Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 29, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 134737

Assessed Person(s): Helen Cooper and Ann Edwards

Appellant(s): Helen Cooper and Ann Edwards

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 02

Respondent(s): Township of Front of Yonge

Property Location(s): 1647 County Road 2

Municipality(ies): Township of Front of Yonge

Roll Number(s): 0806-000-010-13602-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3043479 and 3070409

Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No. 597031

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

Heard: September 10, 2015 in Brockville, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel^+^/Representative

Helen Cooper

Self-represented

MPAC

Walter Flemming

Township of Front of Yonge

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

INTRODUCTION

1These appeals concern a 2,447 square foot house on a 20 acre parcel with a full basement, of which 400 square feet is finished. The property has two barns, one which is very old and run down and one that is a riding arena built in 1992, there is also a communications tower and a communications shed on the site (the “Property”). The house was built in 2012 after the previous house was destroyed by fire.

2The returned assessment was $603,000 for the 2014 taxation year and $518,000 for the 2015 taxation year. MPAC argues that the assessed value for each taxation year should be $436,000 with $21,700 in the commercial property class, $345,900 in the residential property class and $68,400 in the exempt tax class. Ms. Cooper argues that the Property should be assessed at $300,000 as that is the market value of a “hobby farm”. Both parties presented suggested comparable sales to support their proposed assessment, though Ms. Cooper did not make any submissions on the communications equipment on the Property, which constitutes the commercial and exempt portions of the Property. As such, the submissions of the parties focused exclusively on the residential component of the Property.

Legislation

3Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in s. 1 as “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.” That is, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arms-length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2012 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

4Once I have determined the current value, s. 44.(3)(b) requires that I “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” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

DECISION

5For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property is $436,000 with $21,700 in the commercial property class, $345,900 in the residential property class and $68,400 in the exempt tax class, and that no adjustment is required to make that value equitable with other properties in the vicinity.

Current Value

6MPAC presented three suggested comparable properties as evidence of the current value of the Property. These were put forward to support the residential component of the assessment. Neither party put forward sales of properties with communications equipment on the parcel.

7MPAC valued the communications equipment using the cost approach and that is the only evidence I have on the value of those items. MPAC valued the shed and associated components at $21,700, which is in the commercial property class. The communications tower is exempt and was valued at $68,400.

8The remaining $345,900 in the residential property class is what the suggested comparable sales are put forward to determine. In not providing evidence to contest the unique communications structures on the Property, Ms. Cooper’s suggested assessed value of $300,000 amounts to an argument that the residential portion of the Property should be assessed at $209,900 and the sales presented simply do not support that value.

9MPAC presented 5169 Graham Lake Road, which sold in December 2011 for $283,000. The house on that property was built in 2003 and is nearly identical in size to the Property, though it lacks a basement. The lot is significantly larger than the Property, though it does not have the barns or communications equipment. MPAC takes the position that this is the most comparable property to the Property, though needs to be adjusted to account for the presence of barns. This property strikes me as inferior to the Property due to the age of the building and the lack of a riding arena. The residential portion of the Property would likely have sold for more than $283,000.

10MPAC also presented 6418 6^th^ Concession Road, which sold in July 2011 for $370,000. The house on that property was built in 2005 and is nearly 700 square feet smaller than the Property with no basement. The lot is nearly half the size of the Property and does not have the barns or communications equipment. MPAC takes the position that this property is superior to the Property due to the quality of the structure. I agree that the residential component of the Property would not likely have sold for more than $370,000.

11MPAC’s final suggested comparable property was 107 Purvis Street, which sold in July 2012 for $315,000. The house on that property was built in 2009 and is over 700 square feet smaller than the Property, but has a larger finished basement area by 700 square feet. The lot is less than a quarter the size of the Property and it too has no barns or communication equipment. MPAC takes the position that this property is inferior to the Property before me. I agree that the residential portion of the Property would not likely have sold for less than $315,000.

12Ms. Cooper presented eight sales of suggested comparable properties. Her position was that her property is only comparable to properties which also have barns, as the sales of “hobby farms” are a unique submarket. I do not accept that the presence of barns creates a significantly different value from properties of similar size and home construction. Certainly, the evidence before me does not support that contention. However, many of the sales she presented are useful in determining the current value of the Property.

