The opinion
(
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO. CV-19-28
ROQUE ISLAND GARDNER
HOMESTEAD CORPORATION,
Petitioner
v. DECISION AND ORDER
(M.R. Civ. P. 80C)
TOWN OF JONESPORT,
Respondent
INTRODUCTION
Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corporation ("RIGHC") has filed a Petition
for Judicial Review pursuant to 5 M.R.S. §§ 11001-11008 (Maine Administrative
Procedure Act) and M.R.Civ.P. 80C, from a Decision of the State Board of Property
Tax Review ("State Board") dated May 15, 2019, which denied its appeal from the
refusal of the Town of Jonesport to grant an abatement of its property taxes. This
case involves the application and interpretation of lvlaine's Farm and Open Space
Tax Law. Accordingly, it is helpful to an understanding of this dispute to begin with
an examination of that statutory property tax program.
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The Constitution of lvlaine generally provides: "All taxes upon real ... estate
shall be apportioned and assessed equally according to the just value thereof."
Art. IX, sect. 8, Me. Const. Notwithstanding this general rule, however, the
Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the assessment of certain types
of real estate "in accordance with a valuation based upon the current use thereof and
in accordance with such conditions as the Legislature may enact." Among the types
Page 1 of 16
of real estate that may be so assessed are: "Farms and agricultural lands, timberlands
and woodlands." Art. IX, sect. 8(2)(A), Me. Const.
In 1971, the Legislature enacted the Maine Farm and Open Space Land Law.
See P.L. 1971, c. 548 - 36 M.R.S. §§585-594. That law was repealed and replaced
in 1975 with the Farm and Open Space Tax Law (hereinafter "Farmland Tax Law").
36 M.R.S. §§ 1101-1121 as enacted by P.L. 1975, c. 726. As pertinent to property
classified as "farmland," which is what this case is about, the stated purposes of this
law are "to encourage the preservation of farmland ... in order to maintain a readily
available source of food and fann products close to the metropolitan areas of the
State,... [and] to prevent the forced conversion of fannland ... to more intensive
uses as the result of economic pressures caused by the assessment thereof for
purposes of property taxation at values incompatible with their preservation as such
fannland ... .'' 36 M .R.S. § 1101
The term "farmland" is defined to mean:
any tract or tracts of land, including woodland and wasteland, of at least
5 contiguous acres on which fanning or agricultural activities have
contributed to a gross annual farming income of at least $2,000 per year
from the sales value of agricultural products as defined in Title 7,
section 152, subsection 2 in one of the 2, or 3 of the 5, calendar years
preceding the date of application for classification. The farming or
agricultural activity and income derived from that activity may be
achieved by either the owner or a lessee of the land.
36 lvl.R.S. §1102(4).
An owner of farmland may apply for taxation under the Farmland Tax Law
by submitting a signed schedule on or before April 1st of the year the owner wishes
to first subject the land to taxation under the law. 36 M.R.S. §§1103 & 1109(1).
The application or schedule must be submitted to the municipal assessor on a form
prescribed by the State Tax Assessor, and must show the location of the land in each
classification (e.g., forested land, orchard land, pasture land, horticultural land). 36
Page 2 of 16
M.R.S. § 1109(1). There are a number of factors the assessor may consider in
deciding whether land is farmland as defined. Id. If it is determined that the land is
farmland, "the assessor shall classify it as farmland and apply the appropriate 100%
valuations per acre for farmland and that land is subject to taxation under this
subchapter." 1 Id.
The assessor is obligated by statute to notify the applicant/landowner on or
before June pt whether the application has been accepted or denied and, if denied,
the assessor must give the reasons for the denial and allow the owner to amend the
schedule. 36 M.R.S. §1109(4). The assessor has considerable authority to
investigate to obtain information about the application, including entering upon the
land, propounding interrogatories to the owner and requiring the owner to appear
before the assessor to answer questions. Id.
