Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 27, 2018
Assessed Person(s): William Jeffrey Peters
Appellant(s): William Jeffrey Peters
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 05
Respondent(s): Township of South Frontenac
Property Location(s): 3233 Randy Clark Road
Municipality(ies): Township of South Frontenac
Roll Number(s): 1029-060-030-04500-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3227356
Taxation Year(s): 2016
Hearing Event No.: 697375
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: April 18, 2018 in Sydenham, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
William Jeffrey Peters
Self-represented
MPAC
Kalin Doucet+
Township of South Frontenac
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GRIFFITH
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is filed by William Jeffrey Peters (“appellant”), in respect to the returned assessment of $146,000 for the 2016 taxation year for the subject property at 3233 Randy Clark Road, in the Township of South Frontenac. The following is the apportionment breakdown of the returned assessment of $146,000:
Residential Property Class $117,100
Farm Property Class $28,900
Total $146,000
2Since the returned of the assessment MPAC’s representative testified that a new property class has been added and the new apportionment breakdown is as follow:
Residential Property Class from $117,100 to $117,100
Farm Property Class from $28,900 to $26,500
Conservation Property Class (New) from $0 to $2,400
Total from $146,000 to $146,000
3Kalin Doucet’s (“MPAC’s representative”) position is that current value for the subject property is $142,000 for the 2016 taxation year.
4The appellant’s position is that the current value should be $100,000, because the structures on the subject property are used two weeks per year for boiling maple syrup. Based on these activities, the appellant argues that the structures on the subject property should be classified as farm land used for farm purposes. Therefore, the issue respecting the current value relates only to the residential property class.
5MPAC’s representative takes the position that an equitable reduction to the current value is not required.
6The appellant did not assert that an equitable reduction is required. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not in issue.
7The Township of South Frontenac is a party to this appeal. However, no one appeared for the Township.
ISSUE
8The issue to be determined is:
- What is the correct current value of the subject property as of the valuation date January 1, 2012?
DECISION
9The Board finds the current value of the subject property, as of the valuation date January 1, 2012 is $142,000 under s. 19.(1) of the Assessment Act (“Act”).
10Therefore, the returned assessment of the subject property is reduced from $146,000 to $142,000 for the 2016 taxation year.
The apportionment breakdown is as follows:
Residential Property Class from $117,100 to $113,100
Farm Property Class from $28,900 to $26,500
Conservation Property Class (New) from $0 to $2,400
Total from $146,000 to $142,000
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
11The subject property is described as land owned by a farmer improved with a non-farm residence, with a portion being farmed and located at 3233 Randy Clark Road in the Township of South Frontenac. The subject property was built in 2000, is a two-storey, with a total site area of 53 acres, and a total building area of 800 square feet (“sq. ft.”).
The Legislation
12In 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 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.
14Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
15Section 19.2(1)2 of the Act states:
Valuation days
19.2 (1) 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.
Exception
(5) 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.
16Section 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.
17Section 40.(19) of the Act states:
40.(19) Board to make determination. – After hearing evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board shall determine the matter.
18In determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, s. 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Act requires the Board to do two things:
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.
What is the correct current value of the subject property as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date?
MPAC’s position
19MPAC’s representative presented a Valuation Report (date unknown) and testified that the subject property was inspected in July 2015 by Rejean Faubert, the previous assessor, and again in December 18, 2017 when he personally inspected the subject property.
20MPAC’s representative testifies that the subject property was inspected in July 2015 and in December 2017, during which times no evidence was found of any farming equipment and/or farming activities. MPAC’s representative presents photographs to show the contents of inside the main structures and cabin, with beds, wall hangings, couches, cabinet, a few bottles, wood stove, and tables; and outdoors with patio chairs and a boat hauled ashore close to the water’s edge.
21MPAC’s representative testifies that during the 2017 inspection, he found that the main structure and cabin were in poor condition and changed MPAC’s database from average condition to poor condition. Based on this change, MPAC’s representative testifies that the assessed value changed from $146,000 to $142,000.
22MPAC’s representative also testifies that the main structure and cabin are approximately 95 feet from the waterfront. The subject property has no heat, hydro and plumbing. However, there is a shed and outhouse on the subject property, to which no value is attributed.
23In support of current value, MPAC’s representative presents a Market Analysis of the sales of six suggested properties located in the homogeneous neighbourhoods of Miner Lake, Thirsty Island Lake and Collins Lake. The subject property is located on Invary Lake. However, the homogeneous neighbourhood was extended, because there were no sales found on Invary Lake, for the valuation date of January 1, 2012. There were no objections raised to expanding the homogeneous neighbourhood.
