- 34 -
developing their tracts together and his not participating,
although that would have put him “between a rock and a hard
place”. Mr. Mullinix testified that his preference was to
participate in the Program and that, in fact, he, petitioners,
and Mr. Barnes did do so in 1990. Petitioners have failed to
convince us that, had they not participated in the Program, joint
development was reasonably probable. Mr. Mullinix was a chairman
of the board that supervised the Program and served on that board
for 10 years. We think that he was strongly motivated to
participate in the Program and would have borne some sacrifice to
do so. From the stipulation that Mr. Barnes’ testimony would
have been consistent with that of Mr. Mullinix, we are unwilling
to conclude that joint development between petitioners and
Mr. Barnes was reasonably probable had petitioners decided to
develop the land. We believe that, had petitioners decided
against selling the easement to the county, the development of
16 lots on the land was not reasonably probable.
We have considered the testimony of all the experts and,
although Mr. Lipman has raised some question in our mind as to
the suitability of the land for 15 lots (on account of soil
conditions and access), we have not been persuaded to disregard
Mr. Benning’s testimony, which we found competent and generally
persuasive as to the 15 lot scenario. Accordingly, we find that
the land was capable of being developed into 15 residential lots.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011