Dean v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 65308

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

July 11, 2018

FILE NO.:

WR 149792

Assessed Person(s):

Michael Frank Dean, Aileen Marjorie Dean

Appellant(s):

Michael Frank Dean, Aileen Marjorie Dean

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 07

Respondent(s):

Township of Selwyn

Property Location(s):

2539 Hiawatha Lane

Municipality(ies):

Township of Selwyn

Roll Number(s):

1516-020-501-15800-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3238290 and 3292843 (2018 deemed appeal)

Taxation Year(s):

2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No.:

692364

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

December 4 and 7, 2017 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Aileen Marjorie Dean

Self-represented

MPAC

Bill Nolan

Township of Selwyn

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY ROBERT STEINBERG

REASONS

BACKGROUND

1Michael Frank Dean and Aileen Marjorie Dean (“Appellant’s”) are the owners of 2539 Hiawatha Lane (“Subject Property”), Township of Selwyn, which is a single family residence with a building area of 1,914 square feet and a lot size of 0.58 acres.

2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the Subject Property at $458,000.

3The Appellant has appealed the assessment for the 2017 taxation year to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act (“Act”). It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s assessment is too high for the following reasons. MPAC’s five comparables are all superior to the Subject Property. Secondly the Subject Property only has access by way of an unassumed road allowance. Thirdly the condition of the abutting marina property detracts from the Subject’s Property. Finally that the Subject Property is negatively impacted by the close proximity of the vehicular traffic to the marina.

4Pursuant to the Act, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the Subject Property rests with MPAC. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020, the Subject Property is valued as of the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016 current value assessment (“2016 CVA”). At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the 2016 CVA is correct.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality, (in this case, the Township) is a party to this proceeding. However, the Municipality did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals, and no one appeared at the hearing on the Municipality’s behalf.

6Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act, directs the Board to reduce the current value of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value (“equitable reduction”). The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute the municipal tax burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer. The Appellant stated that a reduction in the CVA was required but did not state what the CVA should be reduced to.

7MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellant did not assert that an equitable reduction is required. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not in issue.

8At the completion of the hearing, the Board rendered an oral decision. MPAC subsequently requested written reasons. The purpose of this decision is to provide these written reasons.

9For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the 2016 CVA is $458,000.

Relevant Legislation

10Section 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.

11Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

12Section 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:

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.

13Section 40.(17) of the Act states:

40.(17) 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.

14Section 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.

ISSUE

15The issue to be determined in this appeal iswhat is the correct 2016 CVA of the Subject Property for the 2017 taxation year.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

What is the correct 2016 CVA of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2017 to 2020?

MPAC’s Evidence

16Bill Nolan represented MPAC.

17MPAC presented a description of the Subject Property; five comparables with details as to the nature of the properties. MPAC concluded that, the value of the property on January 1, 2016 is $573,000 which has had downward adjustments incorporated in the value for location next to a marina, boat traffic, and the condition of the subject property. MPAC then applied a further 20% reduction carried over from a previous Board decision to arrive at a 2016 CVA of $458,000.

MPAC’s Submissions

18MPAC’s submits that the correct CVA for both taxation years is $458,000.

19MPAC’s submission of the five comparables indicated that they were in the vicinity, of a similar size and the natures of the properties are similar. The five comparables municipal address are as follows; 3213 Fire Route 50, 444 Careth Road, 2277 Little Lane, 1346 Trapper Lane and 2531 Hiawatha Lane.

20MPAC’s response to the Appellant is that three of the five comparables also received a 32% nuisance adjustment due to abutting a marina. The Subject Property also received a 20% adjustment due to traffic and an additional 20% adjustment carried over from a previous Board decision that none of the comparables received. MPAC also submits that the Appellant’s submission that the 2016 CVA should be lower is taken into consideration by MPAC as the 2016 CVA of $573,000 is reduced to $458,000 in recognition of the issues submitted by the Appellant. MPAC states that the Appellant has relied on hearsay evidence and that MPAC finds no market evidence to support a lower assessment.

Appellant’s Evidence

21Aileen Dean, the Appellant represented herself.