Title 36 M.R.S. § 1105 directs the assessor to "establish the 100% valuation
per acre based on the current use value of farmland used for agricultural or
horticultural purposes." In arriving at such current use values, section 1119 of the
Farmland Tax Law provides for the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and
Forestry, in conjunction with the Bureau of Revenue Services, representatives of
municipal assessors and farmers, to "prepare guidelines to assist local assessors in
the valuation of farmland," that ''must include recommended values for cropland,
orchard land, pastureland and horticultural land, differentiated by region where
justified ." 2
, The municipal assessor is also required to keep a record of the value of the farmland "and the
value at which the farmland would have been assessed had it not been classified under this
subchapter ." 36 M.R.S. § 1109(1).
• Any variation from the recommended guidelines must be substantiated by the local assessor. 36
M.R.S. §1119.
Page 3 of 16
The values for farmland "may not reflect development or market purposes
other than agricultural or horticultural use." 36 M.R.S. § 1105. The valuation for
fann woodland within a farmland parcel is to be established by county and by forest
type under the Tree Growth Tax Law. Id. citing 36 M.R.S. §§571-584-A. Section
1105 of the Famtland Tax Law concludes by stating: "Areas other than woodland,
agricultural land or horticultural land located within any parcel of farmland
classified under this subchapter are valued on the basis of just value."
For the purpose of assessing taxes, 36 M.R.S. §1108(1) directs assessors to
"adjust the 100% valuation per acre for farmland for their jurisdiction by whatever
ratio or percentage of current just value is then being applied to other property within
the municipality to obtain the assessed values." Section 1108(1) further mandates
that "the classified farmland value must reflect only the current value for farm ...
purposes and may not include any increment of value reflecting development
pressure." The property tax rate for fannland property must be the same rate
applicable to other property in the municipality. Id.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
RIGHC is a Maine non-profit homestead corporation that owns Roque Island,
Marsh Island and Bar Island in Mason's Bay within the municipality of Jonesport
("the Town"). 3 On January 17, 2017, RIGHC applied to the Town for farmland
classification for Marsht Bar and Roque Islands in accordance with the Farmland
'The State Board has been involved with property tax issues with RIGHC and the Town on at least
one previous occasion. In RIGHC v. Town of Jonesport, No. 2016-003 (BPTR, May 18, 2017),
the State Board held that al! three islands were contiguous, thereby allowing Bar and Marsh
Islands, when combined with Roque Island, to meet the 5-acre minimum threshold necessary to
qualify for classification as "farmland" under the Farmland Tax Law. 36 M.R.S. § 1102(4)
(Administrative Record, "A.R." at 16). The court understands that the State Board's decision was
a divided one and ultimately led to the enactment of P.L. 2017, c. 183 by the Legislature. See 36
M.R.S. § 1102(4)(C). That section of the law addresses the subject of when a parcel of land on an
island may be considered as being contiguous with a parcel of land on a different island. That
legislation has no effect on this litigation.
Page 4 of 16
Tax Law for the 2017 tax year. (AR at 36). The application (or schedule) listed a
total acreage of 1,323 for the three islands. The "Application for Farmland
Classification," the form prescribed by the State Tax Assessor pursuant to 36 M.R .S.
§ 1109(1), breaks down land into four categories, to wit: farmland; land unsuitable
for farmland; forestland, and; other land. (AR at 36-37). The "General Instructions"
accompanying the application provide line-by-line guidance to the applicant in
completing the form . (AR at 38-39).
The application submitted by RIGHC provided detailed information as to each
category of land, as follows: farmland= 55.0 acres; land unsuitable for fannland =
28.5 acres; forest land= l t225 .8 acres; other land =13.7 acres, of which 5.7 acres
referred to "farm & housing structures" and 8.0 referred to roads. Attached to the
application was a detailed "Summary of Farmland and Other Acreage" on the three
islands as of January 1, 2017. (AR at 40). The application also included maps of
the islands that delineated and illustrated the areas of land and the categories into
which they fell. (AR at 41-43).
Although 36 M.R.S . § 1109(4) provides that the assessor " shall notify the
landowner, on or before June 1st following receipt of the signed schedule ... whether
the application has been approved or denied," no such notification was given to
RIGHC by the Town of Jonesport. The Administrative Record in this appeal is
somewhat confusing as to what happened next, but it appears that a representative
of RIGHC contacted the assessor for the Town in early June, who initially said that
the application could not be located. (AR at 48). Towards the end of June, however,
the application had been found and RJGHC was informed at that time that the
application had been approved with modifications. (Id'). In early July, during the
course of a meeting with one of the Town's assessors, RIGHC received a copy of
the Town's "Worksheet" containing the modifications. (AR at 44 & 48).
