- 36 -
14.2304 acres, insinuating that only 14.2304 acres of buildable
land are available because of the placement of the conservation
easement. However, petitioner acknowledges that the conservation
easement did not restrict any more buildable land in total than
what was available before the purported easement. Finally, the
report assumes the same 2.11-unit-per-acre yield for both 62 and
30 lots before and after the donation of the conservation
easement.
Petitioners argue that the deed attached to both Petroff’s
report and the Form 8283 does not make any reference to 62 lots
that could be developed “by-right”. While that is correct,
neither does the deed state where the easement is located.
Accordingly, Petroff would have assumed that 62 lots could have
been built on the entire 29.2722 acres absent the easement, and
that the floodplain (on which there could be no development) was
where the conservation easement was placed.
The only part of Petroff’s report that could possibly
support petitioners’ position that the valuation of the 62 lots
was based on rezoning was Petroff’s reference to the valuation’s
being based on the 62-lot sketch in the addendum to his
appraisal. This is the same 62-lot rezoning sketch of the
buildable area upon which petitioners’ trial experts based their
opinions of the value of the Grist Mill property. However, a 30-
lot sketch was not provided in Petroff’s appraisal, and there is
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011