Glazar v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 9988

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 26, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 136886

Assessed Person(s): Vojka Glazar

Appellant(s): Vojka Glazar

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 25

Respondent(s): Municipality of Grey Highlands

Property Location(s): 566740 Sideroad 7B

Municipality(ies): Municipality of Grey Highlands

Roll Number(s): 4208-390-001-06600

Appeal Number(s): 3108464, 3108465 and 3122827

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and deemed 2015

Hearing Event No.: 603451

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

Heard: November 24, 2015 in Meaford, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Vojka Glazar	Self-represented
MPAC	R. Brent Williams
Municipality of Grey Highlands	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1In 2013, the Appellant sought to address what she saw as an inequity in assessment resulting from the subject property being assessed as two separate parcels. This situation had been in place since the Appellant purchased the property in 2000. With support from the Municipality, Ms. Glazar petitioned MPAC to consolidate the subject property into a single roll number, thus simplifying its assessment. MPAC agreed to the consolidation and in doing so, consulted with the administrator of the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program (“CLTIP”), which is the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“MNRF”). MPAC undertook this step as part of the normal course when changes, including roll number consolidations, to properties with a conservation land component occur.

2For the 2013 taxation year, the two roll numbers were assessed separately. The current value assessment (“CVA”) of the first roll number, 4208-390-001-06600 (“06600”) is $287,000 and the CVA of the second roll number, 4208-390-001-03702 (“03702”) is $95,000. Each of these roll numbers was apportioned between the Residential Tax Class and the Conservation Lands Tax Class as follows:

	06600	03702*	Total
Residential	$206,800	$38,200	$245,000
Conservation Lands	$ 80,200	$56,800	$137,000
Total	$287,000	$95,000	$382,000

*The current value of roll number 03702 for the 2013 taxation year is not before the Board.

3Post consolidation and returned for the 2014 taxation year, the property is assessed at $310,000, apportioned as follows:

Residential Tax Class – $245,100 Conservation Lands – $64,900

4These results gave rise to questions from the Appellant:

• How did the consolidation result in an increase in residential assessment? and
• Why was the percentage of the Conservation Lands different post-consolidation when compared to the percentage of the total exempt land of the two roll numbers prior to consolidation?

5MPAC responded that MNRF re-considered the area of the property subject to the CLTIP on the subject lands. Prior to consolidation, a total of 4.74 acres were considered to be conservation lands by MNRF; 1.74 acres of which was attributed to roll number 06600 and 3.0 acres attributed to roll number 03702. After the consolidation, this area was reduced to 3.37 acres with the difference (1.37 acres) assessed by MPAC as residential.

6The net effect of this consolidation has been to reduce the overall assessed value of the property, from $382,000 in 2013 to $310,000 in 2014 with a larger percentage of the value attributed to the residential component.

7The returned value for the 2013 taxation year on roll number 03702 is not before the Board. This roll number was retired effective for the 2014 taxation year.

8The Board must determine two separate things in these appeals. For the 2013 taxation year the Board must decide the current value of roll number 06600. For the 2014 taxation year, the Board must determine the current value of roll number 06600, in its consolidated form, including the land formally known as roll number 03702. Secondly, the Board must determine, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, if the value determined should be reduced to make it equitable.

9In considering these appeals, the Board has no jurisdiction with respect to the amount of land determined to be Conservation Lands. This is a matter of consideration by MNRF, through the CLTIP. The Board’s decision is only related to the value of the lands under appeal.

DECISION

10The Board finds that the current value of the subject property known as roll number 06600 for the 2013 taxation year is $287,000. The Board further finds that the current value of the subject property, after consolidation for the 2014 taxation year is $310,000.

11Further, the Board finds that it has no evidence before it to suggest that a reduction in the current value determined is necessary for equity of assessment.

12Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property is apportioned as follows:

2013 – Residential Tax Class – $206,800 Exempt (Conservation lands) – $80,200

2014 – Residential Tax Class – $212,600 Exempt (Conservation Lands) – $97,400

13The Board’s findings for the 2014 taxation year are deemed for the 2015 taxation year.

