Archives: Results

Contained within the taking from this property were the gas station’s canopy, two of the site’s four fuel dispenser pumps and the site’s drainfield. The location of the taking in relation to the property’s two remaining fuel dispenser pumps caused an additional two fueling positions to be rendered unusable, resulting in a loss of six of the site’s eight fueling positions. The taking also caused severe site compression, restricting on-site circulation for customer vehicles and fuel delivery trucks.

These impacts resulted in the property being unsuitable for continued use as a gas station/convenience store after the taking. Therefore, the cost of demolition of the remaining improvements and preparation of the site for redevelopment was also included as a component of the owner’s claim.

The site’s stormwater collection/management system was severely impacted by the taking as several components of the system were located within the take area. Also within the take area was a parking space. Following the taking, extensive site modifications were required to restore the functionality of the site’s stormwater collection/management system. These modifications necessitated the loss of a further two parking spaces, leaving the site with seven parking spaces out of its original ten.

As part of the roadway project, the property’s two driveways along its southern frontage were eliminated and replaced with a single driveway. Whereas the two lost driveways had been centered on the fueling positions on either side of the convenience store, the reestablished driveway was misaligned with the convenience store improvements, creating internal circulation problems on top of the site compression caused by the taking itself. This left the site a less desirable and less valuable location even after the implementation of post-taking site modifications.

The partial taking from both road frontages of this shopping center reduced the width of the site’s exterior drive aisles and included 34 prime parking spaces. One of the narrowed drive aisles was no longer capable of supporting two-way traffic as a result of the taking. The other impacted drive aisle, while still capable of two-way traffic, was too close to the widened roadway to allow for safe turning movements when entering the property. Site modifications removing or relocating various internal improvements restored the two-way functionality of the first drive aisle and safe turning movements of the other. Two parking spaces were also restored by the site modifications.

The property experienced significant damages even with the implementation of the site modifications however, including the loss of 32 parking spaces, the placement of one of the property’s driveways on a dedicated right hand turn lane, loss of building setbacks, and overall site compression.

The acquisition included the closure of two driveways, which in turn disrupted the site’s internal circulation. These two factors made the site less desirable as a shopping destination for customers.

The property also experienced a loss of parking, business signage, and decorative landscape buffer as a result of the taking, which further contributed to a loss of value.

The roadway plans would have caused flooding on the property, which was addressed by obtaining an agreement from the condemning authority to accept the property’s runoff into the stormwater collection system of new roadway.

As part of the project for which a portion of this property was acquired, two of the property’s driveways were substantially altered. To accommodate a roundabout which was being constructed to replace the existing intersection, the two driveways were narrowed, moved further away from the intersection, and re-established in a skewed configuration within the functional limits of the roundabout. These changes resulted in the driveways no longer lining up correctly with the site’s fueling stations and negatively impacted vehicular circulation on site, especially for larger vehicles and vehicles pulling trailers, which formed a significant percentage of the site’s customer base. To partially restore site circulation, one of the site’s four pumps will need to be removed and the site’s canopy shifted north.

The business operating on the subject property contained several distinct components, including automotive repair, an impound lot, vehicle storage pending insurance claims adjustment, and trailer rentals. The taking eliminated spaces for customer and insurance claim vehicle parking and caused site compression interfering with internal circulation.

The jury award recognized that, in order to restore the functionality of the various operational components of the site and their associated improvements, site modifications were necessary. These included the relocation of the office and automotive repair structures, and the construction of underground stormwater storage chambers.

This large vacant tract was appropriate for development with up to 175 residential units prior to the taking. After the taking, a maximum of 162 units were possible. This took the property below the threshold required for institutional financing, diminishing its attractiveness in the marketplace. Additionally, since the taking ran along the entire east side of the property, it eliminated the possibility of future assemblage with the property to the east to accommodate additional housing units. Had the taking not occurred, the eastern portion of the property would have had access via a median opening allowing full turning movements. With the loss of the eastern portion of the property due to the taking, any access to the property will be via right-in, right-out turning movements only.