6(b) of the Act, 72 P.S. § 5490.6(b), permitted a residential use on up to two acres of the tract receiving the assessment. Rejecting the argument that the tract was not subject to roll-back taxes because the primary use of the parcel was for permitted purposes, this Court held that the construction and operation of a bed and breakfast could not be characterized as an agricultural, agricultural reserve or forest reserve use and that the entire tract therefore was subject to roll-back taxes. As in Hydrusko, the fact that the remaining portion of Wending Creek’s parcel has been unaltered and has remained as forest reserve does not preclude the imposition of roll-back taxes on the entire tract. See also Godshall v. Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals, 42 Pa. D. & C.3d 191 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, I would reverse. 1 . A
holding that permit fees imposed by statute were not taxes holding that permit fee assessments required by statute are not taxes under the code holding trial court properly denied a petition for a tax deed when the property owners thought they were paying property taxes on an improved parcel of land but actually were paying taxes on a different unimproved parcel because of an assessment irregularity holding that background check assessments required by statute are not taxes under the code holding that rollback taxes properly imposed although 75acre parcel receiving preferential assessments only temporarily used for five days a year for a philadelphia folk festival requiring certain structures to be affixed to the land