Court Opinion

ID: 9693887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:06:54.105255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:51.708089
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
Because the methodology used by the trial court and the majority, as evidenced by the facts in this case, does not represent what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller, I respectfully dissent. The reason that it does not represent fair market value is because, underlying the trial court’s and the majority’s fair market determination of value is the assumption that the property must be valued as wetlands that cannot be developed. Because the evidence is undisputed that the wetlands can be abated and the owner has refused offers higher than the assessment, I would hold that the actual value of the property is what a willing buyer would pay, assuming the risk of mitigating the property’s wetland status.
Gilmour Properties acquired 2.28 acres of unimproved land (the Property) right off of an exit of the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Somerset Borough, Somerset County, with a frontage along the Turnpike Access Road. The Property is located in one of the fastest growing and most desirable commercial areas in Somerset County, and this area contains property with the highest values in Somerset County. The Property, however, has been designated as wetlands by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). It lies entirely within the flood plain.
After Gilmour Properties appealed the initial fair market determination of $397,480 with an assessed value of $198,715 (i.e.,/& the fair market value), the Board of Assessment reduced the Property’s fair market value to $250,000 with an assessed value of $125,000. Gilmour Properties appealed that decision to the trial court.
At the de novo hearing, Gilmour Properties presented the testimony of its expert who, using a comparison approach to valuation, determined that the Property’s estimated fair market value was $54,000, and the assessed value for tax purposes should be $27,000. He based these figures on the fact that (1) the Property was designated as wetlands by DEP; (2) it was on the flood plain; (3) the possibility of obtaining a permit to remove the wetland status and make it developable was speculative, and (4) the process for securing the permit and mitigating • the wetlands would- cost $200,000.
However, Gilmour Properties’ witness stated that non-wetlands with the same characteristics/location of the subject Property would be valued at $900,000. Gilmour Properties’ representatives also testified that they would not sell the property for $54,000 and, in fact, had received offers in excess of $400,000 for the property in a mitigated state. They also stated that they made a counter-offer of $600,000 to that buyer to cover the estimated costs of mitigation ($200,000). Additionally, the Property was listed on the market for sale in the range of $550,000 to $600,000.
The trial court adopted the methodology of Gilmour Properties’ expert and remanded the case to the Board so that it would re-calculate the assessment of the Property at $27,000, reasoning that because the property was designated as wetlands and because the possibility of future commer*73cial development, which was based on the acquisition of a permit from DEP, was speculative at best and highly costly, the Board’s original assessment was unlawful. Rejecting the Board’s appeal, the majority affirmed the trial court essentially on the same reasoning. Because the value must be determined by what a willing buyer would pay who would assume the risk of mitigation, I dissent.
As the majority correctly points out, Section 402 of The General County Assessment Law1 provides that for tax assessment purposes, real estate must be valued at its “actual value.” ENF Family Partnership v. Erie County Board of Assessment Appeals, 861 A.2d 438 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004). “Actual value” is the price a willing but not obligated seller would accept from a willing but not obligated buyer “taking into consideration all uses to which the property is adapted and might in reason be applied.” Id. at 440 n. 4 (quoting F & M Schaeffer Brewing Company v. Lehigh County Board of Appeals, 530 Pa. 451, 457, 610 A.2d 1, 3 (1992)).
In this case, nothing in the record indicates that the Property cannot be mitigated, as all other similarly situated landowners in this area were granted permits to mitigate wetlands. This is confirmed by Gilmour Properties’ own witness who testified that the Property in a mitigated state is worth $900,000; it is listed on the market for sale in the range of $550,000 to $600,000; there was at least one willing buyer who made an offer of $400,000 for the property if it was mitigated to which Gilmour Properties counter-offered for $600,000 to cover the estimated cost of mitigation ($200,000); and Gilmour Properties’ representatives even stated that they were unwilling to accept $54,000 for the Property if offered. Additionally, mitigation would be economically feasible even though the estimated cost is $200,000, given the undisputed fact that the Property, if or when it is mitigated, could sell for $900,000, just as similar properties have sold for in this highly profitable location.
What this evidence shows is that the actual value of $54,000 set by the trial court and endorsed by the majority only represents a value of the Property in its current, unmitigated state as wetlands. It does not represent what a buyer may be willing to offer for the Property in an unmitigated state, assuming the risk that the property could be mitigated, with a value of $900,000. Because I would remand to the trial court to find what a buyer would pay for that Property assuming the risk of mitigation, I respectfully dissent.

. Act of May 22, 1933, P.L. 853, as amended, 72 P.S. § 5020-402.