Page 5 of 16
On the worksheet, which was signed by two of the Town's assessors at
different times (one in March, the other in July), changes were made to two
categories of the "fannland parcel breakdown." In line 5d - "other land" - the figure
5 .7 was lined out and the figure 10.0 was inserted (a difference of 4.3 acres), creating
a new "total other acres" of 18.0 (the figure 13.7 also being lined out). In addition,
next to the description of "fann & housing structures" was the word "sites" and an
asterisk (*) with the notation: "* left out camp & shore front docking area." (AR at
45). The other modification was made on line 5b - "land unsuitable for fannland."
The total unsuitable acres figure was reduced to 24.2 from 28.5, also a difference of
4.3 acres .4 (AR at 44).
On July 11, 2017, RIGHC wrote to one of the assessors for the Town via email
and asked for clarification as to why the S .7 acres identified on the application as
"fann & housing structures" under the "other land" category (line Sd) had been
increased by 4.3 acres to 10.0 acres. (AR at 46). RIGHC did not receive a response
to this inquiry. Having heard nothing further from the Town, RIGHC submitted an
"Application for Abatement of Property Taxes" dated November 15, 2017, in the
amount of $482,782 of property valuation.5 (AR at 47). As pertinent here, the basis
'There were other notations on the "worksheet" utilized by the Town's assessors. For example,
next to line Sa (farmland) and line 5c (forest land), someone had marked "ok." There were also
comments written in line 5b (land unsuitable for farmland) that appear to relate to the 3 acres
classified as "open space" on Marsh Island. (AR at 44).
'Having examined the entire administrative record in this matter, it appears to the court that the
lack of communication from the Town was the result of the changes in those individuals who held
the position of assessor for Jonesport. For example, the assessor who reviewed the application
from RIGHC was not the same assessor who met with and spoke to RlGHC's representative in
July, 2017, and he may not have been completely familiar with what the other assessor had done.
Likewise, the assessor who testified before the State Board was not involved with RIGHC's initial
application and had difficulty explaining the Town's position. The assessor who actually reviewed
the application and made the modifications to it was unavailable as a witness before the State
Board due to illness.
Page 6 of 16
for the abatement request included the claim "that 4.3 acres had been added back to
' Farm & Housing Structures' from the 'Pasture' classification requested." 6 (AR. at
48). RIGHC explained its position as follows:
The reallocation of the 4.3 acres to "Farm & Housing Structures"
appears to be arbitrary, and is the subject of this appeal. It kept intact
the same 10-acre block that the Assessor had in previous years allocated
to "Acres-Site" in the tax cards. This reallocation was made despite the
submission of an aerial map clearly delineating the acreage in question
(attached), that is used as pasture for sheep, cows and the growing of
grass and hay.
(AR at 48).
On December 28, 2017, the Town assessors informed RIGHC that it was still
reviewing its abatement request and asked for additional information. Nevertheless,
the assessors advised RIGHC that "we are denying your abatement request ... We
believe the ten acres you are questioning is part of the base-lots for the homes and
out-buildings." (AR at 48).
RIGHC responded in a letter dated January 9, 2018 and provided the
additional information requested by the assessors. It also expanded on its argument
that it was entitled to an abatement. In essence, RIGHC contended that under the
Farmland Tax Law, all land qualifying as woodland, agricultural land or
horticultural land must be assessed first. What remains must be assessed at just
value. RIGHC also questioned the Town's practice of assigning a "base lot" to each
structure. (AR at 49).
In a letter dated January 24, 2018, the Town assessors denied the abatement
request, stating:
The Jonesport Board of Assessors have met and reviewed your letter of
January 9, 2018. We have reviewed our tax records, maps, and laws.
• This is not entirely accurate. The 4.3 acres was, indeed, added to the "farm & housing structures"
line (5d), but it was not deducted from the "pasture" line (5a). Rather, it was deducted from the
"land unsuitable for farmland" line (Sb). (AR at 44-45).
