Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
November 25, 2016
FILE NO.:
WR 142293
Assessed Person(s):
Megan Ann Smith Hagarty
Appellant
Megan Smith
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15
Respondent(s):
Town of Oakville
Property Location(s):
290 Donessle Drive
Municipality(ies):
Town of Oakville
Roll Number(s):
2401-040-090-10503-0000
Appeal Number(s):
2996234, 3008222, 3083084, and 3154299
Taxation Year(s):
2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016
Hearing Event No.
635245
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard:
August 16, 2016 in Oakville, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
Megan A. Hagarty Smith
Robert Baranowski Roman Andrzejewski
MPAC
John Cole
Town of Oakville
Susan Price
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI AND CRISTINA MARQUES
INTRODUCTION
1The appeals before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) were filed by the Assessed Person/Appellant, Megan Ann Hagarty Smith, in respect to the returned assessment of $3,550,000 for the subject property at 290 Donessle Drive in the Town of Oakville for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years.
2At the first sitting of the hearing dated December 9, 2015, there was a dispute between Robert Baranowski, representing the Appellant and John Cole, representing MPAC with respect to the lot size of the subject property. The hearing was adjourned to August 16, 2016 in order for MPAC to revise the measurement of the site area of the subject property.
3The Board re-convened the hearing on August 16, 2016. At the outset of the hearing, Roman Andrzejewski, also representing the Appellant, stated that after consulting with Mr. Cole, he agreed with the initial measurement of the subject property’s lot size by MPAC and therefore was ready to proceed with the remaining issues.
ISSUES
4Mr. Cole is of the view that a fair and equitable assessed value for the subject property is $3,550,000 for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years. He testified that the current value assessment (“CVA”) of the subject property is based on the direct sales comparison approach to value supported by the time adjusted sale of three comparable properties presented by MPAC.
5Mr. Andrzejewski contests that the current value of the subject property is too high. He requests that the Board reduce the value of the subject property to $3,080,000 based on the two comparable properties in the vicinity, as well as on the Board’s previous decisions regarding the subject property.
6The Town of Oakville was in attendance, however, no evidence was adduced in the hearing.
7The Board has to decide:
Whether the returned assessment of $3,550,000 for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years for the subject property is at current value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date; and
Whether the value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
DECISION
8The Board determined that the current value of the subject property is $3,372,000 and that no further adjustment is required to make this value equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.
9Therefore, the Board reduces the assessment of the subject property for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years from $3,550,000 to $3,372,000.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Property Description
10The subject property is located at 290 Donessle Drive in the Town of Oakville. The subject property is a single family detached home. The subject property was built in 2002 with a total building area of 5,878 square foot (“sq. ft.”). MPAC has designated this property to be a quality 8.5. The subject lot has an effective frontage of 65.81 feet, an effective depth of 204.79 feet and an effective site area of 21,344.40 sq. ft. The description of the subject property was agreed to by Mr. Andrzejewski as properly reflecting the characteristics described by MPAC.
Current Value
MPAC’s Evidence
11Mr. Cole filed Exhibit 1 in support of the assessment as returned. Exhibit 1 is a Valuation Report of the subject property which includes the Property Profile, a map of the vicinity identifying the location of the subject property and the comparable sales, Comparable Sales Chart Appendix A, Price Change over Time Analysis to determine time adjustment factors and an Equity Analysis.
12Mr. Cole introduced three sales of comparables. He argues that based on the adjusted sale range of value for the comparable properties, the current value should be confirmed at $3,550,000 for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years. Furthermore, based on the equity analysis showing a 1.03 median Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”), he requests that no adjustment be made to compensate for the equitable assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
13Details of Mr. Cole’s “Comparable Sales Chart” are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Subject
Sale A
Sale B
Sale C
290 Donessle Drive
192 Chartwell Road
183 Dianne Avenue
201 Dianne Avenue
CVA $
3,550,000
3,214,000
3,357,000
3,245,000
Sale Amount
3,249,000
3,420,000
2,812,000
Sale Date
2011/08
2012/09
2011/07
Adj. Sale Amount
3,305,128
3,313,705
2,872,113
Effective Frontage Ft.
65.81
100.00
120.00
90.00
Effective Depth Ft.
204.79
227.00
115.00
160.00
Effective Site Area/ sq. ft.
21,344.40
22,651.20
16,117.20
22,651.20
Year Built
2002
1962
2012
2008
Build Area/ sq. ft.
5,878
4,403
5,076
4,740
Basement Area/ sq. ft.
2,709
1,609
2,593
2,453
Finished Basement Area/sq. ft.
2,400
512
2,333
2,208
Quality Level
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
Comparability to Subject
Inferior
Inferior
Relatively comparable
14Mr. Cole testified that out of three comparable sales, Sales A and B are noted as inferior to the subject property therefore, the least comparable and Sale C is noted as relatively comparable and therefore, the most comparable to the subject property. He stated further that all three comparable have a quality level of 8.5.
15Mr. Cole testified that the subject property benefits a 5% positive adjustment in the MPAC multiple regression model for abutting green space. He stated that this is a benefit because no property will be built behind the subject property.
16Mr. Cole argues that the current value of the subject property falls within the range defined by the sales outlined in the analysis. Additionally, the adjusted sale prices of these sales demonstrate that the current value of $3,550,000 for the subject property is therefore correct and reasonable.
