Kenneth Alvin Selby v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 86922

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

December 21, 2015

FILE NO.:

WR 134386

Assessed Person(s):

Kenneth Alvin Selby and Thomas Andrew Selby

Appellant(s):

Kenneth Alvin Selby

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)

Region No. 17

Respondent(s):

Town of Bracebridge

Property Location(s):

160 Browning Island

Municipality(ies):

Town of Bracebridge

Roll Number(s):

4418-020-007-01400-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3000490, 3023475 (and 3088130 deemed 2015)

Taxation Year(s):

2013, 2014 and deemed 2015

Hearing Event No.

581360 and 594932

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

May 12,2015 and August 20, 2015 in Bracebridge, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Ken Selby

Self-represented

Thomas Selby

Self-represented

MPAC

Pamela Hawkins

Town of Bracebridge

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LESLIE FLEMMING

INTRODUCTION

1This matter came on for hearing on May, 12, 2015. As the hearing was not concluded on that day, it resumed on August 20, 2015. The decision was reserved.

2160 Browning Island is a parcel of land located on Browning Island in Lake Muskoka which includes a seasonal residence on water and a portion of land registered as managed forest property. The property is accessible by water only and used seasonally by the Appellants. It is an irregular parcel of land, with 275 feet of effective frontage according a MPAC records – a fact in dispute in this appeal. At the narrowest, the parcel is 160 feet wide. The rear of the property broadens out and this is where the managed forest is located. 1.57 acres is allocated to the residential class, and 11.03 acres is allocated to the managed forests class, for a total area of 12.06 acres.

3The assessment was returned in the amount of $972,000 in 2013, comprising $76,400 in managed forests and $895,600 in the seasonal residential portion of the land. At this time, the managed forests were comprised of 50.18 acres, and the residential portion was 1.08 acres in size. In February of 2013, the Appellants donated 38.65 acres of the managed forests land to the Muskoka Conservancy.

4In 2014, the assessment was returned in the amount of $1,008,000, comprising $80,800 in managed forests (of 11.3 acres) and $927,200 for the seasonal residential portion of the lot. Following the donation, the residential portion had increased by 0.49 of an acre to 1.57 acres.

5In 2015, the assessment was returned in the amount of $985,000, comprising $64,800 in managed forests (11.3 acres) and $920,200 in the seasonal residential portion (of 1.57 acres).

6During the course of the hearing, MPAC revised its recommended assessments. For 2013 the recommendation was $903,000, comprising $77,200 for the managed forests lands and $825,800 for the residential portion. For 2014 and 2015, MPAC recommends $913,000 (rounded), comprising $51,800 for the managed forests lands and $ 861,200 for the residential portion.

7The Appellants dispute the assessments, including the recommendations made during the hearing. They argue that MPAC has overestimated the length of the water frontage; they have made errors in their calculations, especially with regard to the calculation of subsequent reductions in value; they overestimated the quality of the residence located on the property; MPAC forgot to adjust for the steepness of the slope between the cottage and the water; and, lastly, MPAC has not used the most appropriate comparable sales in determining the value of the subject property. The Appellants seek an order reducing the total current value of the lot, including the managed forests and the residential portion, to an amount between $748,000 and $802,000.

ISSUES

8What is the current value of the residential portion of the land for 2013, 2014 and 2015?

9What is the current value of the managed forests land before and after the donation of 38.65 acres to the Muskoka Conservancy?

10Is 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

11The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property for the 2013 taxation year is $840,300, comprising $14,500 (rounded) for the managed forests and $825,800 for the residential portion of the lands. Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property as at January 1, 2012, for the 2013 taxation year is reduced from $972,000 comprising $76,400 in managed forests and $895,600 in residential lands, to $14,500 in managed forests and $825,800 in residential lands.

12The assessment for the 2014 taxation year is reduced from $1,008,000 comprising $80,800 in the managed forests classification and $927,200 in the residential classification to $864,400 comprising $3,200 in the managed forests lands and $861,200 in residential lands.

13The assessment for the 2015 taxation year is reduced from $985,000 comprising $64,800 in the managed forests classification and $920,200 in the residential classification to $864,400, comprising $3,200 in the managed forests lands and $861,200 in residential lands.

