Conan Graham Inc. (represented by Chris Graham) told a Hernando County special magistrate on Oct. 17 that four adjacent parcels purchased together in February 2024 for $1,000,000 reflect the best evidence of market value and that the county's per-acre analysis overstates usable acreage and therefore value. The magistrate allowed oral and written rebuttal, explored whether the subject purchase was an arm's-length bulk sale, and said he would review the evidence before issuing a recommendation.

Chris Graham said the four parcels (key numbers reported in the record as 00357508, 00357946, 00361539 and 00362093) were bought together for $1,000,000 in February 2024 and that the county's combined assessed value exceeds $2,000,000. "This is the best evidence of fair market value," Graham said in his presentation, arguing the assessor's comparables are not comparable because they include high-value commercial frontage tracts with full utilities, while the subject parcels contain substantial wetlands and face a city wastewater moratorium.

The petitioner provided a master plan (exhibit 2) showing a commercial node at the northwest corner and proposed multifamily development for the larger bank of acreage. Graham said the developer anticipated roughly 300 multifamily units across the assemblage depending on the buyer and market, but that the moratorium and estimated impact/utility costs make some buyers unwilling to proceed.

The record shows the county's property-appraiser representative presented land-usage breakouts for one parcel (example: 3.16 acres commercial, 2.82 acres multifamily, 6.32 acres "nonproductive" acreage, and 8.2 acres residential), noted split zoning and said comparables were thin for such mixed, split-zoned parcels. The property appraiser used a mix of commercial, multifamily and residential acreage sales in the valuation because of the split zoning.

A disputed factual point at the hearing was the extent of wetlands/nonproductive acreage. The petitioner says his master plan identifies 22.71 acres of recreation, open space, floodplain mitigation and wetlands for the combined parcels, while the appraiser's packet shows 12.64 acres coded as nonproductive. Graham said he did not have a formal wetland delineation study to submit at the hearing; the magistrate suggested that a delineation would likely persuade the appraiser to adjust acreage calculations for future assessments.

A second constraining factor raised repeatedly was a Brooksville wastewater moratorium enacted in September 2024. The petitioner submitted email correspondence with city staff and a copy of the moratorium ordinance as rebuttal evidence. City contact David Hamling (Brooksville building department) told county staff that the moratorium is limited and that developers can apply and be placed on a waiting list, but doing so requires payment of upfront impact fees. Graham told the magistrate the estimated cost to secure water and sewer service to the parcels (impact/connection fees and related upfront costs) is about $1,600,000 for the assemblage; he said some prospective buyers have walked away because those costs made projects financially infeasible.

The magistrate questioned whether the February 2024 $1,000,000 purchase was openly marketed or effectively an off-market transaction. The petitioner said the transaction was broker-sourced and not widely listed on MLS or LoopNet; the petitioner's counsel said he would check whether broader marketing documentation could be provided but did not present it on the record at the hearing. The magistrate cautioned that a single private sale is useful but often needs corroborating market evidence, and said: "It's debatable. I don't know yet. That's how tight we are."

Both sides agreed to admit the petitioner's moratorium correspondence into evidence; the magistrate stated he would consider it. The magistrate told parties he would review the packets, rerun relevant yardstick calculations, and issue a recommendation after further analysis.

No formal decision was reached at the hearing. The magistrate concluded the matter and indicated a written recommendation would follow after review of the submitted sale documents, the master plan and the moratorium/rebuttal evidence.