Williams v Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
[1997] QLC 42
•23 April 1997
|
BRISBANE
23 April 1997
Re: Appeal against Annual Valuations -
Valuation of Land Act 1944 -
Valuation Roll No: 48432 -
Local Government: Gold Coast City - Albert
(AV95-291 and AV96-95).
Victor O and Nell M Williams
v.
Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources
(formerly Department of Lands)
(Hearing at Coolangatta)
D E C I S I O N
Background:
The key issues in this appeal relate to the percentage increase in valuations, comparison of sales of comparable lands, the impact of flooding, and the natural disabilities of the site. The appeals relate to two successive valuations of the property at Wattle Avenue, Stephens, Gold Coast, described as Lot 15 on RP 162122, and having an area of 2.2644 hectares. The property comprises an irregular-shaped parcel of land bisected by a gully, and is low-lying in parts. The property would require filling for development to proceed, as it falls within a flood plain. The land is zoned as "Residential A" under the Town Planning Scheme of the Gold Coast City Council, effective at the date of valuation at 1 January 1995 (AV95-291) and 1 January 1996 (AV96-95). By agreement with the parties, both appeals were heard concurrently.
The property is vacant and unused at present. It is located in the suburb of Stephens, about 4.5 kms west of the Burleigh Post Office and surf beaches. The Robina town centre is located about 4.1 kms to the north-west. Access is via Wattle Street, which is a full-width bitumen-sealed road with concrete kerbing and channelling, with access to the subject being easy. There is also a pathway access to Briar Crescent along its southern boundary. Overhead power supply, town water, sewerage and telephone are available. There is an existing sewer line from the sewerage pumping station which traverses the subject, and five stormwater outlets discharge onto the subject from surrounding areas.
The Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, on 13 February 1995, issued a valuation for the property with effect at 1 January 1995, to $134,000, and on 19 February 1996, issued a valuation for the property with effect at 1 January 1996, to $158,000. Following objections, the Chief Executive on 3 July 1995, disallowed the objection and confirmed the valuation of $134,000 (at 1 January 1995), and then on 15 April 1996, allowed the second objection and amended the valuation to $134,000 (at 1 January 1996), which is the amount now appealed. The appellants have appealed those decisions claiming that an amount of $84,000 more reasonably reflects the true unimproved value of the subject.
Mr VO Williams appeared for the appellants, calling his wife Mrs NM Williams as witness; and Mr B O'Connor appeared for the respondent, calling as witness Mr DR McKinnon, the registered Departmental valuer responsible for determining the valuations.
Evidence:
The appellants gave evidence that they had investigated sales of improved properties in their area as they could not locate sales of similar vacant sites. They gave evidence of the following sales:
Property Date of Value of
Sale Sale
2 Wattle Street Nov 85 $ 53,000
6 Wattle Street Jan 89 $ 106,000
4 Wattle Street May 89 $ 95,000
1 Briar Crescent Jan 87 $ 55,000
13 Briar Crescent Sep 94 $ 126,500
18 Briar Crescent Aug 91 $ 92,000
7 Willow Street Feb 87 $ 47,000
Mr Williams argued that these sales supported other evidence supplied in respect of another appeal by them (AV96-94), where newspaper articles on market trends had estimated that the percentage growth in the improved property market at January 1996, for the period 1992 to 1995, was for Burleigh Heads (3%) and Burleigh Waters (1.2%). Mr Williams claimed that the percentage increase in the unimproved value at $134,000 is not in line with these market trends and has therefore been determined on an incorrect premise. He went on to claim that the average increase in improved values during this study had revealed that Stephens had only increased by 3.4%.
The appellant also argued that the natural disadvantages of the subject had been grossly underestimated by the Chief Executive, noting in particular that the subject was the "residual land" left after an old Queensland Housing Commission (QHC) subdivision which did not comply in all respects at the time of development, with the requirements of the Local Government. As a consequence of that decision, there had been an "arms length" attitude by the Local Government in respect of any proposals to further develop the subject. As a consequence of these matters, the appellants had purchased the subject unaware of the extensive extra drainage problems now inherent in the land. Mr Williams had originally purchased the land to build upon as a large residential site, but because of the major restrictions now placed upon its use, the appellants have been unable to continue with their intentions to build upon the subject. The adjoining neighbours to the north-west on Lot 1 on RP 125191 have had similar problems.
