"At trial, the appellant and his wife testified about the circumstances in which the house had been built. The appellant said that the decision was made not only to provide his family with a bigger and better home but also in the hope that building such a nice home in the area would help eliminate opposition to the proposed subdivision development. The appellant introduced expert evidence about the rental value of the house. One expert estimated the free market rental value at approximately $800 per month plus utilities, while the other fixed it at approximately $950. Both agreed that there was no comparable house on the market in the area, and one stated that the free market rental value of houses in that area bore no relation to their real value. The appellant argued that the assessment should have been based on the value of the benefit he received, measured by the free market rental value compared with the rent he paid, rather than on the costs incurred by the company. The trial judge rejected that argument, finding that the company had not built the house for a business purpose and that fair market rental value was totally inappropriate because it bore no relation to the actual costs of the benefit."