22The Appellant’s evidence was a verbal description of the impact of the marina as follows: -the marina has over 200 boats and the constant moving of boats with a tractor results in a loud beeper noise; -the proximity of the marinas parking lot detracts from the Subject Property as it is used by many islanders and visitors to the marina; -the marina is noisy when deliveries such as by gas trucks are made; -night lights are on 24/7 and impact the Subject Property; -the marina rents out fishing boats with the fishermen arriving at 6 a.m.; -there are 14 recycling bins on the marina property which are used by the islanders; -the marinas dumpsters attract various animals to the area; -the marina stores junk behind the marina which is visible from the Subject Property; - the marinas sewage pumping equipment and big blue box trailer is stored outside and highly visible.

23The Appellant described the renovations and rehabilitation done to the Subject Property in detail from 1955 to the present. The Appellant also made reference to the location in proximity to the marina. The Appellant further noted that the Subject Property does not have deeded access to a municipal road and therefore is legally landlocked. (These factors were not disputed by MPAC).

Appellants’ Submissions

24The Appellant submits that the 2016 CVA which applies to the taxation year of 2017 in the amount of $458,000 is too high and should be lowered. The Appellant also submits that the substantial increase in the 2016 CVA from the assessed value for the previous assessment cycle is not warranted.

25The Appellant contends that the comparables used by MPAC are not appropriate, as they all are superior.

26The Appellant submitted that she had provided pictures to the Board and MPAC which demonstrates the impact that the marina has on the Subject Property. However, neither the Board nor MPAC received the pictures.

27The Appellant is dissatisfied with MPAC’s comparables, claiming that they are all superior, and asserts that she would like to see better comparables.

28The Appellant contends that not having legal access to a municipal road means that when the property is listed for sale a perspective buyer would not be interested when they find out that the property is technically land locked.

Findings

29The Board finds the following evidence is the most pertinent in arriving at its decision in regard to the 2016 CVA. The three comparables in evidence from MPAC at 44 Caveths Road (No. 20), 2277 Little Lake Road (No. 3), and 1346 Trapper Lane (No.4) all have a 32% downward nuisance adjustment to the CVA for the properties abutting a marina. Comparables #1 and #5 do not abut a marina so did not receive the 32% adjustment so the Board does not find them good comparables.

30The Board calculated the rate per square foot of each of these three residences as follows:

• Comparable 2: $320.77 per square foot (“sq. ft.”) and the land at $7,101.01 per front ft.;

• Comparable 3: $445.86 per sq. ft. and the land at $4,243.11 per front ft.; and

• Comparable 4: $424.90 and the land at $4,118.70 per front ft.

31The Board applied the average (mean) of these three comparables which is $397.17 per sq. ft. to the Subject Property which has an area of 1,914 sq. ft., to arrive at a value of $760,183. The Board also applied the average of the three comparables front foot rate of the land at $5,154 per front foot to arrive at a value of $603,018.

32The square foot rates of the residence and front foot rates of the land calculated from the averages of the three comparables indicate a value of the Subject Property, respectively of $760,183 and $603,018. MPAC initial valuation of the 2016 CVA is $667,000 before any downward adjustments. This initial valuation falls approximately mid-way between the range calculated by the Board. MPAC is recommending a 2016 CVA of $458,000 which is substantially below the two foregoing mean values of the comparables as arrived at by the Board.

33The Board accepts that the Subject Property is a one bedroom cottage and inferior in condition to the three comparables. However, MPAC has already applied an additional 20% obsolescence due to the condition of the Subject Property in arriving at the 2016 CVA of $573,000. An additional 20% reduction to the 2016 CVA has been made by MPAC as per a previous Board decision. Although these reductions are subjective they are accepted by the Board.

34Although the Appellant indicates that these adjustments are not sufficient, the Appellant did not provide the Board with any evidence to support a further reduction of the 2016 CVA of $458,000.

DECISION

35The Current Value Assessment of the Subject Property is confirmed at $458,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

2018 DEEMED APPEAL

36An appeal for the 2017 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) of the Assessment Act 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 2017 appeal before March 31, 2018. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2018 taxation year.

37Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years

(26) 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.