14The Board finds that 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.

Evidence

15Ms. Hawkins on behalf of MPAC called Terri McLean to give evidence for the assessor, and introduced Exhibit 1, which is her Valuation Report for the subject property.

16Ms. McLean gave a brief history of the subject property. She advised that a portion of the subject lands had been registered with the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2013; at that time the parcel was a total of 51.26 acres in size, of which 50.18 acres was enrolled in the managed forests program and the remaining 1.08 acres was classified as residential land. In February, 2013, the owners of the land severed 38.65 acres from the parcel and donated this piece of land to the Muskoka Conservancy, a charitable land trust. The owners, Ken and Anne Selby, transferred the remaining land to Thomas Selby in 2013, including 1.57 acres classified as residential land, and 11.03 acres enrolled in the managed forests program for a total of 12.6 acres. MPAC pointed out that the increase in overall value following the transfer of the managed forests property was due to the fact that the residential portion of the land increased by 0.49 acres.

17In 2012, the Appellants constructed a two-storey, four bedroom dwelling on the property, comprising 1,308 square feet (“sq. ft.) per floor, with three and a half bathrooms, central air, and decking around the exterior of the home. There is a full unfinished basement. MPAC has assessed this building as being quality level 7.0 – a fact contested by the Appellants.

18The property fronts on the north shore of Browning Island. Also located on the lot is a small cabin built in 1904 of 260 sq. ft., as well as a boathouse of 598 sq. ft. built in 1971 and a boat port of 456 sq. ft. also built in 1971.

19Both parties provided a number of comparable sales in the vicinity from which to gauge the appropriate current value of the subject property. Some properties were clearly more valuable than the subject for the reasons that the water frontage was much larger or the structures located on the property were of higher values than those located on the subject. All are water access seasonal recreational dwellings located on islands in Lake Muskoka. The Board has selected seven of the most comparable property sales, listed below.

20Both parties agreed that the most relatively comparable property sold anywhere near the valuation day – January 1, 2012 – was 236 Browning Island. However, the Appellants provided a copy of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale showing that the sale had included the transfer of two other properties. The Appellants’ evidence and testimony called into question whether or not the value as evidenced by the Land Transfer Tax affidavit was reliable and whether or not the transaction had been at arm’s length. Given the evidence, this transaction will not be considered by the Board as a comparable property sale.

21During the course of evidence, Ms. McLean and Ms. Hawkins made some changes to their calculations. They accepted the Appellants’ arguments that the slope of the subject property was not level but steep, and adjusted for this. MPAC had determined that the effective waterfront was over 400 feet long; during the hearing they reduced this figure to 275 feet, a figure that had been used initially. They corrected an error which had erroneously attributed to the Appellants a 1,000 sq. ft. structure belonging to a neighbour. MPAC recommended a reduction in the assessment to capture these changes: the recommended current value for the residential portion for 2013 was $825,000 and $861,000 for 2014. The Appellants disputed the accuracy of the revised calculations and rejected the new recommended values.

22Evidence for the Appellants was given by both Ken Selby and Thomas Selby. The Appellants entered a tabbed and indexed binder of supporting materials, which was collectively marked as Exhibit 3, plus Exhibit 4, the Managed Forest Plan Area Verification Form dated April, 2015.

23Using a series of maps, excerpts from surveys, and copies of a number of Property Assessment Notices delivered by MPAC, the Selbys were able to give a history of the confusion evidenced by MPAC in dealing with this property. Especially noticeable was the constantly changing effective frontage, which ranged from 346 feet to 557 feet over a number of years. The frontage for the subject property includes a small point of land, which may have contributed to the difficulty in gauging an accurate length. The Selbys submit that the frontage of 275 feet is still too long, although they were prepared to accept that measurement rather than the larger frontages assessed earlier.

24The Board prefers to examine the various concerns evidenced by the Appellants by issue.

Assessment of the Residential Land

Determination of Current Value

25Section 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.”

26Section 19.(1) of the Act states that, “…the assessment of land shall be based on its current value…”.

27The 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 of January 1, 2012. If no such transaction took place, a further measure of current value is 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.

