Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

September 1/ 20071 Volume 1 I No. 17 Taking-Landowners argue compensation for taken property was not based on highest and best use Claim future development would have been likely to increase value of property Citation: U.S. v. 6.48 Acres of Land, 2007 WL 2221067 (D. Utah 2007) UTAH (08/01/07)-The United States government took a total of 55.68 acres from a group of landowners for a federal river resto- ration project. The government offered compensation on the land consistent with its zoning designation at the time of the taking, which required a minimum of 20 acres for each single residence. Prior to the court hearing to finalize the taking, the landowners hired two independent consultants to appraise the value of the land. The first consultant, an engineer, determined that the best and high- est use of the land would be to develop it for "resort recreational" use, which would require the property to be rezoned. Despite the fact that the rezoning process was usually lengthy and it was not likely that it could be completed before the taking, the en- gineer concluded that the value of the property should take this use into consideration. The engineer noted that other,sirnilar rezoning requests had been approved, so it was probable that, had the land- owners submitted one, the request would have been approved. The second consultant, a real estate appraiser, also concluded that the highest and best use of the properLy would be to develop it as re- sort recreational, notiJ.lg that a potential development could include "single fanruy homes, 'condominiums and supporting recreational fa- cilities," but conceding that those uses would be restricted under the zoning code that existed at the time. The government asked that the testimony of these two consultants be excluded from the compensation hearing. Decision: Request to dismiss experts granted. In a condemnation case, the general rule was that "just compensa- tion should be measured by the market value of the property taken. " When assessing the market value of land, "comparability [was] a question of fact, -and the court [had] broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence of comparable sales." Here, the landovvners' consultants based their opinions on oth- er local developments, but evidence showed that not only was the property in question located in an area where there had been no re- zoning applications approved, but the developments were very 00- 7 41