LEGISLATION

14In making its determination on these appeals, the Board must consider s. 1, 19.(1), 19.2(1) and 44.(3) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31.

15Section 1 of the Act states:

“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.

16Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

17Section 19.2(1) of the Act states:

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:

1. For the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years, land is valued as of January 1, 2005.
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.

(5) Exception. – Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the valuation of land for a taxation year after 2004 if the Minister prescribes a different day as of which land is valued for that year.

18Section 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.

MPAC’S EVIDENCE

19Mr. Williams undertook a valuation study comparing the subject property with nine comparable properties that sold between February 2009 and July 2011. To compare the values of these nine sales to the applicable valuation date of January 1, 2012, Mr. Williams applied Time Adjustment Factors (“TAFs”) to each of the sale values. These TAFs were determined from a large sample of 600 residential sales in the vicinity of the subject property between January 2008 and December 2012. These nine properties are all located in proximity to the subject property and are single-family dwellings.

20For each property in his sales analysis, Mr. Williams considered the differences in their characteristics as compared to the subject property to arrive at what he referred to as a reasonable value for the subject property. The nine properties are described below as they compare to the subject property:

• Sale A has a smaller lot with a dwelling of similar age, size a quality class. It includes an attached garage and a separate shed. It does not have the same negative access related to the lack of winter road maintenance as experienced at the subject property. With a time adjusted sale (“TAS”) value of $382,783, Mr. Williams considers this comparable to be superior to the subject property in value.
• Sale B has a lot size of 1.55 acres with a similar quality, one-storey dwelling. Sale B is newer than the subject dwelling and has an attached garage. Sale B has a fully accessible road access. With a TAS value of $339,017, Mr. Williams considers Sale B to be superior to the subject property in terms of value.
• Sale C has a lot of 3.68 acres and is a smaller dwelling of similar quality class. It has an attached garage and a finished basement and is 529 square feet (“sq. ft.”) smaller than the subject property. Like the subject property, Sale C has a similar view into the nearby valley lands and with a TAS value of $351,097. Mr. Williams considers Sale C to be superior to the subject property in value.
• Sale D has a lot size of 9.2 acres. It has a dwelling that is older, smaller and with a lower quality class and includes a partially finished basement. It too has a view into the valley and has unrestricted four-season road access. Mr. Williams considers Sale D to be superior in value when compared to the subject property and has a TAS value of $371,404.
• Sale E has a much smaller lot, measuring 0.55 acres. The dwelling is of similar age to the subject property and has a larger living area. Sale E also has unrestricted road access and has a TAS value of $338,717. Mr. Williams considers Sale E to be relatively comparable to the subject property overall.
• Sale F also has a smaller lot, measuring 2.79 acres and is improved by a newer, similarly sized dwelling of a lower quality class when compared to the subject property. Sale F also has unrestricted road access throughout the year and with a TAS value of $328,021. Mr. Williams considers Sale F to be relatively comparable to the subject property.
• Sale G has a much smaller lot than the subject property and is improved with a similarly sized two-storey dwelling of similar age. The dwelling includes an unfinished basement and an additional shed on the property. Sale G is accessed by a privately owned and maintained gravel road. Mr. Williams considers Sale G to be superior in value when compared to the subject property and has a TAS value of $350,783.
• Sale H has a lot area of 27.4 acres and has a smaller, one-storey dwelling without a basement but also includes a barn and coverall structure. This property has full road access and has a TAS value of $396,800, leading Mr. Williams to the conclusion that Sale H is superior in value when compared to the subject property.
• Sale I is also a larger property with 25.55 acres improved with a smaller but newer one and a half storey dwelling of inferior quality when compared to the subject property. Sale I has a detached garage and an additional shed. The dwelling does not have a basement. Sale I also fronts onto a full access road. The TAS value of Sale I is $357,781 and is considered to be superior to the subject property.

