of decedent's death,
parcel B had the benefit of direct access to Highway 280.
Problems similar to those cited as besetting the accessibility of
parcel A did not impair the accessibility of parcel B. Although
the record is not entirely clear as to the approximate amount of
Highway 280 frontage that existed on parcel B, it contains
sufficient evidence to conclude that ample usable frontage did,
in fact, exist. We recognize that pending plans to modify the
existing highway raise legitimate concerns from a valuation
standpoint, but we are unconvinced that petitioner properly
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