GD Fox Meadow, LLC v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Westwood (June 8, 2011)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



GD FOX MEADOW, LLC		 	v.	   BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF 
							   THE TOWN OF WESTWOOD


Docket No. F303504				   Promulgated: 
   June 8, 2011


	This is an appeal under the formal procedure, pursuant to G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 and c. 58A, § 7, from the refusal of the appellee to abate taxes on certain real estate in the Town of Westwood assessed under G.L. c. 59, §§ 11 and 38 for fiscal year 2009.  
	Commissioner Rose heard this appeal.  Commissioners Scharaffa and Egan joined him in the decision for the appellee.  
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellant under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 831 CMR 1.32.

	Stephen W. Kidder, Esq., Diana C. Tillotson, Esq., and Andrew Eberle, Esq. for the appellant.

	Deborah Robbins, assessor, for the appellee. 


FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	The parties submitted this appeal for decision on two Stipulations of Facts with exhibits attached, the representations of Deborah Robbins, a member of the Town of Westwood's Board of Assessors (the "assessors"), and several additional exhibits entered into evidence by the assessors.  Based on this evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") made the following findings of fact.
On March 26, 2008, almost three months after the January 1, 2008 valuation and assessment date for fiscal year 2009, the appellant, GD Fox Meadow, LLC (the "appellant"), became the owner of a near turn-key subdivision which contained a completed drive with a base coat of asphalt, underground utilities, and nineteen unimproved, contiguous residential parcels of real estate located on Fox Meadow Drive in Westwood (collectively, the "subject property").  At all relevant times, the subject property consisted of a total of approximately 53.55 acres, and included the nineteen remaining subdivision lots ranging in size from 1.19 acres to 8.32 acres.
Westwood is a town in north-central Norfolk County located less than 15 miles to the southwest of Boston's central business district.  Westwood has a total area of approximately 11.1 square miles, and according to a valuation report in evidence which references the 2000 United States Census, it has a population of 13,651.  Westwood borders the communities of Walpole, Dover, Needham, Norwood, Canton, and Dedham.  Originally called "West Dedham," Westwood was first settled in 1640 as part of the Town of Dedham and officially incorporated in 1897.  In July, 2005, CNN/Money and Money Magazine ranked Westwood 13th on its list of the "100 Best Places to Live in the United States."  During the relevant time period, Boston Magazine listed Gay Street in Westwood, which is situated in the subject property's neighborhood, on its list of the "Best Streets in the Boston Area."    
	The appellant acquired the subject property for $10,532,000 through a Membership Interest Purchase and Sale Agreement (the "Agreement").  Mr. Duffey, the seller, was not related to any other party to the transaction, and the sale was an arm's-length transaction.  The appellant and its parent company, Gilbane Development Company ("Gilbane") are in the business of purchasing raw land or developed but unimproved lots to sell to builders or individuals who build homes on them.  The subject subdivision lots were held for sale in the ordinary course of the appellant's business.  
The relevant assessment information for the subject property's nineteen remaining lots on Fox Meadow Drive is contained in the following table.

Assessors
Map/Lot
	
Street
#	
Area in
Acres	Original Assessed Value ($)	Original Tax @ $12.01/ $1,000	Assessed Value ($) After Any Abatement	Amounts of Partial Abatements ($)	
15-003	1	 1.98	   880,600	 10,576.00	   874,300	  6,300	
15-048	2	 1.45	   696,250	  8,361.96	   696,250	      0	
15-030	3	 2.36	   894,400	 10,741.74	   879,350	 15,050	
15-004	5	 6.01	   907,700	 10,901.48	   907,700	      0	
15-033	6	 1.32	   638,400	  7,667.18	   638,400	      0	
15-031	7	 4.43	 1,003,100	 12,047.23	 1,003,100	      0	
15-038	8	 1.45	   696,250	  8,361.96	   696,250	      0	
15-034	9	 3.61	   944,400	 11,342.24	   708,050	236,350	
15-039	10	 1.19	   579,900	  6,964.60	   579,900	      0	
15-035	11	 6.11	 1,044,400	 12,543.24	   742,600	301,800	
15-047	12	 1.32	   638,400	  7,667.18	   638,400	      0	
15-036	13	 2.01	   874,450	 10,502.14	   700,050	174,400	
15-037	15	 2.11	   874,950	 10,508.15	   700,550	174,400	
15-040	17	 2.85	   704,250	  8,458.04	   704,250	      0	
15-041	19	 8.32	   731,600	  8,786.52	   731,600	      0	
15-042	21	 1.54	   741,850	  8,909.62	   741,850	      0	
15-043	23	 1.80	   857,250	 10,295.57	   857,250	      0	
15-045	27	 1.97	   880,100	 10,570.00	   880,100	      0	
15-046	29	 1.72	   819,100	  9,837.39	   819,100	      0	
TOTAL	19 lots	53.55	15,407,350	185,042.24	14,499,050	908,300	

