- 28 -
establish petitioner's projected budget for costs or its
estimated profit (or loss). Additionally, petitioner argues that
Mr. Lohr's statement that the costs for the 48 lots were "no more
than average" does not change the fact that Mr. Baker believed
that the cost per lot was too expensive for building entry-level
homes. However, petitioner provided no evidence to support Mr.
Baker's statements. Petitioner acknowledges this:12 "The only
testimony before the court is the testimony of Baker who
testified that he concluded that it would not be profitable to
do so." We are reluctant to accept Mr. Baker's conclusion.
We find that the off-site costs for the Exchange Property
were not prohibitive in regard to petitioner's development of the
Exchange Property.
12 Mr. Garner, petitioner's engineer, mentioned a
conversation with Mr. Baker: "I don't know whether he used the
word 'horrendous,' but he used some terminology saying the this
was far, far more than the other 14 lots would cost him, and he
was discouraged at this amount." Petitioner uses the statement
to support its position that the costs were exorbitant, but the
statement merely shows what Mr. Baker told Mr. Garner about the
costs.
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