- 44 -
accounted for such concerns. There is nothing in the record that
suggests that plans to modify Highway 280 were anything more than
mere speculation. We agree with respondent that the St. Clair
County case explains how any ill effects experienced by an owner
of parcel B are to be dealt with if some future modification
prevents that owner from accessing Highway 280 from parcel B.
Petitioner also maintains that parcel B suffers from a lack
of visibility from I-459. This lack of visibility, petitioner
contends, is caused by a hill, which petitioner refers to as a
large ridge or mountain, that separates parcel B from I-459. We
cannot grant much weight to petitioner’s argument in this regard
because even its own witnesses, Hearn and Tidwell, disagree as to
the extent visibility is an issue.
Both parties also consider the size, shape, and available
utilities of parcel B, but their arguments in that regard are
essentially limited to a discussion concerning the lack of
immediate sewer connections. Again, the parties disagree
extensively as to the effect on valuation caused by the lack of
immediate sewer connections to parcel B. Petitioner contends
that establishing sewer connections to parcel B would be cost
prohibitive because doing so would require either boring or
tunneling under Highway 280 or connecting to a sewer line located
roughly 1 mile to the north of parcel B. Respondent agrees with
petitioner as to where sewer connections might be made; however,
she contends that such connections would not be cost prohibitive.
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