28To 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. In seasonal/recreational properties on water, factors will include not only the structure and quality of primary and secondary buildings, but also topography, the presence of permanent docking, the amount of frontage, direction of exposure, and the quality of the waterfront (for example, whether it is shallow, deep, sandy, rocky) and so on. Where properties are accessible by water only, proximity to the mainland is another factor which may influence value. Seasonal/recreational properties are very seldom directly comparable because no two are alike. Therefore, particular attention must be paid to the comprehensive description of each comparable property.

29In the present case, the Appellants provided an item-by-item breakdown of value highlighting features of the outbuildings and the cottage constructed in 2012. Their argument dealt with their analysis of the valuation of individual features and the cost of construction. However, the Board, guided by the Act, considers the current value as a whole, not by breaking down the cost of each component. In order to distinguish between the subject property and comparable sales, there must be an allowance for various features such as differing sizes of lots and buildings, differing topographies and waterfront qualities. The most comprehensive analysis will be achieved by examining the property as a whole.

30MPAC’s comparable property sales were all located on Browning Island. The Appellants introduced property sales from other Lake Muskoka Islands, some of which are located in other municipalities. While these properties are not located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the subject property, their close proximity and similar features make some of these comparable sales useful. The Board chose to consider the following properties proposed by the Appellants:

• 350 Browning Island (sold October, 2012)

• 510 Browning Island (sold August, 2011)

• Rankin Island (sold October, 2012 – Roll No. 4402-020-239-04200-0000)

• 5 Muskadasa Island (sold June, 2011)

31The Appellants’ other comparable sales were too far removed in time, having sold in 2010, 2013 or 2014.

32None of the comparable sales proposed by either party are identical to the subject property, but they serve to provide a range of values. Of the comparable sales proposed by MPAC (excluding 236 Browning Island), three occurred in 2011 and 2012, within seven months of the valuation day. One sale, 374 Browning Island, occurred in 2010 and is considered too far removed from the valuation day to be as accurate a comparable as those sales occurring within six to 12 months of the valuation day. The preferred MPAC comparable property sales include:

• 180 Browning Island (sold July, 2012)

• 220 Browning Island (sold July, 2011)

• 326 Browning Island (sold September, 2011)

33In comparing the current values of the subject property and the property sales in the vicinity, both parties accepted and used time-adjusted values as derived from MPAC’s study of 360 sales in the vicinity occurring between January, 2010 and December, 2012. (Time Adjusted price indicated by “TA”).

34Of the seven comparable sales selected, one is clearly superior:

• 220 Browning Island - sold July, 2011, for TA $1,154,045. This property has 550 feet more effective frontage and a site area twice the size of the subject property. While the cottage is slightly smaller, older and of a lower quality, there are three cabins on the property. Evidence provided by the Appellants shows that at least one cabin is new, rather than all being constructed in the 1930s. The difference in waterfront and site area account for the superior value.

35Some of the comparable properties are inferior and set current values below the current value of the subject property. They include:

• 180 Browning Island – sold July, 2012 for TA $520,182. This property has 77 more feet of waterfront and a site area just slightly is 45 to 50 years older, 1,575 sq. ft. smaller and lacks a basement. The property includes a two-storey, three-slip boathouse with two bedrooms on the second floor. The Appellants argue that the cottage itself includes four, not three bedrooms. The Appellants concede that the quality of the cottage is inferior to the subject property.

• 510 Browning Island – sold August, 2011 for TA $798,764. Information provided by the Appellants shows this property to have 435 feet of frontage on the Lake and a site area of approximately one acre. The cottage is 15 years older than the subject cottage, with three bedrooms, a den and two bathrooms. The total cottage area is 1,938 sq. ft., or 678 sq. ft. less area than the subject. No information is available regarding quality. There is a single-slip boathouse and no other outbuildings noted. The smaller site area and smaller cottage, smaller boathouse and lack of other outbuildings make this property inferior.

36Relatively comparable properties included the following:

• 350 Browning Island – sold October, 2012 for TA $828,780. This property has 80 more feet of frontage and a site area of 4.1 acres. The cottage, with an effective year built of 1975, is two storeys with wooden exterior and shingle roof (as opposed to the subject property’s steel roof). It is marginally larger than the subject cottage, and has one cabin and a small boathouse. This property would be less valuable than the subject property for the reason that it has an older cottage with a slightly lower quality rating.