135618 McCrea Road sold in July 2013 for $287,000. The house on that property is over 100 years old. The lot is similar in size to the Property and has barns, though no communications equipment. The age of the house on this property makes it of little assistance in determining the value of the new home on the Property.

1444 Balllycanoe Road sold in June 2013 for $309,000. The house on that property is over 100 years old. The lot is nearly five times as large as the Property and has two barns and a workshop, though no communications equipment. Again, the age of the house on this property makes it of little assistance in determining the value of the new home on the Property.

1567 Granite Ridge Road sold in May 2012 for $449,000. The house on that property was built sometime in the 1990s and appears to be larger than the house on the Property. The lot description is unclear, but suggests that the lot is slightly larger than that Property. Ms. Cooper suggested that this is far superior to her Property as it is described as a “horse lover’s dream” and had a riding area and other amenities. I accept that this property is superior to the Property and that the residential portion of the Property would not likely have sold for more than $449,000.

165181 Algonquin Road sold in November 2013 for $269,000. The house on that property was built over 25 years ago and appears slightly larger than the Property. The lot is half the size of the Property and has a horse barn, second barn and tack area. This property is inferior to the Property due to the age of the house and the lack of a riding arena. The residential portion of the Property would likely have sold for more than $269,000.

178406 County Road 21 sold in June 2013 for $239,000. The house on that property was built over 25 years ago and appears comparable in size to the Property. The lot is more than twice the size of the Property and has barns. This property is located on the opposite side of Brockville and is of limited assistance in determining the current value of the residential portion of the Property.

189420 Kyle Road West sold in August 2013 for $289,000. The house on that property appears to have been built around 2000 and may be larger than the house on the Property. The lot is slightly larger than the Property and has one barn. This property is inferior to the Property due to the age of the house and the lack of a riding arena. The residential portion of the Property would likely have sold for more than $289,000.

1941 Line 7 sold in April 2013 for $319,000. The house on that property appears to be very old, though potentially larger than the house on the Property. The lot is nearly five times as large as the Property and has at least one barn. Again, the age of the house on this property makes it of little assistance in determining the value of the new home on the Property.

20Finally, Ms. Cooper presented 1525 County Road 46, which sold in February 2013 for $349,000. The house on that property is over 100 years old and is has a second floor so is likely larger than the house on the Property. The lot is over twice as large as the Property and has a barn. Again, the age of the house on this property makes it of little assistance in determining the value of the new home on the Property.

21MPAC argues that the age of the house, being built in 2012, is significant for its value and that none of the properties presented by Ms. Cooper are useful for determining the current value due to the age of the buildings on those properties. I agree that buildings that are more than 50 years old are of limited assistance, but those of 20 years of age or less may give some indication of value.

22As noted above, 6418 6^th^ Concession Road sets a likely high end of value of $370,000 for the Property. The closest inferior but comparable property to the Property is 107 Purvis Street, which sets a floor for value at $315,000. MPAC’s suggested residential value of $345,900 is nearly in the middle of that range and therefore amply supported by the evidence before me. Certainly, the evidence does not support Ms. Cooper’s implied residential value of $209,900.

23I find that the current value of $436,000 put forward by MPAC is amply supported by the evidence before me.

Equity

24As set out above, I must also consider the value at which similar properties in the vicinity are assessed. Ms. Cooper did not make any submissions on the equity of the assessment and I have no evidence before me on which to base an equity adjustment.

CONCLUSION

25Ms. Cooper did not make any submissions on the exempt or commercial portions of the property and I accept MPAC’s evidence with respect to those portions of the Property. I therefore find that the current value of the Property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years is $436,000 with $21,700 in the commercial property class, $345,900 in the residential property class and $68,400 in the exempt tax class, and that no adjustment is required to make that value equitable with other properties in the vicinity.

26As a result, I reduce the 2014 assessment from $603,000 to $436,000 apportioned as follows: the portion in the commercial property class is increased from $0 to $21,700; the portion in the residential tax class is reduced from $454,300 to $345,900; and the exempt portion is reduced from $148,700 to $68,400.

27I reduce the 2015 assessment from $518,000 to $436,000 apportioned as follows: the portion in the commercial property class is reduced from $22,200 to $21,700; the portion in the residential tax class is reduced from $427,400 to $345,900; and the exempt portion is confirmed at $68,400.