	In accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 57C, the real estate tax was timely paid without incurring interest.  On January 29, 2009, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, § 59, the appellant, having acquired title to the subject property a few months after the assessment and valuation date of January 1, 2008, timely filed its applications for abatement for each of the lots or tax parcels contained within the subject property. On March 31, 2009, the assessors denied the abatement applications for thirteen of the tax parcels, namely 15-048, 15-004, 15-033, 15-031, 15-038, 15-047, 15-039, 15-040, 15-041, 15-042, 15-043, 15-045, and 15-046; and granted partial abatements for six of the tax parcels, namely 15-003, 15-030, 15-034, 15-035, 15-036, and 15-037.  On June 29, 2009, in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65, the appellant seasonably filed its appeal of all of these denials and partial abatements with the Board by joining the tax parcels on one Petition Under Formal Procedure.  
Based on these facts and in accordance with G.L. c. 59, §§ 57C, 59, and 64 and 65, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over this appeal.  
The appellant contended that the $10,532,000 purchase price for the subject property, which was for a bulk purchase of the entire remaining subdivision and was paid in an arm's-length transaction within three months of the assessment date, created a rebuttable presumption that $10,532,000 was the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2008.  Therefore, the appellant asserted, the assessors had overvalued the subject property, as abated, by approximately $4,000,000.
In valuing the subject property, the assessors essentially ignored the sale of the subject property, as the bulk sale of nineteen subdivision parcels and related infrastructure to one purchaser, and instead valued each of the lots as separate unimproved buildable parcels available for sale to multiple purchasers.  In challenging the assessors' approach, the appellant did not deny that the "retail value" assigned to each of the nineteen lots by the assessors was reasonable if considered for sale separately to multiple purchasers; rather, the appellant maintained that the lots, now being the appellant's inventory and having been purchased in bulk by the appellant, should have been assessed at their "wholesale value," which was the equivalent of the subject property's sale price appropriately allocated to each of the nineteen lots.  
The appellant bolstered its contention that the sale price represented the fair cash value of the subject property with an appraisal report which was attached as an exhibit to one of the Stipulations and which valued the subject property as of March 26, 2009, almost fifteen months after the assessment date, at $9,000,000 using a discounted-cash-flow or "development" approach that assumed an income of over $16 million, expenses of over $3.5 million, a 20% discount rate, and a six-year total sell-off period.  The self-contained appraisal report was prepared by two Principals and one Senior Associate of Birch/REA Partners, Inc. for Sovereign Bank to use for mortgage collateral valuation purposes.  The authors of the appraisal report did not testify at the hearing of this appeal.  The appraisal report also indicated that, as of March 26, 2009, the nineteen lots were for sale with asking prices ranging from $895,000 to $1,295,000.  However, based on an analysis of sales data and conversations with brokers and developers, the authors of the Birch/REA Partners, Inc. appraisal report suggested that the asking prices should be reduced by 15% leaving "an average lot value (rounded) for the subject subdivision of $900,000."
Ms. Robbins, appearing for the assessors, represented that the assessors valued and taxed the remaining nineteen parcels as separate buildable lots for sale to multiple parties because, as of January 1, 2008, the relevant assessment date for fiscal year 2009, the nineteen lots were essentially ready to be sold and were being marketed separately to builders or individuals for the construction of homes.  Several of the subdivision lots had been retained by or sold to others before the bulk sale of the remaining nineteen to the appellant, including one sale for $899,000 on January 7, 2008, within one week of the relevant assessment date, and more than two-and-one-half months before the bulk sale.  Ms. Robbins also noted that the subdivision's infrastructure was basically complete, including a base coat of asphalt on Fox Meadow Drive and the delivery of utilities.  Construction of a home on one of the nineteen lots began in October, 2008.  She confirmed that the assessors used a comparable-sales approach to derive the values that they placed on the nineteen tax parcels.  The Board noted that the sales or listings upon which the assessors relied in setting the assessments corresponded to three of the thirteen sales or listings upon which the authors of the Birch/REA Partners, Inc. appraisal report also relied to establish an average lot value of $900,000 for the subdivision.       
Based on all of the evidence, and as explained more fully in its Opinion below, the Board found that the appellant did not prove that the nineteen remaining lots associated with the subject property were overvalued for fiscal year 2009.  The Board found that for ad valorem tax purposes, the subject property's highest and best use, as of January 1, 2008, was as nineteen separate retail building lots that were presently being marketed and were currently ready to be sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers at retail prices.  The Board based its highest-and-best-use determination on numerous factors including the retention by or sale to others of three of the subdivision's original twenty-two lots and the fact that the sale of one of these three lots for $899,000 occurred within a week of the assessment date and two-and-one-half months before the bulk sale.  The Board also recognized that the infrastructure associated with the subject nineteen lots was essentially completed, including the delivery of utilities and the basecoat on the road.  Further, the appellant and its parent, Gilbane, were in the business of selling lots separately to builders or other individuals for home construction.  The lots had been separately marketed prior to the relevant assessment date.  At all relevant times, the subject property was not a mere paper subdivision without tangible embodiment, but rather was one that had reached near full physical fruition.  Because of these facts and subsidiary findings, the Board found, notwithstanding the bulk sale of the subject property to one purchaser, that the retail use of the subject nineteen lots -- that is their sale to and utilization by multiple purchasers -- best corresponded to the criteria for determining highest and best use articulated in the Appraisal Institute's authoritative real estate treatise on valuation, The Appraisal of Real Estate (13th ed. 2008).  That treatise provides in pertinent part that a property's highest and best use is "[t]he reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land . . . that is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in the highest value."  Ibid. at 277-78.  
The Board found that its highest-and-best-use finding for the subject property best met all of the Appraisal Institute's criteria for determining highest and best use.  A succinct review of those criteria and related facts for the relevant time period reveals that: (1) the subdivision's approval, its essentially finished development, and the sale and retention of some of the lots shows that the Board's highest and best use was legally permissible; (2) the actual physical embodiment and sale of the lots demonstrates that the Board's highest and best use was physically possible; (3) the value of the lots compared to the costs incurred to develop them shows that the Board's highest and best use was financially feasible; and (4) the sale prices and values associated with lots, particularly when compared to the subject property's bulk-sale value, confirms that the Board's highest and best use was maximally productive.   
Consequently, the Board did not regard an allocation of the purchase price for the subject property among the remaining nineteen lots as being equivalent to the fair cash value of the remaining nineteen lots for separate sale to and utilization by multiple purchasers at retail prices.  The Board found that the purchase price reflected a value based on a different use - the bulk sale value of the subject property's lots and infrastructure to one purchaser - but not the total retail value of the nineteen separate building lots that were presently being marketed and were currently ready to be sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers at retail prices, which the Board found to be the subject property's highest and best use.
Another authoritative treatise on real estate valuation, D. Emerson, Appraisal Institute, Subdivision Valuation (2008), distinguishes between the bulk sale value of lots when sold to a single purchaser and the retail value of lots marketed and sold to multiple purchasers:
Subdivision valuation considers the value of the entire group of lots to one purchaser   . . . . Accordingly, bulk sale value really is the market value for a group of lots . . . .  In subdivision valuation, the retail value is the market value of one lot . . . . [T]he bulk sale value is not a separate type of value; rather it is a market value for a group of lots, which reflects a bulk sale scenario.

