- 46 -
reference to its total lot area ($8 per square foot), but only as
one element in his cost approach.
Again, Atkinson’s expert witness report descriptions of his
comparable properties conflict with the matrices that he presents
in order to quantify his observations. Again, Hulberg avoided
Atkinson’s error by not presenting any adjustment matrix.
Hulberg makes the following point:
In correlating these comparable sales to the subject
property, the primary characteristic difference
requiring consideration is the floor area ratio of the
comparables in relation to that of the subject. Floor
area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of building area to site
size. It is calculated by dividing the building size
by the site size. The subject property has a floor
area ratio of 25 percent. The floor area ratios
exhibited by the comparable sales vary widely between
18 percent and 69 percent. Typically, an inverse
relationship exists between floor area ratio and the
overall value of the property expressed as a price per
square foot of building area.
Intuitively, we agree with Hulberg’s observation.
Obviously, all other matters being equal, we would expect that
the Richard Property (20,000 sq. ft.) would be worth more if the
machine shop building stood on a 1-acre lot and would be worth
less if the building stood on a quarter-acre lot. Curiously,
both Atkinson and Hulberg focused on comparable properties where
the floor area ratio was 2 to 3 times that of the Richard
Property. Hulberg states that the floor area ratio is “The
primary characteristic difference dominating the adjustments made
to these comparables”. Atkinson appears to have ignored this
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011