(dissenting).
I would reverse. The majority admits that the property is devoted to temporary and seasonal residential occupancy, but determines that it is not being used for recreational purposes.
The statute in point provides that all real property devoted to temporary and seasonal residential occupancy for recreational purposes shall be valued and assessed at 38 1/3 percent of market value, while commercial property is valued and assessed at 40 percent of market value.
Merely because an owner decides to use property for recreational purposes that would normally be used for business or commercial use should not preclude him from claiming the assessment for recreational purposes if that is in fact the use to which the property is placed. The owner is saving the local units of government the usual expenses of sending children to school, continued snow plowing, greater police surveillance, and use of local hospitals and public buildings, so why shouldn’t he have the benefit of a lower assessment in return. I believe that was the legislative intent.
I would place emphasis on the use of the property, rather than the mere form of the structure itself. Here the use plaintiff made of the property was an occasional weekend of relaxation and gardening — to me a clear recreational use entitling him to the lower assessment.