• 326 Browning Island – sold September, 2011 for TA $844,211. This property has 190 feet of effective frontage or 85 fewer feet of shoreline than the subject property. The site area is 4.65 acres without a managed forests component. The Appellants submit that the site area is actually more than half an acre larger than recorded by MPAC. Built in 1985, the single-storey cottage is 544 sq. ft. smaller than the subject and the building lacks a basement. The boathouse, built in 1988, has three enclosed slips and is clearly superior to the subject property’s boathouse in that it is over three times as large and fully enclosed. It does not have accommodation above. The topography is sloped. This property is a good comparable although the larger frontage and size of the cottage of the subject property would support a slightly higher current value than this comparable property.

• Rankin Island (Roll No. 4402-020-039-04200-0000) – sold in October, 2012 for TA $903,600. The Appellants proposed this property as a suitable comparable given its location in proximity to Browning Island. The waterfront is 589 feet, with a site area of 4.83 acres. The five-bedroom cottage was improved in 2009 and is approximately 300 sq. ft. smaller than the subject. However, there is a two-slip boathouse with accommodation above, a guest cottage and a cabin. The Appellants state that this property is similar to theirs. The larger waterfront and boathouse would support a slightly higher current value than the subject property‘s value.

• 5 Muskadasa Island – sold in June, 2011 for TA $978,730. This property is 1.79 acres with 340 feet of frontage. The single-storey cottage is 408 sq. ft. smaller, than the subject property’s cottage; however, the two-slip boathouse has accommodation above and there is a cabin on the property. No information is available about the date and quality of construction. The topography is level. The current value of this property is higher than the subject property’s value, which likely results from the additional frontage and acreage (when compared to the portion of the subject property’s land attributed to the residential assessment in the amount of 1.03 acres).

37The comparable sales provided by both parties confirm that the recommended current value proposed by MPAC is supportable for the residential portion of the subject property. The values recommended by MPAC are lower than two of the four relatively comparable properties and slightly higher than two others. MPAC reduced the earlier assessment in order to correct a number of errors on their files. The corrections account for the topography and the assessment of an additional building on a different property, and also relate to the downgrading of the cabin quality from 2.0 to 1.0. While the Appellants argue that the main structure is given additional value as a 7.0 quality structure, the comparison of this property with comparable sales ranked as possessing quality 6.0 and 6.5 residences leads to the conclusion that no additional value is imported by the slightly better quality assessed by MPAC.

38The Board finds that the current value of the residential portion of the subject property for 2013 is $825,800 as recommended by MPAC. Comparable sales provided by both parties support this value as reasonable for the property in this location.

39In 2014 the proportion of the residential lands increased by 0.49 acres. MPAC recommends an increase in the residential portion of the assessment of $35,400 to $861,200, which the Board accepts as reasonable and supportable in light of the comparable sales relied on by both parties.

Assessment of the Managed Forests

40The parties agreed that the managed forests portion of the subject property comprises 11.3 acres after the donation of 38.65 acres to the Muskoka Conservancy. The managed forests are located away from the shore at the rear portion of the property where, along with other managed forests parcels, is located the Browning Island Nature Reserve. Managed forests lands are to be assessed based on their current use only as set out in s. 19.(5.2) and s. 19.(5.2.1):

41Section 19.(5.2) provides:

Conservation land, managed forests. – The current value of land that is conservation land as defined in the regulations or land in the managed forests property class shall be based only on the current use of the land and not other uses to which the land could be put.

42Section 19.(5.2.1) provides:

Current value of managed forests. – Despite subsection (5.2) and any other provision of this Act, the Minister may, by regulation, provide that the current value of the land in the managed forests property class shall be determined in accordance with the regulations.

