Reso 2015-2445 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

support—testimony or documentary—for this naked assertion. Before any sale of boat slips, the adjacent building's condominium association is required to apply for any permits for a private dockage facility. For his part, Mr. Checca testified that it was a "no brainer" that the 46 boat slips could have been purchased by the Winston Tower unit owners. Trial T. 697 ("You have a captured audience there of six towers for Winston Towers of hundreds and hundreds of units and you're talking about building a 46-slip marina, it's less than 1% demand. It's a no-brainer."). 2 Mr. Newstreet for his part, testified that he looked for sales comparable to the subject property for purposes of valuation, transactions that were comparable based on time, location, and physical characteristics, among other things. Trial T. 739, 743. Mr. Newstreet, however, conceded that he had never worked for a developer on a private docking facility project. Trial T. 734. In addition, Mr. Newstreet testified to the sales comparison study he performed involving three allegedly similar boat slip development projects on which he based his opinion that each slip would sell for $75,000. Trial T. 713-15. However, those development projects were distinguishable from the subject property because all of those projects had some upland parcels available to them for purposes of development. Specifically, the boat slips at the Royal Harbor project were associated with townhomes and therefore had upland property associated with it. Trial T. 746-48. The Gables Waterway and King Cole projects were associated with condominium associations and likewise had upland property available. Trial T. 748-49. Similarly, the docking facilities referred to by Mr. Checca also had upland property available to them. Trial T. 684-85, 687. In particular, the Port Vita development was associated with a 2 Mr. Checca also speculated that because some boats were parked in the canal illegally, that was evidence of a demand for boat slips. Trial T. 690-91. Petitioner's counsel pointed out the fallacy in this assumption, asking_Mr. Checca, "if people had an opportunity to park illegally without being subject to enforcement action, boats would do that rather than pay of a boatslip, is that correct?" Trial T. 691. Mr. Checca ultimately conceded that"[i]f you can get something for free,obviously,people will take advantage of that." Trial T. 691. 11