24These six comparable properties are located at: 551 Miner Lake Lane, which was sold in May 2013, at a time-adjusted sale price of $177,284; at 511A Sperling Lane, which was sold in October 2011, at a time-adjusted sale price of $181,576; at 3460 Buck Point Road, which was sold in June 2010, at a time-adjusted sale price of $250,062; at 3507 Buck Point Road, which was sold in March 2013, at a time-adjusted sale price of $180,000; at 76 Sandstone Court, which was sold July 2014, at a time-adjusted sale price of $295,000; and at Sandstone Court, which was sold August 2014, at a time-adjusted sale price of $293,000.
25Based on the above six sales, MPAC’s representative believes that 551 Miner Lake Lane, with a time-adjusted sale price of $177,284 and 511A Sperling Lane, with a time-adjusted sale price of $181,576 are the most comparable properties in terms of total building area and amenities.
26MPAC’s representative testifies that when he accounts for differences (in age, frontage, lot size, no hydro and no right-of-way etc.) between the subject property and these two properties he estimates the market value to be $190,000.
27Based on this market evidence, MPAC’s representative is of the view that the current value is $190,000.
Appellant’s Position
28The appellant presents no documented evidence, and testifies to the following in support of his argument, that the current value should be $100,000:
That the subject property was taken over from his father in 2005, and at that time, both the main structure and cabin were part of the subject property.
That the subject property is land lock, and access is having to go across two farms.
That the subject property has no well, no hydro, no running water and no Municipal services.
That there is an un-opened road allowance (a civic road) that runs across his property, severing the subject property from the main property.
That the structures on the subject property are used two weeks per year, for boiling maple syrup in large containers outdoor, and smaller batches indoors on a wood stove. Based on these activities, the appellant argues that the structures on the subject property should be classified as farm land used for farm purposes.
That it would be difficult to sell the subject property for MPAC’s recommended value of $142,000, because 12 acre parcel of land in the Sandstone area, Collins Lake was sold for $18,000. The appellant argues that Sandstone area is superior to the subject property’s neighbourhood and yet it sold at a significantly lower sale price than what he believes he could get for the subject property.
That after the maple syrup season is over, fishermen might have stayed in the subject property, because of inclement weather, and because the structures are unlocked.
That he does not live at the subject property; he only spot-checks it; and uses it to access Invary Lake when he goes fishing.
That 15 years ago when the application was made for farming classification, the structures and one acre of land were excluded from the farm property class, because that portion was not found to be farm lands used for farm purposes.
29In support of current value, the appellant presented no sales and no other evidence.
Board’s Analysis
30In reviewing the evidence, the Board finds the following.
That MPAC presents the best evidence with the two sales at 551 Miner Lake Lane, with an estimated time-adjusted sale price of $177,284; and at 511A Sperling Lane, with and estimated time-adjusted sale price of $181,576. On the contrary, the appellant presents no sales in support of current value.
That the time-adjusted sale prices of 551 Miner Lake Lane and 511A Sperling Lane, when adjusted for differences (in age, frontage, lot size, no hydro and no right-of-way, no wells etc.) to the subject property, it results in a value of $190,000, which is higher than the returned assessment of $146,000 for the subject property.
That MPAC presents a recommended value of $142,000 that is supported by sales evidence. The Board accepts the recommended value of $142,000. On contrary, the appellant believes that the current value should be $100,000. However, the Board finds that the appellant presented no sales and no quantifiable evidence in support of this value.
That the appellant failed to present quantifiable evidence (photographs, receipts etc.) to show that the structures are used solely for farm purposes by the owner, as it relates to s. 19(5) of the Act. On the contrary, MPAC inspected the subject property in July 2015 and again on December 18, 2017 and found no evidence of farming as illustrated by the photographs presented into evidence. Therefore, the Board rejects the appellant’s evidence that the structures are used solely as farm land used for farm purposes.
That the appellant presents no quantifiable evidence to demonstrate the impact of un-opened road (a civic road) that runs across his property; and the impact of not having hydro, running water, Municipal services and a well. On the contrary, MPAC adjusted the sale prices of 551 Miner Lake Lane and 511A Sperling Lane, to account for these and other differences (e.g. lot size, age, frontage etc.) to arrive at a value of $190,000.
31Based on all the evidence, the Board accepts that the current value of subject property is $142,000, which is a $4,000 reduction of MPAC’s assessed value. This $4,000 reduction applies to the residential property class.
CONCLUSION
32The Board reduces the current value of subject property from $146,000 to $142,000 for the 2016 taxation year. The apportionment breakdown for all property classes for the subject property is as follows:
Residential Property Class from $117,100 to $113,100
Farm Property Class from $28,900 to $26,500
Conservation Property Class (New) from $0 to $2,400
Total from $146,000 to $142,000
“Jennifer Griffith”
JENNIFER GRIFFITH
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```