Because of the natural fall of the land, surface waters flow towards the north-west, and after rain about one-third of the subject remains swampy and boggy for three to four weeks before it dries out. This makes it very difficult to maintain the grass that flourishes, which is an ongoing requirement of the Council. He has to cut the grass with his own tractor and slasher every six to eight weeks (summer) and eight to ten weeks (winter). Because of certain earthworks that have been approved by Council further downstream, there can be a build-up of water in heavy rains of some four to five feet of water across large areas of the subject.
In addition to the flooding, there are also other physical features which impact future use of the land. Lot 14 on RP 162122 is a sewerage pumping station; there are drainage easements discharging stormwater onto the subject from Lot 40, the pathway between adjoining Lots 11 and 10, an easement at Lot 8, as well as an unregistered pipe discharging from near the corner of Lots 9 and 3 (a 1-metre pipe), and also at the northern part of the subject, a stormwater pipe passes under the road and exits as an open drain onto the subject. The sewer line from Lot 14 to Lot 8 has two man-holes.
In respect of current "flood plain" restrictions on the subject, Mr Williams submitted that Council will require a major feasibility study before any development can proceed. He contends that Council will insist that all existing stormwater drainage would have to be connected at the appellant's expense as part of any approval to develop the site. Mr McKinnon agrees that such would be the case if the whole of the subject was to be developed, but Council would not be so restrictive if only a single building site development was proposed. Because of the unfortunate historical record of disagreement between the QHC and the Council, Mr Williams doubted that view. Both parties agree however that in the event of any development on the subject, the actual building area would need to be filled to the level of the 1974 flood, which is about reduced level 4.2 metres on the subject, which has an average elevation of about 3 metres with low points in the gully to 1.9 metres.
Mr Williams gave evidence that it had previously been indicated by Council that filling for a house site to a total of 1200 cubic metres at a cost of $12 per cubic metre compacted, would be required. Thus he estimated the cost of developing a house site at $14,000 plus extra roadworks. He also noted that should a development to subdivide proceed, the Council could require a contribution of $10,000 for parkland purposes as well. However, Council would not provide any indication of approval unless Mr Williams submitted a feasibility study and plan of the proposal, and paid the non-refundable fee. For various reasons the appellants have decided not to proceed with any application at this time, so that the clear direction of Council requirements are unknown.
Under cross-examination, Mr Williams confirmed that he had been approached by several developers, and he has asked them for development proposals to assess their viability, but on each occasion the physical disabilities had dissuaded the developers from proceeding. The main concerns appear to be the problems with the stormwater discharge, and uncertainty about the lawful point of discharge from the subject. Mr Williams confirmed that his original intended purpose was to develop the subject as a hobby farm, growing fruit trees, vegetables and other small crops on a restricted basis under the then zoning of "Future Urban". Because of the upgrading of the zoning to "Residential A", and in view of the proximity of adjoining houses, Council's requirements are now more stringent and Mr Williams is unclear whether Council would require total development of the subject, or merely just a housing site. Because of the high costs of applying to Council, Mr Williams has not been prepared to risk any application, preferring to try and sell to a developer instead. For the previous reasons, he has so far been unable to encourage any sale to a developer.
In respect of other restrictions being imposed by Council, he has only recently become aware that he may not be able to change the existing level in the flood plain. Because of the recent amalgamation of the former Albert Shire Council and the Gold Coast City Council, there is apparently some confusion between the technical departments of the two former Councils. This was causing confusion, and he currently believes there is no longer any "consent" right for Council to approve a development application. In view of the indicative costs of major stormwater drainage and possible filling on the site, he anticipates costs of several hundred thousand dollars, which he cannot afford at present. Mr Williams claimed that he had not relied greatly on the comparison of sales, but based his estimate of the valuation on the high cost of developing the subject. He also acknowledged that in his analyses of the improved sales he supplied, Mr Williams had been unaware of the age of some of those sales. The appellant's neighbour (Lot 1 on RP 125191) had encountered considerable difficulties and major conflicts with the Council over similar matters, and Mr Williams, based upon the experience of his neighbours, was reluctant to pursue the matter further at this time.