Page 7 of 16
We absolutely want to be fair, so we decided to contact Jeff Kendall at
the Maine Property Tax Division. After consulting with him, we have
determined that the denial for abatement will stand. We are treating
Roque Island the same as we treat the mainland property owners. Mr.
Kendall advised us that we could, in fact, create a base-lot for each
building on the island regardless of their proximity to each other or their
uses. It has nothing to do with subdividing a parcel.
(AR at 50).
Following the denial of its abatement request by the Town, RIGHC
filed a timely appeal to the State Board as pe1mitted by 36 M.R.S.
§§271(2)(A)(2) & 1118. The State Board held an evidentiary hearing on July
16, 2018 at which it received exhibits and testimony presented on behalf of
RIGHC and the Town. (AR Vol. II). In particular, the State Board received
testimony from: John Higgins, Finance Committee Chair for RIGHC;
Stephanie Gardner, Farm Manager and Caretaker for Roque Island, and;
Barbara Cirone, a Tax Assessor for the Town of Jonesport. The State Board
heard some argument on Julyl6, 2018, but also scheduled another day for
closing arguments and deliberations on August 29, 2018. (AR. at 235).
When the State Board reconvened on August 29, 2018, it had received
the written arguments of the parties. (AR at 53, 88). After wide-ranging
deliberations, the State Board voted unanimously to deny the appeal filed by
RIGHC. (AR at 435-38).
In a written Decision dated May 15, 2019, the State Board explained
the reasoning for its denial of the appeal from the abatement request. The
Chair of the State Board framed the issue by focusing on the Town's
allocation of "one-acre site lots'' to" 10 substantial structures, both residential
and farm-related, that were exempted from farmland classification." (AR at
17). For assessing purposes, it had been the Town's practice to allocate a
"one-acre site lot" to each major building within a parcel of land. Utilizing
Page 8 of 16
this methodology on RIGHC's application under the Farmland Tax Law had
the result of increasing its overall assessment by increasing the acreage in the
"other land" category (line Sd), which was assessed at just value. According
to RIGHC, using this method violated 36 M.R.S. § 1105, which requires the
assessors to establish valuation of fannland based on its use for agricultural,
horticultural or woodland purposes. Only after that was established were
other areas to be valued on the basis of "just value."
Citing to Article IX, section 8 of the Maine Constitution, requiring that all
taxes be "assessed equally according to just value," the State Board concluded:
Here, the Town's methodology of first allocating 10 one-acre site
lots to the buildings situated on the island, as was done for all similarly
situated property on the mainland, is consistent with a reasonable
interpretation of section 1105 and satisfies Ivlaine constitutional
requirements of just value and equality. Had the assessors done the
opposite, as implied by RIGHC, by first assessing farmland acres
(assuming all such areas for which classification was requested met the
definition of farmland), then the assessors would not have been able to
satisfy the Ivlaine constitutional requirements of just value and equality
for land associated with the 10 buildings on the island.
(AR at 21).
RIGHC filed a timely Petition for Judicial Review to this court on June 20,
2019. Briefing was completed on December 2, 2019 and oral argument was
originally scheduled for January 24, 2020, but was continued at the request of
RIGHC. Due to the outbreak of the coronavirus and the restrictions on court
operations, oral argument could not be re-scheduled until May 22, 2020.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Generally speaking, when an administrative agency's decision is appealed
pursuant to M.R.Civ. P. SOC, this court reviews the agency's decision directly for
abuse of discretion, en-ors of law, or findings not supported by the evidence.
Centamore v. Dep't of Human Servs., 664 A.2d 369, 370 (Me. 1995). "An
Page 9 of 16
(
administrative decision will be sustained if, on the basis of the entire record before
it, the agency could have fairly and reasonably found the facts as it did." Seider v.
Bd. of Exam'rs of Psychologists, 2000 ME 206, j 9, 762 A.2d 551. The court will
"not attempt to second-guess the agency on matters falling within its realm of
expertise," meaning judicial review is limited to "determining whether the agency's
conclusions are unreasonable, unjust or unlawful in light of the record."
Imagineering, Inc. v. Superintendent of Ins., 593 A.2d 1050, 1053 (Me. 1991) .
