- 18 -
[him] was correct." Given that the petitioner is a credible
witness and based on the entire record we find that petitioner
used only 7-� of the 51 acres of the Clayton property for
business.
On brief, respondent argued in the alternative that the
remaining 43-� acres of the Clayton property not used for
business were held by petitioner for investment. Respondent
contends that the upper, steeply hilled portion of the Clayton
property, which is zoned for residential use, could be divided
into home sites that petitioner could then sell for a profit.
Respondent points to the fact that petitioner had a 280-foot well
drilled on one of the home sites for future use as evidence that
petitioner held this portion of the Clayton property for
investment. We disagree.
Before building his current residence, petitioner drilled a
well on the upper, steeply hilled portion of the land to make
sure that he "could hit water." However, petitioner decided it
was more practical to build elsewhere on the site. Whatever
desire petitioner had to build on the upper portion was abandoned
when he built his current residence, and remains no more than a
vague dream. Moreover, petitioner enjoys solitude and credibly
testified that he did not purchase the Clayton property for
investment purposes, but rather as a place where he could live
"the rest of his life," untroubled by close neighbors.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011