43Ontario Regulation 282/98, s. 32.2(1) as amended (“Regulation”), sets out the rules respecting the determination of current value of land in the managed forests class. It provides:

32.1 (1) The current value of land in the managed forests property class shall be determined as follows for the 2013 and subsequent taxation years:

1. Determine the value of the land in accordance with subsection 19 (5.2) of the Act.

2. Determine the value of the land in accordance with subsection (2).

3. If the value determined under paragraph 1 is less than the value determined under paragraph 2, the current value of the land is the value determined under paragraph 1.

4. If the value determined under paragraph 2 is less than 31 per cent of the value determined under paragraph 1, the current value of the land is the amount calculated by multiplying the value determined under paragraph 1 by 0.31.

5. In any other case, the current value of the land is the value determined under paragraph 2. O. Reg. 656/05, s. 1; O. Reg. 394/08, s. 2; O. Reg. 339/12, s. 1.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 2 of subsection (1), the value of the land is determined as follows:

1. Determine whether the geographic area in which the land is located is listed in Column 2 of Table 1 to Part IX.1 of this Regulation. If it is, take the step described in paragraph 2. If it is not, take the steps described in paragraphs 4 and 5.

2. If the geographic area is listed in Column 2 of Table 1, determine whether the land band for the land, as assigned by the assessment corporation, is listed in Column 3 of Table 1 for the applicable geographic area. If it is, take the steps described in paragraphs 3 and 5. If it is not, take the steps described in paragraphs 4 and 5.

3. For land located in a geographic area listed in Column 2 of Table 1 and assigned to a land band listed in Column 3 of Table 1, identify the applicable value per acre of the land as set out in Column 4 of Table 1.

4. For any other land, identify the applicable value per acre of the land as set out in Column 2 of Table 2 to Part IX.1 of this Regulation using the land band assigned to the land by the assessment corporation.

5. The value of the land is calculated by multiplying the applicable value per acre of the land by the acreage. O. Reg. 656/05, s. 1; O. Reg. 101/09, s. 1.

(3) In this section,

“land band” means a geographic area in which similar farm properties sell for similar prices, as determined by the assessment corporation under subsection 19 (5) of the Act. O. Reg. 656/05, s. 1.

44Evidence for MPAC respecting the calculation of the assessment of the managed forests portion of the land was given by Pam Hawkins. She advised that the managed forests program is an incentive program allowing managed forests to be valued at a lower rate under the Regulation. Briefly, MPAC interprets Ontario Regulation 32.1 as setting the current value of the land as the greater of the value per acre calculated using the land band value in Table 1 to the Regulation, or the amount which is 31% of the current value of the managed forests portion of the land. In a well-presented analysis contained in Exhibit 5 for MPAC, Ms. Hawkins took the Board through the calculation and through revisions that occurred during the hearing. For 2013, Ms. Hawkins calculated that the current value of the 11.3 acres was $169,168, and that 31% of this value was $52,442. Because the land band value worked out to $288 per acre, or $3,200 (rounded), s. 32.(1)4 required MPAC to use the larger value or $52,442 in Ms. Hawkins’ opinion.

45Ms. Hawkins submitted that, while s. 32.2 of the Regulation applies to parcels that contain land in both managed forests and another property class, the calculations under that section would result in a higher value. She elected to use s. 32.1 of the Regulation instead.

46Section 32.2 provides as follows:

32.2 (1) This section applies if a parcel of land contains both land in the managed forests property class and land in another property class. O. Reg. 656/05, s. 1.

(2) The current value of the land shall be determined as follows for the 2013 and subsequent taxation years:

1. Determine the current value of the land in the managed forests property class under subsection 19 (5.2) of the Act.

2. Determine the current value of the land in the managed forests property class under section 32.1 of this Regulation.

3. Subtract the amount determined under paragraph 2 from the amount determined under paragraph 1. If the amount determined under paragraph 2 is greater than the amount determined under paragraph 1, the amount calculated under this paragraph is deemed to be zero.

4. Subtract the amount calculated under paragraph 3 from the current value of the entire parcel of land.

5. The amount calculated under paragraph 4 is the current value of the land. O. Reg. 656/05, s. 1; O. Reg. 394/08, s. 3; O. Reg. 339/12, s. 2.

47MPAC recommended the same value for 2014 and 2015 as well: $52,442 for the managed forests portion of the land, resulting in a total assessment of $913,000.