Mrs Williams gave evidence that supported her husband, noting in particular the difficulties and frustrations of having 18 neighbours who regularly threw articles into the long grass adjoining their properties which must be removed manually before slashing of the grass can proceed. She confirmed that Council communications are often confusing, sometimes insisting the whole site must be slashed, while on other occasions only requiring a lesser part to be cut. Mrs Williams estimated that a cost of approximately $200,000 had been provided for extra filling of the site as a future subdivision, but this varied as Council was unclear as to which final level the subject was required to be filled. She confirmed that they had originally understood that they could fill certain areas, but following pressure from community groups in the flood plain, there now appeared to exist a policy that they could only fill on a "nett zero basis" and then only subject to Council approval and the payment of application fees. Mrs Williams claimed that there was no other parcel in the area with similar disabilities. She noted that their neighbour on Lot 1 on RP 125191 had placed a lot of fill which just appeared to be sitting across the floodway and which causes backup of the water onto the subject for periods of six to eight weeks, exacerbating the boggy nature of the subject. Council's comments that they would "cut a drain through the fill" if bad flooding occurred after heavy rain, appears to be more rhetoric than action to the appellants. Mrs Williams confirmed that her estimate of filling at $200,000 was not just for the development of a house site, but rather as part of a total subdivision of the subject.
In his evidence Mr McKinnon confirmed that he was aware of the stormwater problems, the extent of sewerage, the boggy nature of the subject, and the high maintenance costs, as these were acknowledged in the objections. He had visited the Council offices and was aware of the former application to subdivide by the appellants. He was not sure of the extent of filling needed to develop a single building site. Based upon his experience with similar other properties, Mr McKinnon believed that Council would most likely approve the development with approval to fill only a single housing pad although he pointed out that he could not speak for the Council. Under these conditions, however, he noted that the quantum of filling needed would depend upon where the house was located. If the house site crossed an existing stormwater drainage, then extra drainage or road costs would be required. Mr McKinnon noted also that the "nett zero" filling requirements to his knowledge related only to large-scale developments.
To support his valuation, Mr McKinnon supplied five sales of comparable properties:•Sale 1 -(Greenlands Drive, Stephens - Lot 2 on RP 126283)
This is a larger development site about 100 metres to the north of the subject, comprising elevated ridge land falling to lower land at the rear, and with potential for residential development. It has an area of 5.929 hectares, is zoned as "Future Urban", and is considered superior to the subject due to its location closer to existing residential properties, and its greater potential for redevelopment at an earlier time than the subject. The sale is older, being sold in October 1992, for $450,000, giving an analysed unimproved value of $75,898 per hectare, which has subsequently been revised to $710,000 ($119,750 per hectare) at subsequent valuations.
•Sale 2 -(Greenlands Drive, Stephens - Lot 5 on RP 126283).
This is a larger development site located about 200 metres north of the subject, comprising ridge country falling to the north to lower land. The sale abuts residential development and has potential for residential development in the immediate future. The sale has an area of 6.943 hectares, is zoned as "Future Urban" and is an older sale, selling in December 1992, for $650,000, giving an analysed unimproved value of $93,619 per hectare, which has subsequently been revised to $800,000 ($115,224 per hectare) at subsequent valuations.
•Sale 3 -(84 Valley Drive, Tallebudgera - Lot 6 on RP 231030)
This is a slightly smaller rural homesite located about 5.4 kms south-east of the subject, comprising cleared, generally flat flood-prone land with a small rise to the road frontage suitable as a construction site. It is located about 5.8 kms south-west of the surf beaches, and is in a rural residential area. The sale is considered inferior to the subject on a site basis as, although the sale has a small area above the flood-prone land, the subject is better located to schools, shops, beaches and services. The sale has an area of 2.053 hectares, and is zoned as "Rural A", and sold in November 1993, for $151,000, which after allowing for improvements of $21,086, provided an analysed unimproved value of $129,914 and an applied value of $109,000.
• Sale 4 - (9 Yarraman Place, Tallebudgera - Lot 6 on RP 853810)
This is a smaller, hatchet-shaped lot located about 3.2 kms south of the subject, comprising a moderate to steep sloping forest parcel falling to the south towards the road. Access is via reciprocal easements with adjoining Lot 4 for right-of-way purposes. The sale is considered inferior to the subject due to its smaller area, its access being limited to an easement, and the sales further distance from schools, shops, beaches and services. The sale has an area of 1.277 hectares, is zoned as "Rural A", and sold in August 1994, for $130,000 which, after allowing improvements of $9,000, provided an analysed unimproved value of $121,000, and an applied value of $115,000.
