Opinion
No. CV00 037 51 61S
August 22, 2003
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, Edward M. Zapatka, Jr., Joseph Zapatka and Robert Zapatka from the assessment of damages for the taking of their properties located at 283-289 East Main Street and 301-311 Stratford Avenue, both located within the City of Bridgeport. Testimony was taken on July 17, 2003, and both parties presented appraisal testimony as to the disputed value of the properties. It is undisputed that the date of the taking was May 9, 2000, and that the plaintiffs were the owners of the two parcels of land.
On February 9, 2000, Bridgeport Redevelopment Agency (BRA) filed a deposit of $175,000 with the Clerk of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Fairfield at Bridgeport as just compensation to the plaintiffs for both properties. The plaintiffs are claiming that the two parcels had value in excess of $175,000 at the time of taking. The only issue for this court to consider is the value of the properties at the time of taking.
At the time of taking, the property located at 283-289 East Main Street consisted of a two-story brick and frame building and a rear single-floor concrete building. The plaintiffs acquired the property located at 283-289 East Main Street from their father in the late 1970s. Plaintiff's father operated a retail shoe sales business on the property known as Shoe Mart, as well as leasing out residential units on the first and second floors of the two-story building. The plaintiffs testified that by the early 1980s the use of the property for rental housing ended and by 1989 the retail use of the property had also ended. At the time of taking, the property was used exclusively for warehousing, wholesaling and shipping as it related to plaintiff's shoe business.
The property located at 301-303 Stratford Avenue was an empty lot used for parking at the time of taking. It is undisputed that both properties were located in a heavy industrial zone at the time of taking.
The plaintiff's request that this court should find the properties have a value of $405,000, an award of appraisal fees and appraisal testimony before the Court as well as interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of taking to the date of judgment.
"The amount that constitutes just compensation is the market value of the condemned property when put to its highest and best use at the time of the taking. In determining market value, it is proper to consider all these elements which an owner of a prospective purchaser could reasonably urge as affecting the fair price of the land . . . the fair market value is the price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller based on the highest and best possible use of the land, assuming, of course that a market exists for such optimal use. The `highest and best use' concept, chiefly employed as a starting point in estimating the value of real estate by appraisers, has to do with the use which will most likely produce the highest market value, greatest financial return, or the most profit from the use of a particular piece of real estate." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Robinson v. Westport, 222 Conn. 405, 406.
The power to determine the value of a property by the Court is very broad. The Judge sitting on an eminent domain valuation appeal is more than just an arbitrator of differing opinions of witnesses; he is charged by the General Statutes and the decisions of the Supreme Court with the duty of making an independent determination of value in light of all circumstances and evidence. Housing Authority of Hartford v. Charter Oak, 47 Conn. Sup. 505 (2002).
"In any assessment case in which the trial court is confronted with conflicting appraisal methods, it is a proper function of the court to give credence to one expert over the other." Newbury Commons Limited Partnership v. Stamford, 226 Conn. 92, 99-100 (1992). Questions of fact are only subject to review to see if they are not reasonable and proper in view of all the subordinate evidence. Hunter Press v. Ives, 150 Conn. 32 (1962).
In the instant case, the plaintiffs presented one expert witness in support of their valuation claim. The witness, George Shawah, Jr., prepared an appraisal report on behalf of the plaintiff as a principal of Baldwin Pearson Company, Inc. Shawah testified that his valuation was based on using the property for mixed retail and residential use. Plaintiffs called Art Dritenbas, who has over fifty years of construction experience, to testify to the fact that it would cost over $17,450 to convert the two-story building to usable residential units. Shawah gave great weight in his testimony to th high value of a sign attached to the two-story building facing Interstate 95. Shawah added value of approximately $1,000 per month for the value of the sign to the property. Plaintiffs supported Shawah's conclusion with the testimony of Mr. Jack Goncalves from Lamar Signs that the value of the sign was equal to $1,000 per month in additional revenue.
This court has the power to believe or discredit any expert witness in an assessment case. In this case the testimony of Mr. Shawah does not square with the facts presented. Shawah's valuation was based on the assumption that the properties could be sold separately and could be used as mixed residential and retail space. The properties are located in an area zoned heavy industrial since 1996. In the City of Bridgeport residential use is not allowed in a heavy industrial zone. Plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to support their argument that a change of zoning was reasonably probable and that retail/residential uses would be allowed. (Emphasis added.) See Heath v. Commissioner of Transportation, 175 Conn. 384 (1978). Evidence of the historic use of the property as retail/residential does not convince this court that there is a reasonable probability of a zone change. Plaintiffs did not present any evidence to support their claim that retail use would be allowed at the properties pursuant to a special permit. The plaintiffs did not present any evidence that such special permit would likely be granted.
This court does agree however, that there should be some value given to the sign since it is in view of the millions of cars passing on I-95. This court does not believe that the value of the sign should be as great as a billboard as testified by Mr. Goncalves. The value of the sign should be given some value considering the view from I-95, however the metal sign does not constitute the equivalency of a stand alone billboard.
The defendant BRA presented the appraisal and testimony of two experts as to the value of the properties. This court finds defendant's experts to be credible. The defendant's first expert Peter Zeidel, of the Valuation Group, Inc., testified that in his opinion the highest and best use of the property at the time of the taking was as industrial property. Zeidel used other industrial properties as comparables. Zeidel testified that the property was in a blighted area and that its use would be best suited for industrial and warehousing purposes only. Zeidel rejected plaintiffs' contention that the highest and best use was for retail/wholesaling. Zeidel based his opinion due to the zoning regulations applicable to this area and the condition of the area at that time of the taking. He also testified that the properties should be valued together because 301-311 Stratford Avenue is a parking lot. The court finds the empty lot of 301-311 Stratford Avenue would have no value unless used as parking for the buildings on 283-289 East Main Street. Zeidel concluded that the highest and best use of the property was industrial and the value of the property at the time of the taking was $170,000 with a time value appreciation of five percent for a total of $178,000.
Zeidel gave no value to the sign that faces I-95. This court believes that his valuation of the real properties is accurate based on the facts. The court awards an additional $3,500 to the valuation as reasonable compensation for the sign.
The court concludes from all of the evidence at trial that the Fair Market Value of the property is $178,500, plaintiffs will receive that amount plus the additional $3,500 for the sign. Plaintiffs will also receive an award of appraisal fees and appraisal testimony as well as interest at the statutory rate from the date of the taking to the date of this decision.
OWENS, J.