Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 5, 2015 FILE NO.: WR 135636

Assessed Person(s): Laureen Eva May Rutledge and Laureen Elizabeth Maurizio Appellant(s): Laureen Maurizio and Laureen Eva Rutledge Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 26 Respondent(s): Municipality of Lambton Shores Property Location(s): 7613 Chester Trail Municipality(ies): Municipality of Lambton Shores Roll Number(s): 3845-460-070-70401-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3001399, 3028933 and 3092343 (deemed 2015) Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015 (and deemed) Hearing Event No. 596133 Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: September 15, 2015, Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Laureen Rutledge and Laureen Maurizio	Self-represented
MPAC	Jane Sokol-Kennedy
Municipality of Lambon Shores	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARILYN SHARMA

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a single family detached residential property located at 7613 Chester Trail in Lambton Shores.

2The building on the subject property is a single storey structure with a detached garage.

3The building was constructed in 1978.

4The total building area is 1,692 square feet with an unfinished basement area of 515 square feet.

5The subject property has a total site area of 10,890 square feet.

6The assessment of the subject property for the taxation year 2013 and 2014 is $174,000.

7At the start of the hearing the Assessor indicated to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) that the assessment of the subject property has been increased for the 2015 taxation year. The Assessor stated that during discussions with the appellant and a review of MPAC’s data base, it was discovered that the subject property is ten years newer than shown on MPAC’s records. In addition, the property has central air conditioning which is not shown in MPAC’s records. The Assessor indicated that when these two variables are taken into account it would result in an increase the value of the subject property. She further stated that because her review was not completed until 2014, MPAC would make the changes in its system to be effective January 1, 2015. The Board had no evidence to refute these factual changes and therefore accepts MPAC’s recommendation to apply the increase in the assessment from $174,000 to $190,000 effective January 1, 2015.

ISSUE

8The Appellant argues that:

• MPAC has over assessed her property and has failed to take into account the impact of the construction and activation of a nearby cell tower on the value of her property.

9The Board must determine whether the assessment of the subject property is excessive in relation to other properties in the neighbourhood and whether the construction and activation of the cell tower have negatively affected the value of the subject property.

DECISION

10The Board finds that the current value of the subject property as of the valuation date of January 1, 2012 is $207,000 (rounded).

11The Board finds no adjustment is required for equity purposes under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”).

12No party requested an increase in the assessment, therefore:

• The Board confirms the assessment for the 2013 and deemed 2014 in the amount of $174,000.
• The Board confirms the assessment for the deemed 2015 taxation year in the amount $190,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

For the 2013 taxation year, in determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Act.

13Section 1 of the Act defines “current value” as:

“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.

14Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

15Section 19.2(1)2 of the Act states:

19.2(1) Valuation days. – Subject to subsection (5)¹, the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

2. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.

3. For each subsequent period consisting of four consecutive taxation years, land is valued as of January 1 of the year preceding the first of those four taxation years.

16Section 44.(3) of the Act states:

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.

17Section 40.(17) of the Act states:

40.(17) Burden of proof. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

18Section 40.(19) of the Act states:

40.(19) Board to make determination. – After hearing the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board shall determine the matter.

Analysis

19Under the Act the Board is required to do three things:

(1) Find the current value of the property;

(2) Make reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed; and

(3) Adjust the assessment of the subject property if the adjustment would result in a reduction in the assessment.

Current Value

20The best measure of current value is an arm’s length and market tested sale of the subject property on the valuation date of January 1, 2012, or close to it. If no such transaction took place, a further measure of current value is 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. The onus for establishing the correctness of the current value lies with MPAC.

MPAC’s Evidence

21MPAC provided six suggested comparable properties as shown in Table1.

Table 1 MPAC’s Suggested Comparable Properties

Address	Bldg. Area (sq. ft.)	Site Area (sq. ft.)	Effective Yr. Built	Time Adj. Sale Amt.	Sale Date
7613 Chester Trail (subject property)	1,692	10,890	1999	nil
7679 Riverside Drive	1,476	15,010	1980	180,773	09/2011
7661 Riverside Drive	738	14,725	1989	168,460	08/2012
7601 Biddulph Street	1,204	10,890	2004	197,336	05/2009
7617 Chester Trail	998	10,890	1967	153,024	07/2011
7671 Whatman Street	1,352	30,012	1972	225,679	11/2009
7641 Gillespie Street	953	10,890	1979	175,399	08/2010

22The Assessor stated that the current value assessment of the subject property was established using the direct comparison approach to value.

