In Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001), the Texas Supreme Court addressed the identical type of damages claimed by appellees in Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State. In Interstate, the property owners sought damages based on the State's condemnation of a portion of the land that served as a buffer zone between its building and the highway. Id. at 217. The supreme court held that when a property is unique because of its park-like setting and the existence of a buffer zone, evidence of damages caused by increased proximity to the highway was properly admissible. Id. at 223. The State widened a frontage road in front of an office building, resulting in one of the five driveways that led to the building being closed for safety reasons. In addressing damages for unsafe access and the cost to cure, the court held, as a matter of law, that the trial court erred by finding a material and substantial impairment of access to the plaintiff's remainder property when "after the condemnation, reasonable access to plaintiff's property remained even though one of the five driveways to the property was closed for safety reasons." Id. at 224. In sum, the State condemned a strip of property as part of a project to widen a highway and its frontage road. The landowner's planning expert explained that the taking shortened two of the five driveways to the remainder property and made them unsafe. See Interstate Northborough, 66 S.W.3d at 224. The expert said it was necessary to close one driveway and to renovate the parking garage to return the other driveway to a safe length. See id. The landowner's appraiser used the cost to cure the unsafe driveways in his opinion on the damages to the remainder caused by the taking. See id. The supreme court concluded the landowner's "unsafe access and cost to cure evidence reflects specific damages. Therefore, we agree with the court of appeals and hold that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence about these damages." Id.