With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Because landowners in the area through which the highway ran shared the consequences of the State’s highway changes, and because the landowners did not claim that the injury had a special or unique effect on their land, we held that the damages were non- compensable community damages. Schmidt, 867 S.W.2d at 781. Since Schmidt, we have applied the community-damages principle to hold that increased noise resulting from condemnation is community in nature and thus noncompensable. Felts v. Harris County, 915 S.W.2d 482, 485-86 (Tex.1996). We have also held that modifications to the remainder or loss of improvements on the remainder due to condemnation are unlike the damages claimed in Schmidt and are compensable. See State v. Centennial Mortgage Corp., 867 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex.1993) (<HOLDING>). And we have held that impaired access to the

A: holding that costs of replacing detention ponds and other improvements on the condemned strip of land and loss of parking spaces on the remainder are compensable damages
B: holding prejudice created by improvements to and conveyance of land during pendency of delay
C: holding that a lessors interest can only be subject to liens arising from improvements performed on the leased property if the lease required the improvements or if under judicial interpretation the improvements were the pith of the lease
D: holding that mediation costs are not compensable
A.