23The Assessor informed the Board that she reviewed the sales of properties for the period January 1, 2009 to December 2012 and her analysis indicates that there was no decrease in house prices over this timeframe. In fact the analysis showed that house prices increased approximately 19.4 % over this time frame for properties within the vicinity of the subject property.

24The Assessor advised the Board that the Appellant’s main concern was the activation of a nearby cell phone tower which the Appellant believes is having a negative impact on the value of properties in the area including the subject property. The Assessor stated that based on the Appellant’s concern, she reviewed data from MPAC’s system and information provided by the Appellant and found that no adjustment was necessary since the sales analysis of properties in the neighbourhood did not support the Appellant’s claim.

25The Assessor stated that she conducted an inspection of the subject property during the reconsideration process and found that the subject property was ten (10) years newer than that shown in MPAC’s records. In addition, the property has central air conditioning which was not present in MPAC’s records. She stated that correcting these omissions would increase the assessment of the subject property from $174,000 to $190,000. This revision would be applied only to the 2015 taxation year.

26The Assessor stated that in her view the property located at 7601 Biddulph Street was the most comparable to the subject property and that because the sale occurred in 2009 it required a time adjustment of 1.128. She also added that the property located at 7601 Biddulph Street was 16 years older than the subject property but was renovated in 2004 and sold for an adjusted sale price of $197,000. Based on these factors the Assessor concludes that the current value assessment of the subject property at $190,000 is reasonable.

Analysis of MPAC’s Evidence

27The Board has reviewed the six suggested comparable properties submitted by MPAC and accepts only the property located at 7679 Riverside Drive as being similar to the subject and also having a valid sale.

28The Board rejects the remaining suggested comparable properties because of the following:

• The property at 7661 Riverside Drive is considerably smaller in building size, has a larger lot size and is 10 years newer than the subject property.
• The property located at 7601 Biddulph Street while it is comparable to the subject property in building and lot size, it is five years newer and has a sale that is well outside the valuation period of January 1, 2012.
• The property located at 7617 Chester Trail has the same lot size as the subject but is considerably smaller in building size and 32 years older.
• The property located at 7671 Whartman Street has a similar building size however the lot size is approximately three times larger than the subject property and the building is 27 years older.
• The property located at 7641 Gillespie Street has an identical lot size but the building size is considerably smaller, and is also 20 years older than the subject property and does not have a valid sale.

Appellant’s Evidence

29The Appellant submitted a package of documents comprising nine main exhibits as follows:

i. Exhibit 1 – What makes Port Franks unique. ii. Exhibit 2 – Residential Properties iii. Exhibit 3 – Medical Decisions iv. Exhibit 4 – Wind Argument v. Exhibit 5 – Insurance Debate vi. Exhibit 6 – Real Estate Value Reports vii. Exhibit 7 – Petition to the Auditor General viii. Exhibit 8 – Municipal Action ix. Exhibit 9 – Case Law

30Exhibits (i) to (ix) submitted by the Appellant provided a variety of resource information pertaining to the potential impact on human health and the potential impact on current value of properties because of the presence of telephone cell towers and wind turbines in the vicinity of residential properties.

31The Appellant provided an MLS summary listing titled “Residential Property Matches 2012-2014” which lists details pertaining to 87 properties sold in 2012, 2013 and 2014.

32The Appellant stated that her concerns include the following:

I. That the presence of the cell tower is having a negative impact on the value of her property and that of properties in general. II. The cell tower is not aesthetically pleasing and has a negative impact on the marketability of properties as well as their current value. III. The cell tower has an adverse effect on the health of individuals in the area of the tower; in addition, due to negative press properties remain on the sale listings for a longer period of time before they are sold.

33The Appellant stated that the various resource information submitted in exhibits (i) through (ix) support her argument that the presence of the cell tower and wind turbines have a negative impact on the value of her property and MPAC has not taken this into consideration.

Analysis of Appellant’s Evidence

34The Board has reviewed the information submitted in Exhibits (i) through (ix) provided by the Appellant and accepts that the various discussion papers, research, studies etc. contribute to the debate surrounding the impact that telephone cell towers and wind turbines may have on property values. The Board was not convinced that these studies provided conclusive evidence to adequately demonstrate that the cell tower and wind turbines have a direct negative impact on the subject property.