48The Appellants made no submissions regarding the Regulation.

49The first requirement is to determine the current value of the property. Under

s. 19.(5.2) of the Act, while the managed forests portion of the land should be assessed at its current value, that current value is based only on the use to which the land is currently put and not on other uses to which the land could be put. In this case, the evidence confirmed that the only use to which the 11.03 parcel is being put is as managed forests land. Therefore, the current value is the value prescribed by s. 32.1 of Ontario Regulation 282/98. The value is based on the prescribed “land band”, contained in Table 1 of Ontario Regulation 292/98. The prescribed value is to be used in all cases other than where the value of the property as determined under s. 19.(5.2) is less than the “prescribed value” or where 31% of the value as determined under s. 19.(5.2) is greater than the prescribed value. Section 32.2(2) of the Regulation applies specifically to the case where a parcel of land contains land in both the Managed Forests Property Class and another property class. It is clear from s. 32.2(2) that the same advantageous provisions apply to the determination of current value of the managed forests portion of those lands as would apply to other managed forests land.

50The Board does not accept the determination by MPAC that the current value of the managed forests portion of the property is $15,351 per acre for a total of $169,168. The Board finds that the determination of value of the managed forest portion of the land is clearly specified by s. 19.(5.2). Using the Regulation, the Board calculates the value as per sub-paragraphs 1 through 5 of s. 32.2 (2) of the Regulation. Using Table 1 of the Regulation, which sets out the value of land band 1701 as $288 per acre. The amount per acre was the same for all three years of this appeal. Section 32.(2)5 provides that “the value of the land is calculated by multiplying the applicable value per acre of land by the acreage”. For 2013, this value is multiplied by 50.18 acres for a total of $14,451.84, rounded to $14,500. For 2014 and 2015, the land band value is multiplied by 11.03 acres, resulting in a value of $3,176 or $3,200 rounded. This is the “value determined under paragraph 2”.

51Section 32.2 (2)5 provides as follows: “The amount calculated under paragraph 4 is the current value of the land.” Because the value is not less than 31 % of the value determined under paragraph 1, the value need not be multiplied by 0.31 as set out in paragraph 4, s. 32.1(1).

52The value of the managed forests portion of the land, when added to the residential portion of the land for 2013 in the amount of $825,800 results in a total current value of $828,200. For 2014 and 2015, the managed forests value ($3,200) added to the residential portion ($861,200) results in a total of $864,400.

Equity

53Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act mandates that the Board shall:

(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.

54The objective of the Act is to ensure that every parcel of land be assessed at the correct current value. The Regulations work with the provisions of the Act and assist in the interpretation and application of those provisions. In the case of managed forests properties, Ontario Regulation 282/98 contains specific rules that both determine eligibility for inclusion in this property class the method of assessment. Part V.1 “Assessment of the Managed Forests Property Class and Related Land” sets out the provisions for the determination of current value for managed forests and also for situations where the parcel contains both managed forests and another property class.

55Where the current value is determined using Table 1, the vicinity would include any properties in the land band in which the subject property is located. Because the current value per acre is set out by Regulation, no adjustment on the ground of equity would be required.

CONCLUSION

56The Board finds that the current value of the subject property for 2013 is $828,200 (rounded), comprising $3,200 (rounded) for the managed forests and $825,000 for the residential portion of the lands. The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $864,400 for 2014 and 2015, comprising $3,200 (rounded) in managed forests and $861,200 in respect of the residential portion of the lands.

57The Board finds that 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.

58Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property as at January 1, 2012, for the 2013 taxation year is reduced from $972,000 comprising $76,400 in managed forests and $895,600 in residential lands to $840,300 comprising $14,500 in managed forests and $825,800 in residential lands.

59The assessment for the 2014 taxation year is reduced from $1,008,000 comprising $80,800 in the managed forests classification and $927,200 in the residential classification to $864,400, comprising $3,200 in the managed forests lands and $861,200 in residential lands.

60The assessment for the 2015 taxation year is reduced from $985,000 comprising $64,800 in the managed forests classification and $920,200 in the residential classification to $864,400, comprising $3,200 in the managed forests lands and $861,200 in residential lands.