21Mr. Williams testified that in his opinion, Sales C, E, F and G are the most comparable of the nine selected when compared to the subject property. On the basis of his analysis and in consideration of all of the characteristics of the comparable properties as compared to the subject property, Mr. Williams believes the returned value of $310,000 is reasonable and correct, noting that for the 2013 taxation year, where the property was described by two separate roll numbers, this value should be apportioned to each roll number accordingly.

22In making his determination of current value, Mr. Williams noted that he made an adjustment to his findings to account for the fact that the road used for access to the subject property is not maintained during the winter months. He applies a 25% reduction in his findings to account for this difference between the subject property and the properties in his comparative analysis.

The Appellant’s Evidence

23Ms. Glazar submitted Exhibit 2, which included MLS® sales information of six properties she considers to be comparable to the subject property for the purpose of determining current value. These six properties were listed for sale in 2001, 2012 or 2013 and it is Ms. Glazar’s evidence that they all sold in late 2012 or 2013, although she was not able to confirm specific sale dates. A summary description of each of these six properties follows:

• Property 1 is a two-storey condominium property with 1,671 sq. ft. of living area. It is described as a “luxury chalet” with views of the Craigleith Ski Club. It has three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms and is accessed by a full service municipal road. The property has municipal water and sewer along with the full range of public utilities. This property sold for $468,000.
• Sale 2 is situated on approximately one-third of an acre and has full municipal services. It is a two-storey dwelling with 2,450 sq. ft. of finished living area including what is described as a lower level. Sale 2 has five bedrooms and three bathrooms. This property sold for $375,000 and was listed in 2012. Ms. Glazar believes it sold sometime in 2012 or 2013.
• Sale 3 sold in June 2013 for $299,000 and is a three-bedroom dwelling of 1,500 sq. ft. including 500 sq. ft. finished on the lower level. Sale 3 is on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot with full municipal services. It has two bathrooms and was built in 1980; eight years before the subject property.
• Sale 4 is a one-storey, four-bedroom dwelling on a lot size of 0.54 acres. It has 2,000 sq. ft. of living area, 1,118 sq. ft. of which is on the main floor. Sale 4 has a well and septic system and a propane, forced air heating system. It is described as having a wood exterior. Sale 4 sold for $247,000. Ms. Glazar believes the sale took place sometime in 2012.
• Sale 5 is a one-storey dwelling on a 15,000 sq. ft. lot with four bedrooms and three bathrooms. It was constructed in 1987 and sold for $215,000 sometime in 2012 or 2013. It has full municipal services is described as having a heating system comprised of electric baseboard, wood and propane.
• Sale 6 sold in 2013 for $210,000 and is a two-storey dwelling constructed in 1920, with living area of 2,048 sq. ft. It is located in the Village of Kimberly and has municipal water, a septic system and is heated by a combination of electric and oil forced air. It has six bedrooms and two bathrooms and is built on a lot comprising 17,019 sq. ft.

24Ms. Glazar believes that by comparison, the comparable properties in her analysis indicate that the subject property is over-assessed and that the current value of her property should be reduced accordingly.

ANALYSIS

Current Value

25The Board has a total of 15 comparable properties to consider in making its determination of current value of the subject property. The subject property is described as a two-storey dwelling on 7.80 acres of land, comprising 1,928 sq. ft. of living area.

26In order to be relevant for the purposes of determining the current value of the subject property, suitable comparable properties must have reasonable similar characteristics so that appropriate adjustments can be made to equate the comparable properties to the subject property. This is not to say the comparable properties need to be identical; they only need to exhibit sufficient similarity for the purpose.

27In reviewing the comparable properties in evidence, the Board disregards Sales B, E and F, G, H and I as the land areas of those properties, 1.55 acres, 0.55 acres, 2.79 acres, 0.37 acres, 27.40 acres and 25.55 acres, respectively, are not sufficiently similar to the subject property which has 7.8 acres.

28Further, the Board disregards Sales 1 through 5 submitted by the Appellant, as Sale 1 is a condominium unit with no land attached and the remaining four have lot areas well under one acre. In addition, Sales 2, 3, 4 and 5 are located within near urban residential subdivisions which exhibit an entirely different character than the subject property.