"Inconsistent evidence will not render an agency decision unsupported," and the
party seeking to overturn the agency's decision bears the burden of proving that there
is no competent evidence in the record to support the Board's decision. See Terfloth
v. Town ofScarborough, 2014 ME 57, f 10, 90 A.3d 1131; Bischoffv. Bd. ofTrs.,
661 A.2d 167, 170 (Me. 1995).
In the particular context of an appeal from the denial of a property tax
abatement, there is a presumption that the tax assessment by the municipality is
correct. Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corp. v. Town of Jonesport, 2017 ME
152. ! 12, 167 A.3d 564. To overcome this presumption, the taxpayer seeking an
abatement must prove that the assessed valuation is "manifestly wrong" by showing:
(1) that the taxpayer's property was substantially overvalued and an injustice
resulted from the overvaluation; (2) that there was unjust discrimination in the
valuation of the property; or (3) that the assessment was fraudulent, dishonest, or
illegal. Terfloth v. Town of Scarborough, 2014 ME 57, ! 12, 90 A.3d 1131, 1135
(citing Town ofBristol Taxpayer's Ass 'n v. Bd. ofSelectmen/Assessors for the Town
of Bristol, 2008 ME 159, , 8, 957 A.2d 977). See also Petrin v. Town of
Scarborough, 2016 ME 136, ~ 14, 147 A.3d 842. The court should vacate the
Board's decision that a taxpayer failed to meet its burden of showing one of those
three circumstances " only if the record compels a contrary conclusion to the
Page 10 of 16
exclusion of any other inference." Terfloth, 2014 I\l1E 57, ~ 13 (internal quotations
omitted). Accord Roque Island v. Jonesport, 2017 ME 152,, 16.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the briefs in this case multiple times, as well as the entire
Administrative Record, the court is still not entirely confident that it fully
understands the assessing methodology employed by the Town with respect to the
application submitted by RIGHC under the Farmland Tax Law. As explained by the
Town in its brief to the court, based on the testimony of Ms. Cirone at the State
Board hearing, the Town of Jonesport has a town-wide policy of assessing one-acre
site lots to buildings other than small out-buildings. Respondent's Brief at 9. As
applied to RIGHC, the Town described its practice as follows:
Roque Island has a total of 22 or 23 buildings on it, some large,
some small. In the 'compound' area, there are six residential structures,
a large main barn with solar panels, a large sheep barn, chicken coops,
several other outbuildings including a maintenance building, a wood
mill, and a walk-in freezer. There is also a generator building, a pier
with a boat 'shop' and shed, and a cabin that [is] located outside of the
compound area with a second pier. Finally, there are two cisterns.
Barbara Cirone, one of the three Jonesport Assessors, testified
for the Town. She testified that the Town assigns a one-acre 'base lot'
(for undeveloped parcels) or a one-acre' site lot' (for developed parcels)
to all parcels in the Town of Joneport. The value of a base lot or site
lot then depends on the zone in which it is situated. Every vacant
property in town is assessed one base lot. Developed parcels in town
are assessed one or more site lots based on the number of buildings
located on a parcel. Ms. Cirone indicated that a one-acre site lot is
assigned to every building on a property unless the structure is deemed
by the assessors to be a small out-building. Ms. Cirone indicated in
making the determination regarding whether a building should have a
site lot assessed to it, she considered factors such as building footprint,
use, whether there is water and electricity, and whether there is a slab
foundation. She felt that these factors make a building equivalent to a
boat shop on the mainland, and boat shops are assessed site lots. By
way of illustration, Ms. Cirone testified that a garage with living
Page 11 of 16
quarters would have its own site lot but a small garden shed purchased
at Home Depot would not. The Town of Jonesport used this system
throughout the Town, not just for islands. The same system for
valuation was used for Petitioner's property as for all other similarly
situated buildings in the Town of Jonesport.
In this case, Respondent assessed 10 site lots to Roque Island
after seeking and receiving oral guidance from farmland specialists at
Maine Revenue. Seven of the ten site lots were associated with
residential buildings, including the camp located outside of the
compound. For the non-residential structures, the Town did not assess
site lots to out-buildings, only the larger buildings. Ms. Cirone testified
that she would have assess[ed] a site lot to each of the residences, the
barn, sheep barn, boat shop, wood shop, but not to a partially open shed
with no heat or foundation or the chicken house, although the assessors
at the time only assessed 10 site lots. John Higgins, Roque Island
Finance Committee Chairman, acknowledged that respondent has
historically assessed a 10-acre home site on the island going back 'a
number of years,' but how far back he could not say.
