- 49 -
Boyett concluded that the property had no future development
potential, especially given that rural development indeed exists
in close proximity to the property at issue. Thus, based on the
entire record, we agree with petitioners that the highest and
best before value use of the property was rural development, with
recreational and agricultural use as secondary.
We next turn to the issue of the property's value after the
granting of the easement. At trial, petitioners' expert
testified that by prohibiting development and subdivision, the
conservation easement prevents the property from attaining its
highest and best use. He concluded that the property, in effect,
is reduced to an agricultural-recreational unit, and the other
restrictions of the easement limit the agricultural use to 25
percent of its potential. Wheeler, relying on data provided by
the Soil Conservation Service, specifically relating to the
carrying capacity of the property at issue demonstrated that the
livestock grazing of such property was 1,400 AUM's per year. The
easement restricts grazing to 300 AUM's per year. Thus, Wheeler
concluded that this greater than 75-percent restriction on
grazing contributes to the diminution in value caused by the
easement, because it narrows the market of potential buyers
further than if the easement had only prohibited development.
Moreover, at trial, Wheeler credibly testified that the
conservation easement in the instant case was one of the most
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