•Sale 5 -(Sullivan Road, Andrews - Lot 28 on RP 207750)
This is a much smaller, regularly shaped lot located about 3 kms south-east of the subject, comprising very steeply sloping forest country falling from the road to the rear. Access is difficult, but there are views to the north-west. The sale is considered inferior to the subject as, although not flood-prone land like the subject, the sale is much smaller in area, is located west of the Pacific Highway, and further distant from shops and surf beaches. Although it has rural views, the sale is greatly inferior country. The sale has an area of 5,088 square metres, is zoned "Rural A", and sold in May 1994 for $85,000, which provided an analysed value of $85,000 and an applied value of $77,000.
Mr McKinnon advised that Sales 1 and 2 were provided to show evidence of large parcels in the area which are now in the process of residential development. While both Sales 1 and 2 are older sales, as a consequence of subsequent rezoning to "Residential A", "Special Use" and "Development" zones, they now reflect large areas of rezoned land ready for development. They are both considered superior to the subject. Mr Williams agreed that those sales assisted in contrasting the difficulties associated with any possible development of the subject. Sales 3, 4 and 5 reflect large homesites only.
Mr McKinnon claimed that the most comparable sale to the subject is Sale 3, which has low-lying land towards its rear areas which is subject to flooding. Mr Williams contested that the use of the land as "Rural A" zonings for Sales 3, 4 and 5, were not comparable to the subject, because of the increased capacity to use the land under the "Rural A" zonings for grazing of horses and cattle, which cannot occur on the subject. In particular with respect to Sale 3, Mr Williams felt that it supported his case very well as Sale 3 has a building site above flood level, is a better area than the old QHC developed area of the subject, and does not have the physical disadvantages of the subject. Mr O'Connor to the contrary claimed that Sale 3 was merely a large homesite in an area further removed from major community facilities such as schools and shopping.
Mr Williams was familiar with the general area of Sale 4 and felt that it represented a superior area in which to live as rural residential. It was acknowledged that Sale 5 had steep slopes which would restrict the grazing of horses, although it does have better rural views than the subject. In respect of Sale 5, Mr Williams claimed that the sale was very accessible to the West Burleigh area, and was a well-established hobby and small farming area, including a pony club in Sullivan Road, and was therefore a quite desirable place to live. By comparison, Mr Williams claimed, the subject locality has had certain social problems which have impacted the subject as a result of the old QHC developments. Mr McKinnon advised that he was aware of the QHC background of the subject, and had allowed for that in his determination of the valuations.
Mr Williams argued that it would have been more appropriate to have examined other "Residential A" sales in the vicinity of Sale 2, but Mr McKinnon disagreed as he felt that sales of average size "Residential A" sites were not comparable to the subject. It was agreed by the parties that the appellants could grow fruit trees and develop other passive activities upon the subject, but because of its area of only 2.2644 hectares, the grazing of livestock would not be permissible. The higher maintenance costs of the subject were acknowledged by Mr McKinnon.
In summarising, Mr O'Connor acknowledged that there are difficulties with the subject, but he argued those are more related to the potential to develop as a residential estate, than for development as a large single homesite. The comparison with Sales 1 and 2 were merely to demonstrate the significant differences in value for development purposes. The current valuation had acknowledged the difficulties of the subject, by treating it only as a large single homesite. While he could only speculate on the likely outcome of an application to the Council for approval as a single housesite, Mr O'Connor believed that such a development was its highest and best use at this time. He confirmed that as the onus of proof rested with the appellant in this case, he believed Mr Williams had not established proof that Council would not agree to a single homesite for the subject, without major onerous conditions. He also claimed that the evidence to support relativity between the subject and the adjoining parcels had been based on old sales and improved properties, and not upon unimproved sales which is the preferred method.
In summarising, Mr Williams contended that the current uncertainty in respect of Council's attitude to possible development costs was a very real burden and concern to the appellants. He believes the use of the improved sales in closer proximity to the subject was a more meaningful method of determining the valuation of the subject.