Ibid. at 15 (emphasis in original).  Because the Board determined that, as of January 1, 2008, the highest and best use of the subject property was as nineteen separate buildable but as yet unimproved parcels, which were presently being marketed and currently being offered for sale to and utilization by multiple purchasers at retail prices, and was not as a subdivision of nineteen lots to be sold in bulk along with infrastructure to just one purchaser, the Board also found that the proper way to value the parcels in the subdivision was as retail lots using a comparable-sales analysis.  Accordingly, the Board rejected a valuation methodology that relied on the actual bulk sale or a bulk-sale scenario that employed a development analysis treating the lots as inventory within a subdivision to be sold in bulk to one purchaser.  The Board observed that the appellant did not meaningfully dispute the retail values assigned to the subject lots, and the evidence, including comparable sales and comparable-sales analyses in evidence, supported those amounts, but it argued that, under the circumstances, the wholesale or bulk value should be applied instead.
On this basis, and particularly in light of the Board's highest and best use determination, the Board decided this appeal for the appellee.

OPINION
	The assessors are required to assess real estate at its fair cash value as of the first day of January preceding the start of the fiscal year.  G.L. c. 59, §§ 2A and 38.  Fair cash value is defined as the price on which a willing seller and a willing buyer in a free and open market will agree if both of them are fully informed and under no compulsion.  Boston Gas v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 566 (1956).  
	The appellants have the burden of proving that the property has a lower value than that assessed. "'The burden of proof is upon the petitioner to make out its right as [a] matter of law to [an] abatement of the tax.'" Schlaiker v. Assessors of Great Barrington, 365 Mass. 243, 245 (1974) (quoting Judson Freight Forwarding Co. v. Commonwealth, 242 Mass. 47, 55 (1922)). "[T]he board is entitled to 'presume that the valuation made by the assessors [is] valid unless the taxpayers . . . prov[e] the contrary.'" General Electric Co. v. Assessors of Lynn, 393 Mass. 591, 598 (1984) (quoting Schlaiker, 365 Mass. at 245).
In determining fair market value, all uses to which the property was or could reasonably be adapted on the relevant assessment date should be considered.  Newton Girl Scout Council, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Authy., 335 Mass. 189, 193 (1956); Irving Saunders Trust v. Assessors of Boston, 26 Mass. App. Ct. 838, 843 (1989).  The goal is to ascertain the maximum value of the property for any legitimate and reasonable use.  Id.  If the property is particularly well-suited for a certain use that is not prohibited, then that use may be reflected in an estimate of its fair market value.  Colonial Acres, Inc. v. North Reading, 3 Mass. App. Ct. 384, 386 (1975).  "In determining the property's highest and best use, consideration should be given to the purpose for which the property is adapted."  Peterson v. Assessors of Boston, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-573, 617 (citing The Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (12th ed., 2001) 315-316)), aff'd, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 428 (2004).  
In the present appeal, the Board found that for ad valorem tax purposes, the subject property's highest and best use was as nineteen retail building lots currently being marketed and ready to be sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers and not as a subdivision composed of infrastructure and a bulk inventory of lots to be sold to a single purchaser.  The Board found that, at all relevant times, the nineteen remaining parcels were essentially ready to be sold and were being marketed separately to builders or individuals for the construction of homes at retail prices.  Indeed, several of the original twenty-two parcels had been retained by or previously sold to others before the bulk sale.  One of those parcels sold for $899,000 within a week of the relevant assessment date and more than two-and-one-half months before the bulk sale.  The Board also noted that the subdivision's infrastructure was basically complete, including a base coat of asphalt on Fox Meadow Drive and the delivery of underground utilities.  The subject property was in no way a mere paper subdivision; it was virtually turn-key with lots that were ready to be sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers at retail prices.  
