Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: June 21, 2017
AMENDED DECISION ISSUED ON: July 13, 2017
Assessed Person(s): Dennis Erik Simmatis and Catherine Marie Smola
Appellant(s): Dennis Erik Simmatis
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 06
Respondent(s): Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
Property Location(s): 86 Rolling Banks Road Unit 36B
Municipality(ies): Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
Roll Number(s): 1450-226-020-18500-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3189963
Taxation Year(s): 2016
Hearing Event No.: 679372
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: May 30, 2017 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties Dennis Erik Simmatis and Catherine Marie Smola MPAC Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
Representative Dennis Erik Simmatis Paula Backus and Terri-Lyn Wright Kathy Moran
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
Amended pursuant to Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1, 2017
INTRODUCTION
1The property before me is a seasonal home on Rice Lake. Construction on the property began in 2012 and finished sometime in early 2017. The home is a large two storey brick structure with just over 500 feet of waterfront. MPAC assessed the property at $559,000 for the 2016 taxation year.
2At the hearing of this appeal, MPAC recommended that the assessment be reduced to $547,000 based on a recent inspection of the property.
3Dennis Simmatis argued that the assessment is too high for three primary reasons. First, he argued that the house was still under construction on the state and condition date for the 2016 taxation year. Second, he argued that he has no "deeded" road access to the property, making the property less valuable then similar properties with road access. Finally, he argued that MPAC has not properly addressed two easements that run over the property.
DECISION
4For the reasons set out below, I find that the sales evidence supports a current value of $650,000 but that value should be reduced to $520,000 to reflect its unfinished state in December 2015. I also find that the assessment should be further reduced, to $490,000 to reflect the value of two easements that cross the property.
5There is no indication that this value is inequitable when compared to similar assessments in the vicinity. I therefore reduce the assessment from $559,000 to $490,000 for the 2016 taxation year.
Amended pursuant to Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1, 2017
Legislation
6The role of easements is important for these appeals and is set out in s. 9(1) of the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31 ("Act"), which states that land that is "subject to the easement shall be reduced accordingly."
7Section 36(1) of the Act requires assessments to be made annually and s. 36(2) requires that the assessment roll be returned to the municipality "not later than the second Tuesday following December 1 in the year in which the assessment is made."
8Section 44.(3)(a) of the Act requires that I "determine the current value of the land." Current value is defined in s. 1 as "the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm's length by a willing seller to a