Decision:
In the matter of the use by the appellants of sales of improved properties in closer proximity to the subject, I note that Mr Williams had inadvertently used sales which fell well outside the relevant period for the valuations, but that his use of such sales was only to support his determination of the valuation which had mainly relied upon the high costs of developing the subject. However, in considering the sales of the improved properties, Mr Williams has introduced a complexity to the determination for unimproved value process, which involves the calculation of the contribution of the improvements themselves. The courts have consistently considered that matter, and have continued to prefer the sales of vacant land parcels, where those are relevant and available. In this respect I note that the respondent has adopted the latter approach, noting the advantages of vacant sales as the best evidence. In this regard I refer to the decision in PH Clough v. The Valuer-General - Caboolture Shire (1981-82) 8 QLCR 70 (LAC) at p.76:"It has been judicially laid down many times and in many jurisdictions that in ascertaining unimproved value, sales of unimproved land of comparable quality, situation, etc., to the subject parcel, if they are available, are to be preferred as the best guide for arriving at unimproved value. The reason is obvious. In applying such sales there is no room for error in analyzing the value of improvements. "
And also stated in WM and TJ Fischer v. The Valuer-General (1983) 9 QLCR 44. In this regard I am not persuaded by the evidence that the appellants have effectively addressed the possible value of the improvements involved in his improved sales, and I find little support for the appellants' case from those analyses.
I note also the evidence supplied in respect of the percentage changes in improved sales as published in the newspaper articles of the Real Estate Institute of Queensland (REIQ), and reported in a separate decision on an appeal to this Court by the appellants (AV96-94). I do not intend to repeat in full the comments contained in that decision, but merely to summarise the conclusions in that case, that growth trends suffer from the disadvantage of being too general in nature, and the statistics provide no in-depth analysis of the conditions of the individual sales themselves, nor any understanding of the quantum of the variations in the value of the dwellings and other improvements.
This then leads to the analysis of the sales of vacant land evidence supplied by the respondent. In this regard it is noted that Mr McKinnon has merely used Sales 1 and 2 as a benchmark test to indicate the approximate quantum of land values that should be considered if the subject was to be considered as potential development land. Both parties agree that, because of its particular disabilities, it is not appropriate, at this time, to consider the subject as a development site for valuation purposes.
The sales evidence therefore which is really to be considered are Sales 3, 4 and 5, which are provided as comparable sales of large single dwelling homesites in the vicinity of the subject. In this regard I note Mr Williams' comments that Sale 3 has a superior building site for a dwelling, and that under "Rural A" zoning, the owners of Sale 3 have some increased capacity to limited grazing of horses, and do not have the physical disabilities of the subject.
However, I note also that Mr O'Connor contends that Sale 3 is further located from community facilities, which accounts for its being considered inferior to the subject. In respect of Sale 4, I note that Mr Williams only has a general idea of the area, and was unable really to discredit the relevance of the sale. In the matter of Sale 5, I note that Mr Williams knew that area quite well, and saw the Sullivan Road area as a more desirable place to live than the area of the subject, noting some of the social problems of the latter. However, Mr McKinnon acknowledged the problems associated with the old QHC areas, and had allowed for that in his valuation.
In the matter of whether Mr McKinnon should have sought comparison with smaller normal size "Residential A" sites nearer to the subject, I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr McKinnon that such would not be appropriate. On balance I find that the comparability of Sales 3, 4 and 5 are reasonable when comparing the subject as a large single residential building site.
The key issue therefore becomes the impact upon further development of the subject as a single residence, by its natural disadvantages, including flooding, and major drainage problems. As the valuation has not considered the subject for major residential development purposes, I will limit my observations to the single building development prospects.
In the matter of the current "arms length" approach by the Council in respect of likely outcomes of an application to develop by the appellants, I understand Mr Williams' concerns and anxiety. However, under the Valuation of Land Act 1944, the onus of proof rests upon the appellants to provide evidence which supports their case in these matters. For this reason, bearing in mind the verbal approaches made to Council by Mr McKinnon, it would have been prudent of the appellants to have sought some formal indication of the likely conditions that Council would impose in the event of an application to develop a single building site.
I note also that such an application had been made some years ago, resulting in an indicative figure of $14,000 plus any costs of extra roadworks being obtained. The quantum of such roadworks would depend upon the location of the building site, but if judiciously located fronting the existing roads, the extra road construction would be minimised. As such an application would be for building approval only, and not for any subdivisional purposes, the Council would be in no position to require modifications to existing roadworks, including kerbing and channelling, thus also minimising any road costs. In light of that evidence, I feel improvement costs of $14,000 for filling would be appropriate.