The Board found that its highest-and-best-use determination embraced the factors contained in the definition of highest and best use in The Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 277-78 (13th ed. 2008): "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land . . . that is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in the highest value."  The fact that the nineteen remaining lots were commonly owned and part of a bulk transaction did not change the Board's perspective - the lots were, notwithstanding ownership and the bulk sale, buildable and located on a street with a base coat of asphalt, and they were currently being marketed and ready to be sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers at retail prices.  In the Board's view, these facts and subsidiary findings inexorably led it to its highest-and-best-use determination and finding that the lots be valued at retail.  The lots could not be valued in bulk for ad valorem tax purposes because a bulk sale was not the subject property's highest and best use.  The Board found that its highest-and-best-use finding for the subject property met all of the Appraisal Institute's criteria for determining highest and best use and rendered the subject property maximally productive. 
On this basis, the Board ruled that the highest and best use for the subject property was as nineteen separate building lots that were developed but unimproved and were presently being marketed and were currently ready to be sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers at retail prices.  
	Generally, real estate valuation experts, the Massachusetts courts, and this Board rely upon three approaches to determine the fair cash value of property: income capitalization; sales comparison; and cost reproduction.  Correia v. New Bedford Redevelopment Auth., 375 Mass. 360, 362 (1978).   However, "[t]he [B]oard is not required to adopt any particular method of valuation."  Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 397 Mass. 447, 449 (1986).  
Actual sales of the subject property generally "furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates v. Assessors of Foxborough, 385 Mass. 679, 682 (1982); New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 469 (1981); First National Stores, Inc. v. Assessors of Somerville, 358 Mass. 554, 560 (1971). The sale price recited in the deed, however, is not conclusive evidence of fair cash value.  Foxboro Associates at 682-83.  The burden of proof that the price was fixed fairly rests with the proponent of the sale; but there is a rebuttable presumption that the price was freely established.  Epstein v. Boston Housing Authy., 317 Mass. 297, 300-01 (1944); see Thorndike Properties of Massachusetts II, LLC v. Assessors of Plymouth, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-127, 135 ("[The evidence revealed that] the sale price recited in the deed was not indicative of [the subject lots'] fair cash value and . . . the appellant had not met its burden showing [otherwise; accordingly, the Board did not rely on price in the deed].").          
In the present appeal, the Board did not rely on the sale of the subject property to the appellant to determine the fair cash value of the nineteen remaining lots because the Board found that the subject property's highest and best use as of the relevant assessment date was not the bulk sale of the nineteen lots and related infrastructure to one purchaser, but rather was separate sales of the developed but unimproved nineteen lots to multiple purchasers at retail prices averaging approximately $900,000 per lot.  The Board found and ruled that the sale price recited in the deed did not represent the fair cash value of the nineteen remaining lots for sale to and utilization by multiple purchasers at retail prices; it instead represented the value of the subject property in a bulk-sale scenario to one purchaser.    
For buildable but as yet unimproved lots within an existing subdivision, a comparable-sales approach is an appropriate method for estimating their value.  The Appraisal of Real Estate at 300 ("The sales comparison approach is applicable to all types of real property interests when there are sufficient recent, reliable transactions to indicate value patterns or trends in the market.").  In Cnossen v. Assessors of Uxbridge, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-675, the Board found that a sales-comparison analysis was the appropriate methodology to use to value the lots in a subdivision that were ready to be separately sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers:
[T]he Board found that eight of the lots contained in the Park were adjacent to Road A, which was in existence and finished as of the relevant assessment dates.  Accordingly, these eight lots were essentially salable and ready for improvements without any further development of the Park's infrastructure.  Because of this, the Board found that a sales comparison approach might have been the most appropriate technique to use to value these eight lots.  Using the [retail] value for the lots that the appellants' valuation expert developed for use in step one of his development approach, the Board found that the total value of these eight lots [was the sum of their retail values].