35The Board considered the evidence provided by the Appellant in Exhibit ii, and is unable to place any weight on the information therein because the accuracy of the information could not be verified. In addition, essential details on properties were absent and therefore could not be reliably used for comparison.

36The Board considered the arguments advanced by the Appellant pertaining to the negative impact on value as a result of the physical presence of the Cell Tower, its negative aesthetics, its adverse impact on health as well as the negative impact on marketability and sales of properties in the vicinity. The Board is of the opinion that while these arguments may be useful in certain circumstances, the Board was not presented with evidence to show whether, and to what extent, these arguments had a specific and measurable impact on the subject property.

Board’s Analysis

37The Board finds that of the six suggested comparable properties submitted by MPAC as shown in Table 1, only the property located at 7679 Riverside Drive is similar to the subject property and has a valid sale. The Board therefore accepts this property for consideration in the determination of the current value of the subject property.

38In response to the Appellant’s concerns regarding the potential negative impact on the value of the subject property resulting from the construction and activation of the cell tower in the vicinity of the subject property; the Board accepts the explanation by the Assessor that after reviewing sales history information from the MPAC system no discernable negative impact on the current value could be found and no potential negative impact could be established.

39The Board is not convinced that the extensive amount of materials provided by the Appellant and covering a wide spectrum of subjects pertaining to cell towers and wind turbines and other subjects has any direct and specific impact on the current value of the subject property. Further, no evidence was provided to demonstrate a clear and specific co-relation of the information submitted to the specific circumstances and potential negative impact of the subject property.

40The Board is unable to accept the Appellant’s listing of sales information of properties because the accuracy of the information could not be verified as well as the fact that the information was incomplete to allow for meaningful comparisons.

Determination of Current Value

41The Assessment Act states that the best measure of current value is an arm’s length and market tested sale of the subject property on the valuation date. If no such transaction took place, a further measure of current value is 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. This method ensures that a willing buyer will take into account a variety of factors that, in his opinion, constitute a reasonable price; this takes into account the fact that a willing buyer’s offer is therefore a reflection of the consideration of all factors (both negative and positive) in the purchase price. While the Appellant is of the view that MPAC should reduce her assessment to take into account the effects of the cell tower on her property, the Board did not have convincing evidence to entertain the Appellant’s claim. The Board believes that the impact (if any) of the cell towers would be reflected in the sales price of properties in the vicinity of the subject property and, as such, the Board agrees that the best method to determine the current value of the subject property is based on the sales of similar properties in the neighborhood.

42The Board finds that the only property that is comparable to the subject property and having a valid sale is the property located at 7679 Riverside Drive. The sale value per square foot of this property is $122.47. When this value is applied to the subject property it results in a current value of $207,219.

43The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $207,219 (rounded).

Equity with Similar Lands in the Vicinity

44The Board is required under s. 44.(3) sub-paragraph (b) of the Act, to 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.

45For purposes of establishing equity, properties do not need to be comparable; they need to be of a similar nature and within a reasonable proximity. MPAC did not present any argument on equity. However, the Appellant provided the Board with a Table titled “2012 Port Franks Sales Equity Analysis” in which she listed the sales and assessment values of 26 residential properties sold in Port Franks. The average Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) of the 26 properties is 0.98. A value within five percentage points is usually considered an acceptable value. In this case the average ASR of 0.98 falls within an acceptable range and suggests that MPAC’s methodology may be producing assessments consistent with sales. The Board therefore finds that no adjustment is required for equity in accordance with s. 44(3) (b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

46The Board finds that the current value of the subject property as of the valuation date of January 1, 2012 is $207,000 (rounded).

47The Board finds no adjustment is required for equity purposes under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

48No party requested an increase in the assessment therefore the Board confirms the assessment of the subject property as follows:

• The Board confirms the assessment for the 2013 and deemed 2014 in the amount of $174,000.
• The Board confirms the assessment for the deemed 2015 taxation year in the amount $190,000.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

49An appeal for the 2014 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) provides that the Appellant is deemed to have made the same appeal for the subsequent taxation year if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year. The Board has not disposed of the 2014 appeal before March 31, 2015. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2015 taxation year.

50Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years

For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property,

(a) in relation to the assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34 for the year; and

(b) in relation to the assessment, including assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34, for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year or, if an assessment has been made under section 32, 33 or 34, before the 90th day after the notice of assessment was mailed.

Footnotes

1. 1Subsection 5 permits the Minister to prescribe a different valuation day. A different day has not been prescribed.