Respondent's Briefat 3-4.
Ms. Cirone, as noted earlier, was not personally involved in reviewing the
application submitted by RIGHC, but testified in general terms to the Town's
assessing methodology. Moreover, there appears to be no dispute that prior to 2017,
the Town had assessed a 10-ace site lot on Roque Island.
The parties have significantly different approaches to how the Farmland Tax
Law should be applied in practice. For example, RIGHC's position is captured in
the following quote from its brief to this court:
The key is that with every piece of property, the fannland portion
is first detennined based on actual use as farmland and the definitions
provided by statute. The farmland, including wasteland and
woodlands, is entitled to be assessed in accord with the special
requirements of the statute. It is only the remaining 'Other Lands' that
the Town may assess based on the Town 's traditional assessing
procedures. Farmland first.
Petitioner's Briefat 18 ( emphasis added).
Page 12 of 16
The Town, on the other hand, insists that its town-wide site lot policy must be
applied first:
First, Respondent considered its town-wide site lot policy in
evaluating the application. Respondent assess one-acre site lots to
buildings on a property unless those buildings are small out-buildings.
This is done town-wide. In determining whether a building should have
a site lot assessed to it, Respondent considered factors such as building
footprint, use, whether there were water and electricity, and whether
there was a slab foundation. Once site lots are assigned, remaining land
is available for farmland designation.
Respondent's Brief at 9 ( emphasis added).
In their written arguments, both sides referred to and relied upon Section S(F)
of Property Tax Bulletin No. 20, pertaining to "Farm Structures" under the Farmland
Tax Law and published by the Property Tax Division of Maine Revenue Services.
The version of Section 5(F) in effect prior to April 9, 2020 provided:
Farm Stru ctures. Bui lding components of a farm. such as animal
shelters, are normally considered part of the farm and the structures
should be valued in the same way as other similar structures in the
municipality. While not specifically addressed in the law, when small
accessory structures such as animal shelters are built upon classified
fannland, the statute dos not compel the land under these structures to
be withdrawn from classification.
Effective April 9, 2020, after the parties had fully briefed their arguments and prior
to oral argument on May 22, 2020, the last sentence of Section 5(F) was changed to
read: "While not specifically addressed in the law, when accessory structures such
as animal shelters are built on classified farmland, that land may remain in the
farmland program."
From the court's perspective, the Town's assessing practice of assigning one
acre site lots to buildings and structures creates a tension with the purposes and
language of the Farmland Tax Law. That law was designed to subject tracts of
Page 13 of 16
fannland, as defined, to special tax treatment. Its focus is on tracts of land, not
structures. Both the Farmland Tax Law and Property Tax Bulletin No. 20, which is
intended as a guide to the interpretation and application of the law, contemplate that
buildings and structures on farmland will be assessed at just value as other similar
buildings and structures are assessed in the municipality. The land on which the
structures sit, however, can remain classified as "fannland ."
The difficulty with the Town's practice of assigning one-acre site lots to farm
structures is that it assesses the structure by using an acreage component. But the
land itself, if properly classified as "fannland," must be valued to "reflect only the
current value for farm purposes and may not include any increment of value
reflecting development pressure." 36 :tvl.R.S. § 1108(1). The Town assigned 10-acre
site lots to RIGHC based on its buildings and structures, regardless of whether the
land itself was properly classified as "fannland." In order to make the total acreage
equal 1,323 as documented in the application, the Town reassigned 4.3 acres from
"land unusable for fannland" (wasteland) and classified it as "other land" ("farm &
housing structures"). "Wasteland" is part of the statutory definition of "farmland."
36 :tvl.R.S. § 1102(4). By making this reclassification of fannland, without regard to
its actual use, the Town appears to have assigned a value to the fannland (wasteland)
that reflects development or market pressures, which is not permitted by the
Farmland Tax Law.