Id. at 2002-686.  See generally Thorndike Properties of Massachusetts II, LLC, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2006-127 (using appropriately adjusted comparable sales to determine the fair case value of lots in a fully completed area of a subdivision).  Furthermore, the sales-comparison approach was used to estimate the retail value of the subject lots in the Birch/REA Partners, Inc. appraisal report upon which the appellant relied to support its case.  
"[S]ales of property usually furnish strong evidence of market value, provided they are arm's-length transactions and thus fairly represent what a buyer has been willing to pay for the property to a willing seller."  Foxboro Associates, 385 Mass. at 682.  Sales of comparable realty in the same geographic area and within a reasonable time of the assessment date contain credible data and information for determining the value of the property at issue.  McCabe v. Chelsea, 265 Mass. 494, 496 (1929).  Based on the comparable sales and the comparable-sales analyses in evidence, the Board found that, as of the relevant assessment date, the average value of the nineteen remaining lots was no less than approximately $900,000, which supported the total assessment amount, as abated, placed on the nineteen remaining lots.  The Board further found that the appellant did not introduce substantial valuation evidence consistent with the Board's finding of highest and best use, which could refute the individual assessments, as abated, that the assessors had placed on the nineteen remaining lots for fiscal year 2009.   
The Board also found and ruled that the development approach described in the Birch/REA Partners, Inc. appraisal report was not a suitable methodology to use to value the nineteen remaining lots because of the Board's highest-and-best-use determination. As explained in The Appraisal of Real Estate: "The subdivision development method   . . . is most useful for reporting the market value for a group of subdivision lots.  The method uses what is known as a bulk sale scenario to develop the value of all lots to one purchaser."  Ibid. at 370.  Where as here, the highest-and-best-use determination is as building lots ready to be sold separately to and utilized by multiple purchasers at retail prices, a valuation methodology that relies on a development approach for valuing a group of lots to be sold to a single purchaser is improper.  Cf. Khan v. Assessors of Brookline, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2004-403, 444-45 ("[T]he development approach . . . was not appropriate for determining the value of the property's real estate considering the Board's finding regarding the subject's highest and best use.").
	In making its various findings and rulings in this appeal, the Board was not required to believe the testimony of any particular witness or to adopt any particular method of valuation suggested.  Rather, the Board could accept those portions of the evidence that the Board determined had more convincing weight. Foxboro Associates, 385 Mass. at 682; New Boston Garden Corp., 383 Mass. at 469.  "The credibility of witnesses, the weight of evidence, the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are matters for the Board."  Cummington School of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 605 (1977).

