- 46 -
After careful consideration of the entire record, we agree with
petitioners.
Wheeler determined that the property's highest and best use
before the easement would be for rural development comparable to
that already existing in the area, together with recreational and
agricultural use. Respondent argues, however, that the property
has no future development potential, limited agricultural
potential, and therefore the highest and best use before the
easement would be recreational. To support this position,
respondent points to the fact that restrictive land ownerships
have precluded intensive development. The owners in the area are
investors or established residents who have tried to preserve the
aesthetic appearance in the area. In making such argument,
however, respondent fails to realize that as long as the highest
and best use for which the property is adaptable and needed or
likely to be needed in the near future is not prohibited by law,
community opposition to such a use does not preclude us from
valuing the property as if it were so used. Symington v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 892 (1986).
Respondent further stresses the fact that pursuant to local
ordinances lots created below 35 acres are subject to strict
subdivision review. In response to this argument, petitioners
correctly point out that rural development does not necessarily
mean planned small-tract development as is found in the urban and
suburban regions of the eastern United States. Rather,
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011