Cumberland County panel approves $184,005.94 abatement for Harrison homeowner after dispute over 25% land-value factor

The Cumberland County Board of Assessment Review voted 3–1 on April 23, 2025, to grant a $184,005.94 tax abatement to an applicant from Harrison who challenged a 25% land-value adjustment applied to some waterfront lots.

The applicant, identified in the filing as Makovich, told the board the Town of Harrison applied a 1.25 multiplier to the land valuations of certain improved shoreline lots'including his property at 475 Cape Mundy Road'and that the adjustment was not grounded in market data. "The town of Harrison seems to be applying a discriminatory non market based factor to adjust some land valuations, including my own, by 25% above the fair market value," Makovich said during the public hearing.

Why it matters: The case centered on how the town separates land value from building value and whether structural features'finished space in an outbuilding or garage'should trigger a 25% uplift to land value. The applicant said he converted one bay of a four-bay garage into a bedroom and bath without adding a kitchen and without changing wells or septic capacity; the town told him that adding a kitchen would require a different permitting route because that would create a separate dwelling unit. The dispute raises questions about consistency in mass appraisal methods for waterfront lots and whether adjustments reflect market-based sale data or judgment-based factors.

At the hearing the county assessor'speaking for town appraisal procedures'explained that assessors must break values into separate land and building components and said the town applied the 1.25 factor for properties that include living quarters in outbuildings or separate cottages. "Assessors have to break it down into a separate land value and a building value. That's required by statute," the assessor said, adding that the town applied the same methodology across the comparable properties it reviewed.

Makovich presented valuation sheets the town provided that showed some waterfront properties on the same road receiving the 1.25 factor while others did not. He said one example in the town's materials showed a property assessed 13% below its 2024 sale price after the 1.25 factor was applied, and he argued the multiplier produced results inconsistent with market sales. "It doesn't look like there's any evidence that it's based on real estate data that's supporting this upward tick in the market valuation," he told the board.

Board members questioned the nature of the finished space and whether it constituted a separate dwelling unit. The assessor and other board members said there is a legal and procedural distinction between finished sleeping quarters ("quarters" without a kitchen) and a full, permitted second dwelling unit with a kitchen and separate utilities; the assessor said that distinction factored into the town's methodology. Several members acknowledged the 1.25 factor was applied consistently across a set of similar properties the town identified.

Motion and vote: A board member moved to grant the applicant's abatement for the full amount requested; the motion was seconded. The board voted by show of hands. The recorded result was three in favor and one opposed, and the board approved the abatement. The four members present were Alex Coop (yes), Jeffrey Crane (yes), Peter Coyne (yes) and Chairman Ed Geddes (no). The chair announced the decision would be issued in writing and mailed to the applicant within 10 days.

Process, timing and next steps: The board confirmed jurisdiction and timeliness: the town denied the applicant's abatement on Jan. 9, the statutory appeal window required a filing by March 10, and the applicant's submission was received Feb. 3. The board said it will prepare a written decision and mail it to the applicant within the timeframe described at the hearing. The town may cite the decision in future revaluation or abatement work, and the discussion highlighted a broader tension in mass appraisal work between statistically derived adjustments and assessor judgment in smaller jurisdictions.

The board's written decision will describe the basis for its majority conclusion; the transcript of the hearing shows both the applicant and the assessor repeatedly pressing their respective interpretations of how the 1.25 factor was derived and applied.

Ending: The board concluded the public hearing and indicated the applicant would receive a formal letter explaining the decision. The board also noted that similar valuation questions surfaced in other properties on the same road and suggested those comparisons would inform future valuation reviews.