The State Board and the Town emphasized the constitutional requirement that
taxes upon real property be "apportioned and assessed equally according to the just
value thereof." Art. IX, sect. 8, Me. Const. The Constitution also authorizes the
Legislature to enact laws providing for the assessment of certain types of real estate
based on its cun-ent use, such as farmland. Art. IX, sect 8(2)(A). The Farmland Tax
Law also directs that "[a]reas other than woodland, agricultural land or horticultural
land located within any parcel of farmland classified under this subchapter are
Page 14 of 16
valued on the basis of just value." 36 M.R.S. § 1105. Thus, with respect to "other
land" or structures, the Town sought to treat those structures as similar structures
would be treated in the municipality, and in doing do it utilized the one-acre site lot
policy. But the Town's methodology of assigning one-acre site lots (for developed
parcels) to farm structures, brings it into conflict with the Farmland Tax Law's
directive to assess land classified as fannland based on its actual current use. While
the Town can assess the farm structure at just value, it cannot convert land properly
classified as "fannland" i.e., "wasteland," into a site lot as if it were a developed
parcel.7 As the court reads 36 M.R.S. §1105, "wasteland" within a parcel classified
as farmland is to be valued on the basis of its just value as wasteland, not the just
value of a site lot.
In the court's view, the Town's good faith effort to equalize the tax treatment
of structures brought it into conflict with the Farmland Tax Law because of its one-
acre site lot methodology. The burden on RIGHC in this appeal is a heavy one. In
this case, however, the court believes that the site lot assessing methodology
employed by the Town with respect to RIGHC's application under the Farmland Tax
Law violated that law and was, therefore, manifestly wrong.
CONCLUSION
The entry is:
The Petition for Judicial Review is GRANTED. The Assessors of the Town
of Jonesport are directed to grant the Petitioner's abatement request for tax year
2017.
'The court would point out that in its examination of the application submitted by RIGHC under
the Farmland Tax Law for tax year 2017, the Town did not indicate that it disagreed with how the
application categorized the land. Rather, it reassigned 4.3 acres to "Other Land" in order to satisfy
the 10-acre site lot allocation for Roque Island.
Page 15 of 16
The clerk is directed to incorporate this order into the doc
\
pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a).
Date: June 3, 2020
Justice, Superior Court
Entered on the docket [p { 4 / 2, 07,0
Page 16 of 16
Date Filed:6/20/19 Kennebec Docket No.AP-19-28
F
J. Stokes
Action: SOC
Roque Island Gardner Homestead Town of Jonesport and State of Maine
Corporation Board of Property Tax Review
Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney
John 8. Shumadinc, Esq. W/D John K Hamer, Esq.
Murray Plumb & Murray PO Box 1401
PO Box 9785 Bangor, Me 04402
Portland, ME 04104-5085
Peter Murray, Esq.
Sage Friedman, Esq. Michelle Robert, AAG
6 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Date of Entry
06/21/19 Petition for Review of Final Agency Action, filed (6/20/19). s/Shumadine, Esq.
06/24/19 Entry of Appearance filed, (0627 /19) s/Hamer, Esq.
07/08/19 Motion to Dismiss, filed. s/Robert, AAG
07/16/19 Town of Jonesport's Response to State of Maine Board of Property Tax Review's
Motion to Dismiss, filed (7 /12/19). s/Hamer, Esq.
Town of Jonesport takes no position on the State of Maine Board of Property Tax
Review's Motion to Dismiss
07/17/19 Certified Record, Summary Contents of Record, Audio Recordings of the Hearing and
Deliberations and Written Decision of the Board of Property Tax Review, filed (7/16/19).
s/Stevens, Clerk of the Board of Property Tax Review.
07/17/19 Notice & Briefing Schedule, issued.
Copy to parties/counsel
07/26/19 Entry of Appearance on behalf of Petitioner filed (7/25/19} s/Murray, Esq.
07/30/19 Roque Island Gardner Homestead Corporation has no objection to Motion to Dismiss,
Filed, (7/29/19) s/Murray, Esq.
08/13/19 Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel, filed (8/9/19). s/Shumadine, Esq.
08/16/19 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and To Enlarge Deadlines, filed. s/Murray, Esq.
Page 1 AP-19-28