Appellant’s Evidence
17Mr. Andrzejewski submitted Exhibit 2 consisting of a list of two comparables showing the specifications of both properties which were generated from MPAC’s data base, pictures of the subject property, two engineering reports regarding the construction of the subject property and Notices of Decision of the Board respecting previous appeals of the subject property.
18Details of each property on Current Value Study are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Subject
Property 1
Property 2
290 Donessle Drive
149 Dianne Ave.
1189 Lakeshore Rd. East
CVA $
3,550,000
3,041,000
3,267,000
Sale Amount $
3,000,000
3,200,000
Sale Date
June 2012
July 2012
Effective Frontage Ft.
65.81
135.00
147.29
Effective Depth Ft.
204.79
139.00
276.93
Effective Site Area/ sq. ft.
21,344.40
19,166.40
41,150.91
Year Built
2002
2008
1886
Build Area/ sq. ft.
5,878
5,530
6,023
Basement Area/sq. ft.
2,709
2,961
3,328
Finished Basement Area/sq. ft.
2,400
1,865
1,450
Quality Level
8.5
8.0
8.0
19Mr. Andrzejewski testified that based on the following reasons, the current value of the subject property has to be reduced to $3,080,000:
the average adjusted sale values of two comparables per sq. ft. (Exhibit 2).
the Board’s previous decisions regarding two appeals on the subject property (2009-2011) taxation years, where 15% reduction was granted but was ignored by MPAC in the present Appeal.
MPAC’s 5% positive adjustment regarding the subject property abutting green space has to be removed because there is a fence between the subject property and the green space, a leash free dog park in the green area, which is more a nuisance than a benefit and a public walkway on the right side backing to the green space. In addition, a water calvert crosses the subject property, which causes flooding in spring time.
Legislation
20The Board must have regard to s.1, s.19. (1), s.19.2 (1), s. 40. (17), s. 40. (19),
s. 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) when determining whether or not the assessment under appeal is correct.
21Section 1 of the Act defines current value as follows:
“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.
22Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
23Section 19.2(1) of the Act provides:
19.2(1) Valuation days – Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:
For the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years, land is valued as of January 1, 2005.
For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.
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.
24Section 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.
25Section 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.
26Section 44.(3)(a) and (b) 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.
Board’s Analysis and Conclusions
27The thrust of the Act is to rely on current value as the basis for assessed value. 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.”
28The best evidence of current value is the sale of the subject property on or close to the valuation day of January 1, 2012. If, as in this case, no such sale occurred, the sales of similar properties in the vicinity will be considered to establish current value of the subject property.
29Mr. Cole presented three suggested comparable properties as shown in Table 1. He stated that Sales A and B are inferior to the subject property and Sale C is relatively comparable. The Board has reviewed the information pertaining to the three properties and finds that there is insufficient similarity between all three of the comparable properties and the subject property to allow for comparison because they do not have similar building sizes, lot sizes and ages. The Board therefore rejects MPAC’s suggested comparable properties to be similar to the subject property and suitable for comparative purposes.
30Mr. Andrzejewski submitted two suggested comparable properties as shown in Table 2. The Board has considered the specifications of both comparables and finds that they are not good comparables to the subject property in the vicinity with respect to
effective site area, building size, age and quality level. Therefore, the Board is reluctant to accept that there is similarity between the two comparables and the subject property.
31Mr. Andrzejewski submitted further that the Board granted a 15% reduction to the value of the subject property in two previous appeals whereas, the MPAC has ignored the above mentioned reduction in the present appeal. He presented a copy of the Board’s Notice of Decision dated December 30, 2011, which shows the total value of the subject property was reduced from $3,651,000 to 3,350,000 (Exhibit 2, pg. 12).
32The Board gives no consideration to Mr. Andrzejewski’s request that the adjustment from the previous decision should continue to be applied. The Board is aware that each appeal must be determined on its own particular merits and is not bound by a previous decision.
33Furthermore, the Board has considered the 5% positive adjustment by MPAC to the subject property abutting green area and for the following reasons finds it unreasonable (Exhibit 2, pg.10 and 11):
- There is a leash free dog park in the green area although, as per Ms. Price, Town representative, this designated area was implemented in 1996.
- There is a public walkway on the right side of the subject property that leads to the green area.
- There is a fence between the subject property and the green area.
- There is a water calvert in the back of the subject property that contributes to flooding, especially in the spring time.
34In this respect, the Board agrees with Mr. Andrzejewski’s explanation that a property abutting green space with the above mentioned characteristics has its nuisance rather than its benefits.
35Therefore, after reviewing both MPAC’s and the Appellant’s evidence, the Board determines that the subject property requires an adjustment by removing the 5% positive adjustment added by MPAC and sets the current value of the subject property at $3,372,000, which is fair and reasonable.
Equity Analysis
36The Board is required under s. 44.(3)(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 land of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.
37The Board finds that no equity adjustment is required.
CONCLUSION
38Based on the totality of the evidence presented, the Board reduces the assessment of the subject property from $3,550,000 to $3,372,000 for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years as of January 1, 2012.
“Margarita Okhovati”
MARGARITA OKHOVATI
MEMBER
“Cristina Marques”
CRISTINA MARQUES
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248```