- 17 -
considered." However, for his 1998 report, Wheeler generally
analyzed the effects of conservation easements on property value
"in a more outlying area" in relation to petitioner's property.
Wheeler concluded that this was appropriate because petitioner's
property was "located in a market where it must compete with
properties not subject to conservation easement". This does not
appear to be a valid reason for not including comparable sales
closer in proximity to petitioner's property in the 1998 report.
The 1998 report analyzed 66 sales, of which 35 represented
the direct sale of conservation easements and 31 represented the
sale of property encumbered by a conservation easement. In his
1998 report, Wheeler concluded that 11 of the purchased
conservation easements and five conservation-easement-encumbered
properties were directly comparable to petitioner's property.
To determine whether a particular property was comparable to
petitioner's property, one must focus on the highest and best use
of petitioner's property (i.e., RRD), the property's high
recreational amenities (i.e., forest inholding along a principal
river), the market conditions surrounding petitioner's property
(i.e., "high-end development market"), and the restrictions
contained in the MLR easement. Because Wheeler made many
assumptions in his 1998 report that were contrary to these
criteria, with two exceptions, the original 16 transactions that
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011