Other Amenities: The subject has a metal-sided workshop on a slab, with an improvised roll-up door. It also has some old farm fencing which might be valued in use, but I can show no market preference for farm fencing, nor any evidence that a buyer will pay more for a property that has it. There is also a small pond on the property which the owner said he just finished building. It looks like a mud hole at present. It is far enough away from the main house not to detract from the house's value, and it will look better when the grass gets established on the banks this summer. I attribute no value to the pond (ugly) or to the fence (old) because of a lack of market or anecdotal evidence to support an adjustment.
Sale #1 has a similar workshop, and receives no adjustment.
Sale #2 has a small utility building and a swimming pool with a wood privacy fence. Market studies performed for other appraisals indicate that small swimming pools contribute only about $5,000 to value. This area has a lot of deciduous trees; in the fall, all the leaves head for the nearest swimming pool. Experienced owners dislike swimming pools unless they're moving here from Florida or California, and don't know about our trained trees. Many local owners see pools as a liability issue as well. The -$5,000 adjustment is based on market studies, my judgment, and input from realty agents.
Sale #3 has only a 24' x 38' concrete slab, which is used as extra parking at present. It appears to me that this slab will one day be enclosed as a garage or carport, but right now it's just a slab. The subject's amenities contribute about $5,000 more in value in my opinion. And that's all this adjustment is based on—appraiser's judgment. There is no market evidence to support it or to prove me wrong. I don't think a buyer would pay significantly more to have a concrete slab in his yard; the subject's workshop, fence, and pond contribute about $5,000 to its value, so calling this sale $5,000 inferior is as close as I can come until more market evidence is available.
Reconciliation of the Sales:
Sale #1 is a fair-quality house that looks like it was built by someone who couldn't find a property to flip. Corners have been cut everywhere that's visible, so I assume that corners may have been cut in the structure and foundation as well. I don't like this house, and don't consider it a very reliable indicator of the subject's value. Sale #2 is a solid house in a good neighborhood. It has been totally remodeled on the inside, and the exterior is very well maintained. Its age and location, however, keep it from being a primary indicator of value. Sale #3 provides a house that is most like the subject in quality and finish. It's not as well situated as the subject (further from town), but offers the privacy and land area that many rural buyers seek. I place most emphasis on Sale #3, with support from Sale #2. I would discard Sale #1 from analysis altogether, but I would have to use a golf course related property on Blanton Road instead. Sale #1, with all its faults, offers a better comparison and fewer adjustments.
Comments? Criticism? (Note: It lost most of the formatting on copy and paste.)
The comment about the trained trees is funny... but don't include it. 
