Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 18, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 132438

Assessed Person(s): Brian E. Wilkinson

Appellant(s): Brian E. Wilkinson

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Respondent(s): Township of Clearview

Property Location(s): 1614 Conc 10 Notta North

Municipality(ies): Township of Clearview

Roll Number(s): 4329-010-008-25610-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3001985

Taxation Year(s): 2013

Hearing Event No. 580962

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: April 14, 2015 in Stayner, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Brian Wilkinson	Self-represented
MPAC	Elizabeth A. Walker
Township of Clearview	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LESLIE FLEMMING

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal was heard in Stayner, Ontario. The decision was reserved at the request of the Appellant.

2The subject property is a single-family detached two-storey home, not on water, located at 1614 Conc. 10 Notta in Clearview Township. The home was built by the Appellant in 2005 on a 3.03 acre (“ac.”) parcel of land. The home itself is 3,000 square feet (“sq. ft.”) in size with a detached garage/workshop of 814 sq. ft. It features three bedrooms, two full baths and one half bath, two fireplaces, and decks or porches on both levels. The property is located on the Niagara Escarpment.

3MPAC assessed the property in 2008 at $738,000. The 2013 assessment was returned in the amount of $759,000 in January, 2013. MPAC has since revised the assessment downward to $697,000 following an inspection, which assessment has been implemented for 2014, 2015 and 2016. MPAC recommends a reduction in the 2013 assessment to $697,000.

4The appellant seeks a reduction and submits that the assessed value should not have increased from the 2009 value of $570,000.

5The parties are in agreement that the best method of assessing value in comparison with other similar properties would be to refer to sales of similar properties as near as possible to the valuation day, January 1, 2012.

ISSUE

6What is the correct current value of the subject property?

7Is an assessment at the current value of the subject property equitable with the assessed values of similar lands in the vicinity, and, if not, should the assessed value be reduced to make it equitable?

DECISION

8The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $697,000.

9The Board finds there is no evidence before it supporting the conclusion that the value of the subject property requires an adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

10Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property as at January 1, 2012, for the 2013 taxation year is reduced from $759,000 to $697,000.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

11Section 44.(3)(a) of the Act requires the Board to first “determine the current value of the land.” The definition of “current value” is contained in s. 1 of the Act:

current value” means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

12Section 19.(1) states that: “The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.”

13The best measure of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the subject property on or close to the valuation day – January 1, 2012. If no such transaction took place, a further measure of current value can be derived from the arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties in the same vicinity and market. This measure acts as a benchmark and gauge of the correctness of the assessed value of the subject property.

14To enable an estimate of value for the subject property to be derived from an analysis of comparable property sales, there must be sufficient elements of similarity in terms of physical factors. Factors for comparison will usually include lot size and topography, the number and quality of primary and secondary structures built on the land, and amenities which can include views, porches and decks, workshops and other features. In the case of rural properties such as the subject property, no two properties are identical and particular attention must be paid to the comprehensive description of each comparable property. Sales occurring close to the valuation day, January 1, 2012, will be the most useful in drawing comparisons with the subject property.

15Ms. Walker presented five suggested comparable sale properties in Exhibit 1. .MPAC Property A - 12 Purple Hill Lane is a single storey home approximately 457 sq. ft. smaller than the subject property built on a lot slightly less than half the size of the subject property’s lot. The home was six years older than the subject, and had an attached garage of approximately ¾ the size of the subject property’s garage/workshop and an outdoor pool. This home sold in September, 2013, for $670,000. While MPAC rated this property as being the same quality as the subject property (7.5 out of 10), this comparable sale is clearly a smaller home on a smaller lot. It has almost one-third more “porch points” than the subject property but no evidence of panoramic view.

16MPAC Property B - 2645 Conc 10 Notta South, a one-storey home built in 2004. The home has two fireplaces and three full bathrooms, and sits on a lot one-half acre larger than the subject property’s lot. The home itself is 1,370 sq. ft. smaller than area of the structure on the subject property. The attached garage is 566 sq. ft., somewhat smaller than the subject property’s detached workshop/garage. It has fewer “porch points”. This property sold in April, 2012, for $650,000.

17MPAC Property C 190 Batteaux Road sold for $760,000 in October, 2011, This home is almost 30 years older than the subject property and 336 sq. ft. smaller. However, unlike the subject property, it has a finished basement of 2,017 sq. ft. This property had significantly more outbuildings than the subject property, including detached and attached garages, both of which were larger than the subject property’s workshop/garage, and a workshop of 669 sq. ft.

