Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: May 17, 2016
Assessed Person(s): Anne Marie Sleggers
Appellant(s): Anne Marie Sleggers and Michael Hecimovich
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 26
Respondent(s): Town of Plympton-Wyoming
Property Location(s): 3126 Douglas Street
Municipality(ies): Town of Plympton-Wyoming
Roll Number(s): 3835-340-020-38000-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3118727 and 3159820 (deemed 2016 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No. 610930
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: February 23, 2016 in Sarnia, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Anne Marie Sleggers and Michael Hecimovich | Michael Hecimovich |
| MPAC | Murlena Somerville |
| Town of Plympton-Wyoming | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARILYN SHARMA
INTRODUCTION
1Michael Hecimovich, who is one of the Appellants, acted as the representative of both Appellants at the hearing.
2The subject property is a seasonal/recreational dwelling space - First Tier on Water and is located at 3126 Douglas Street in Plympton-Wyoming.
3The subject property is situated on a lot with an effective site area of 27,442.80 square feet, a water frontage of 133.25 feet and a depth of 205.94 feet.
4The building on the property is a single family detached dwelling built in 1933 and has a total building area of 1,200 square feet and a detached garage of 320 square feet in area.
5The subject property is not winterized and its use is seasonal.
6For 2015, the subject property was assessed at $586,000. During the 2015 Request for Reconsideration process, MPAC agreed to reduce the assessment to $500,000. However, this offer was refused by the Appellants.
7The Appellants believe that this assessment is excessive in relation to other properties in the neighbourhood and argue that the suggested comparable properties used in MPAC’s analysis are not similar to his property since they are all winterized dwellings with year round usage while the subject property is not winterized and is strictly used on a seasonal/recreational basis.
ISSUE
8The issue before the Board is to determine whether the subject property is over assessed.
DECISION
9The Board finds that the current value of the subject property for the 2015 taxation year is $417,600.
10The Board finds that no adjustment is required for equity purposes under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”).
11Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property is reduced from $586,000 to $418,000 (rounded) for the taxation year 2015.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Legislation
12For the 2015 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