29The Board finds that the best indicators of current value for the subject property are Sales A, C and D. These three properties have the most similar lot sizes when compared to the subject property and are of similar age, dwelling size and overall character. The TAS value of Sale A is $382,783 with a total living area of 1,989 sq. ft. for a TAS value of $192.45 per sq. ft. Sale C has a TAS value of 351,097 with a living area total of 1,399 sq. ft.for a TAS value of $250.96 per sq. ft. Sale D has 1,661 sq. ft. of living area with a TAS value of $371,404, equating to $223.60 per sq. ft., which is the median per sq. ft. value of these properties. The Board notes that the average TAS value of these three properties is $223.34 per sq. ft.

30When the average per sq. ft. TAS value of these three comparable properties is applied to the 1,928 sq. ft. living area of the subject property, the total is $429,944. None of these three comparable properties has a restriction imposed on them to reflect the lack of winter maintenance for their respective access roads. The Board accepts Mr. Williams’s assertion that the appropriate adjustment for this condition experienced by the subject property is 25%. This adjustment percentage was not refuted by the Appellant. When the 25% reduction is applied to the value indicated or the subject property above, the adjusted total is $322,000, rounded. This value is marginally higher than the $310,000 value returned by MPAC and indicates to the Board that the returned value is relatively accurate. When consideration is given to the differences between Sales A, C and D and the subject property; principally for Sales A and C the presence of attached garages and for Sale D a land area of 1.4 acres larger, the Board finds that this small discrepancy is reasonably accounted for.

31Accordingly, the Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $310,000.

Equity

32Mr. Williams provided an equity study that uses the sales of 30 similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property. The sale values were time-adjusted, consistent with the method undertaken for the valuation study. The sales in the equity study occurred between July 2009 and September 2012. The TAS values of these sales were compared to the assessment value of each of the thirty properties to arrive at an assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) which indicates the relationship of the assessment value to the TAS value for each. The ASRs in Mr. Williams’s equity study range from 0.57 to 1.60, with a median of 1.07.

33Mr. Williams testified that according to MPAC standards, a median ASR between 0.95 and 1.05 indicates that properties are demonstrating equity of assessment. In this case, he submitted that since the median ASR is 1.07 and over the range established by MPAC standard, the study indicates that similar properties in the vicinity are generally over-assessed in comparison to their sale values. Accordingly, Mr. Williams believes there is no indication that a reduction in the assessment demonstrated by his valuation study is required to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

34The Board did not hear any evidence from Ms. Glazar with respect to equity.

Apportionment

35While the Board finds that, based on the evidence received at the hearing, the current value of the property is confirmed, the Board also finds that there is no evidence to suggest that the value of the conservation lands should be any different on a per acre basis than that determined by MPAC for the 2013 taxation year. In 2013, MPAC determined the value of conservation land to be $28,903 per acre. This value applied to the entire property, made up of the two roll numbers that existed at the time.

36For the 2014 taxation year, MPAC applied a value of $19,258 per acre of conservation land. MPAC had no evidence to support this discrepancy. Accordingly, since the 2013 and 2014 assessments are based on the same valuation date, the same value per acre of conservation lands should apply. The Board finds that the value of the conservation lands for 2013 is confirmed and for 2014, that value is increased from $64,900 as returned, to $97,400 to reflect $28,903 per acre on 3.37 acres, as determined by MNRF as part of the CLTIP program.

DECISION

37The Board finds that the current value of the subject property known as roll number 06600 for the 2013 taxation year is $287,000. The Board further finds that the current value of the subject property, after consolidation for the 2014 taxation year, is $310,000.

38Further, the Board finds that it has no evidence before it to suggest that a reduction in the current value determined is necessary for equity of assessment.

39Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property is apportioned as follows:

2013 – Residential Tax Class – $206,800 Exempt (Conservation lands) – $80,200

2014 – Residential Tax Class – $212,600 Exempt (Conservation Lands) – $97,400

40The Board’s findings for the 2014 taxation year are deemed for the 2015 taxation year.

41An appeal for the 2014 taxation years 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.

42Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

40.(26) 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.