18MPAC Property D - 1416 County Road 124 was also deemed inferior to the subject despite having an almost identically-sized lot and 956 sq. ft. more space over one level in a newer home. It has no basement, in contrast to the subject property’s basement area of 1,735 sq. ft. This comparable home sold in July 2013, for $665,000.

19Ms. Walker also included a fifth comparable sale. MPAC Property E -This property sold for $1,440,000 in June, 2011and based on its sale price clearly is not comparable to the subject property.

20Mr. Wilkinson chose not to cross-examine Ms. Walker on her suggested comparables. However, he also provided the Board with four suggested comparable sales.

21Exhibit 3 provided by the Appellant was a listing agreement for a property located at 999 Sixth Street in Collingwood, which sold in March, 2011 for $580,000. The home is a ranch-style bungalow measuring 3,000 sq. ft. with a detached shop/garage of 864 sq. ft. The home is located on two acres of land. It does not have a basement. While the description of this property would indicate it is a good quality home with a workshop/garage much like the subject property’s, it is 16 years older, lacks a basement, and is situated on one acre less land. Due to its location, it would lack the panoramic views of the subject property. It would be valued at a lower amount than the subject property.

22Exhibit 4 provided by the Appellant was a listing agreement for 7454 36/37 Nottawasaga Sideroad, a property which sold for $820,000 in 2010. This home is significantly larger than the subject property, described as 4,506 sq. ft. in size on a parcel of 4.46 acres in size. This sale is not particularly useful as the building is much larger located on a much larger lot than the subject property’s. No details as to the quality of the home were available.

23Exhibit 5 provided by the appellant was a listing agreement for 6080 27/28 Nottawasaga Side Road. This property sold in October, 2012, for $430,000. The lot size is half an acre larger than the subject property’s, and the area of the home itself is 283 sq. ft. smaller than the subject property, with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The property has at least one fireplace/woodstove, and a full, unfinished basement. Mr. Wilkinson argued that this property is close in size and amenities to his own. However, there was no evidence of the panoramic views found at the subject property, and no information as to the quality of the structure.

24Exhibit 6, the appellant’s last comparable property, was sale occurring in October, 2010, for $535,000. The property, located on 8444 21/22 Nottawasaga Sideroad, was similar in some respects to the subject property. However, the Board finds that the sale date is too far removed from the valuation day to be of assistance in determining the current value of the subject property.

25Mr. Wilkinson argues that the difficulty in selling a home such as his, with its panoramic views and large workshop, plus many interior amenities, arises from the reluctance of most buyers to commit to the aggravation entailed in country living. He also disputes the assessment by MPAC that the scenic view his property enjoys is worth 10%. When asked by Ms. Walker why Mr. Wilkinson continues to offer his property for sale at $825,000 when it is worth so much less, Mr. Wilkinson replied that he would have to sell for even less than the assessed value if he were to drop the sale price to $697,000.

26Of the comparable sales provided by the parties, six properties stand out as being relatively comparable to the subject property. These properties and their selling prices are:

(a) 999 Sixth Street - $580,000 (March, 2011)

(b) 2645 Con. 10 - $650,000 (April, 2012)

(c) 6080 27/28 Sideroad - $430,000 (October, 2012)

(d) 1416 County Road 124 - $665,000 (July, 2013)

(e) 12 Purple Hill Lane - $670,000 (September, 2013)

(f) 190 Batteaux Road - $760,000 (October, 2011)

27Where none of the six properties is identical to the subject property but as a group provide reasonable comparable sales, the Board will look at the median value, disregarding the outliers. In this case, the median value is $665,000, an amount within 5% of the assessed value. Where the median value is less than 5% of the assessed value, the Board will not interfere with the assessed value.

28The Board therefore finds that the current value of the subject property is $697,000.

29Once the Board has determined the current value of the land, it is required by s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act to:

44.(3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(a) determine the current value of the land; and

(b) have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.

30The parties provided very little evidence on the issue of equity. Ms. Walker made no submissions on this issue, and Mr. Wilkinson provided several examples of properties that had been assessed at amounts higher than their sales amounts. No evidence was provided which would indicate that, having reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed, a reduction would be required in the assessment of the subject property to make its assessment equitable with other lands in the vicinity. The Board makes no adjustment.

CONCLUSION

31The Board determines that the current value of the subject property is $697,000.

32The Board finds there is no evidence before it supporting the conclusion that the value of the subject property requires an adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

33The Board therefore reduces the assessment of the subject property as at January 1, 2012, for the 2013 taxation year from $759,000 to the amount of $697,000.