Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: November 22, 2016
Assessed Person(s): Richard Harrison Barch
Appellant(s): Richard Barch
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 18
Respondent(s): City of St. Catharines
Property Location(s): 26 Bellevue Terrace
Municipality(ies): City of St. Catharines
Roll Number(s): 2629-020-020-04300-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3136094 and 3155888 (deemed 2016 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No. 625281
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: May 18, 2016 in St. Catharines, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Richard Barch
Self-represented
MPAC
Peter Benner
City of St. Catharines
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY ROBERT STEINBERG
INTRODUCTION
1The property under appeal is an irregular lot of 2,280 square feet (“sq. ft.) with a frontage of 11.5 meters and a depth of 21.3 meters. Located on the property is a single car garage, built in the 1920s or 1930s that is used for storage. The property is zoned residential.
2For the 2015 taxation year Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) has returned an assessment of the property at $32,500.
3Mr. Barch, the appellant and owner of the property, had previously appealed his assessment for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.
4The first issue before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is whether the appeal for the 2015 taxation year should be heard. The appeal for the 2013 year was heard by the Board and the same Member in early 2015. The appellant submits that at that hearing he did not have any evidence to argue what the value should be and only argued that the value placed on the property by MPAC was excessive.
5The MPAC representative, Mr. Benner asked the Board not to proceed with the hearing as the Board had confirmed the current value assessment (“CVA”) at $32,500 at the earlier hearing in 2015 for the 2013 taxation year. MPAC’s position is that the property is the same. However, Mr. Benner did not provide notice of issue estoppel pursuant to Rule 33 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to the other parties and as a result could not rely on issue estoppel at the hearing.
6The Board in considering the parties’ positions confirmed that the Board would proceed with the hearing.
7The issues the Board must determine are:
- The assessment of the property for the 2015 taxation year.
- Whether an assessment at current value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
8The appellant argues that in assessing his property, MPAC did not consider that the subject property is of an insufficient size to develop for residential use and that the cost of bring in water and sanitary services to the property is impractical. The property abuts the rear yards of other residential properties that use Bellevue Terrace for access to the rear of their properties and garages. Therefore the appellant submits that the assessment of $32,500 is excessive.
9In addition, the appellant submits that MPAC did not rely on any similar properties as comparables but took a residential land value and discounted it by 50% due to the lack of services.
10Mr. Benner stated that he did not come prepared to have this appeal heard by the Board on May 18, 2016. No comparables were introduced by MPAC at the 2015 hearing and the CVA was arrived at by taking 50% of a residential lot value. Mr. Benner had no new evidence to introduce and was to rely on the 2015 hearing that was based on a 50% reduction of the residential lot value.
11The appellant acting as the Advocate introduced J. William Losier, AACI, to give evidence by way of his appraisal as indicated in Exhibit 1. Mr. Losier’s appraisal report estimated the market value of the subject property at $4,000. His appraisal shows the location of the subject property in a plan of subdivision, pictures of the property and an abutting property. He also states that he has confirmed with the St. Catharines planning office that although zoned residential, the lot is of insufficient size to meet setbacks or side yard requirements in order to develop. This is supported by Exhibit 3 which is correspondence from the City of St. Catharine's planning department.
12Mr. Losier in Exhibit 1 introduces five comparables that are arms-length sales. Two of the sales are large acreages of 1.14 and 1.16 acres. Two sales have an area of 4,125 sq