The Board applied these principles in reaching its ultimate finding and ruling that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the subject property, which, for ad valorem tax purposes, consisted of the nineteen tax parcels, was overvalued for fiscal year 2009. On this basis, the Board decided this appeal for the appellee.
   						  
APPELLATE TAX BOARD


By: __________________________________
Thomas W. Hammond, Jr., Chairman  




A true copy,

Attest: ____________________________
       Clerk of the Board

 As originally developed, the subdivision contained twenty-two lots, but three had been retained by or previously sold to others.
 Shortly before the transaction, the parties reduced the final purchase price by $1,000,000 to the $10,532,000 amount.   
 The appellant's parent company, Gilbane Development Company, entered into the Agreement with the then owners of the subject property, William N. Duffey, Jr., individually and as trustee of various trusts.  The sale was effectuated by having Mr. Duffey, in his multiple capacities, convey the subject property to Captain's Crossing, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company.  After this conveyance, Captain's Crossing, LLC transferred all of its membership interest to the appellant.  
 General Laws, c. 59, § 59 provides in pertinent part that: "Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, a person who acquires title to real estate after January first in any year, shall for the purposes of this section be treated as a person upon whom a tax has been assessed."
 This analysis also included the completion and year-one sale of a then partially constructed improvement on one of the nineteen parcels. 
 Assuming that the nineteen subject lots had an average retail value of only $900,000 each as of January 1, 2008, which, according to this appraisal report, is likely a conservative estimate for that earlier time, their total retail value was $17,100,000, which still exceeds the total assessed values, as abated, by more than $2,500,000.
 Those retail values were then discounted in accordance with the development approach contained in the appraisal report, which the Board found and ruled was an inappropriate methodology to use here given the Board's highest-and-best-use determination.  The appropriate method for valuing developed lots that are ready to be sold to and utilized by multiple purchasers at retail prices is the sales-comparison approach for which no absorption rate is prescribed.  See supra and infra.  To the extent that Cnossen, Mass. ATB Findings of Fact and Reports 2002-675 may be read to suggest otherwise, the Board overrules that portion of the Findings.   

ATB 2011-501