In respect of the modifications to the flood plain as noted by Mr Williams, I accept the evidence by Mr McKinnon that filling on a "nett zero basis" was intended for major development projects, and was unlikely to also apply for a single residence development application. I note the appellants concern that as a residual of past discontent between Council and the QHC, the possibility exists for some lack of consideration on behalf of Council in respect of latitude within the ordinances. I note also that Mr Williams' neighbours have in fact encountered such a fact. However, from experience in other areas, I believe there was room for criticism in past times against both the QHC and the Local Governments.
In considering the impact of any such development for a single residence site upon the subject, I believe the impact of any existing drainage lines, sewer lines, and pumping station, would depend entirely upon the siting of the building site. If judiciously planned, this could be minimised. I note, however, that Mr McKinnon had allowed that sewerage was available to the subject. In the evidence of Mr Williams, he pointed out that a "house connection" for sewerage in fact did not exist, and he had been advised some time ago that such would be provided at a cost of approximately $900.
In respect of the flooding of the subject, I accept the evidence of the appellants that the subject is boggy for many weeks following rain, and this has been exacerbated by the recent filling further down the flood plain. I note also the problems encountered by the appellants in "slashing" the long grass to meet Council's health requirements. However, I suggest those are maintenance costs associated with owning the land, and not relevant in respect of a large single homesite. I have sympathy with the appellants in respect of problems with adjoining neighbours, but those are not uncommon in built-up areas. In any case, Mr McKinnon was aware of those difficulties and had allowed for them in his valuation.
In respect of the uncertainty about the likely building requirements of Council for a single building site, I am drawn to the matter of GJ and MJ Tickle v. The Valuer-General (1984-85) 10 QLCR 156. That case involved a 2.581 hectare site at Alexandra Headland and involved varying contentions by the parties in respect of the likelihood of permission being obtained from the Local Government to a change of zoning of the land. The valuer for the appellants, in coming to his conclusions, relied strongly on the advice he received from a town planning officer of the Maroochy Shire Council, "that there is little likelihood of a change of zoning of the subject land". Accordingly, the appellant based his valuation upon that advice. The learned Member found at p.161:
"In this light it is expected that a prudent person would weigh into his considerations what has previously occurred in respect of applications for the rezoning of land in the area and if satisfied by his own initiative or on the advice of experts that the subject land is ripe for development in a higher and more intensive usage, would have included among his gathering arguments and reasons supporting the proposed development from a town planning point of view as a credit to the area and as complementing or improving the amenity of the neighbourhood. He would not I suggest, and as will be evident later herein, blandly walk away from a proposal which he believes has merit, simply on the receipt of unencouraging advice from an officer of the Local Authority. "
In the current case, the appellants would have been prudent to have sought clarification of the Council in respect of the single building development, rather than balance their judgment based on the experience of their neighbours. A clear direction of Council would have clarified that issue. In the absence of such direction from Council, I must rely on the evidence of Mr McKinnon and the estimated cost for filling and sewerage connection provided by the appellants.
Summary:
On the evidence I believe that the comparison of sales of vacant land at Sales 3, 4 and 5 are relevant. I accept that the likely cost of filling a single residence building site would be about $14,000, and that a sewerage house connection point would cost a further $900. However, both these figures relate to improvements, which would need to be deducted from an improved value to obtain the resultant unimproved value. In comparing therefore the analysed unimproved value of Sale 3 ($129,914), Sale 4 ($121,000) and Sale 5 ($85,000), I am persuaded that the applied value for the subject of $134,000 would seem appropriate.
In determining amendments or alterations to the valuation, the onus of proof rests upon the appellants under section 33 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944:
"Any and every valuation, or alteration of the valuation, of any land made, or purporting to be made, under this Act by the chief executive shall be deemed to be correct until proved otherwise upon objection or appeal or until altered or further altered. "
Conclusion:
After having considered the whole of the evidence, I am not persuaded that the appellants have proven their case. In summary, my decision is as follows:
Appeal AV95-291 -The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 15 on RP 162122, as determined by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, in the sum of $134,000 is affirmed.
Appeal AV96-95 -The appeal is dismissed and the unimproved value of Lot 15 on RP 162122, as determined by the Chief Executive, Department of Natural Resources, in the sum of $134,000 is affirmed.
(NG Divett)
Member of the Land Court
0
0
0