Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 22, 2018
Assessed Person(s): Margaret Greaves
Appellant(s): Margaret Greaves
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 22 Ellerbeck Street
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-075-360-01901-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3234373 and 3293793 (deemed 2018 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No.: 695072
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: March 6, 2018 by teleconference call
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Margaret Greaves | Peter Szkorla |
| MPAC | Frank Nagy |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TYRONE D. SKANES
ISSUE
1The appeal before the Assessment Review Board ("Board") was filed by Margaret Greaves (the “Appellant”) in respect of the assessment of a single, detached family home located at 22 Ellerbeck Street, the subject property (“SP”), for the 2017 taxation year.
2The single-storey 886 square foot ("sq. ft.") home was built in 1911 but has an effective year built of 1973. The home sits on an effective lot size of 1,508 sq. ft. There is an unfinished basement measuring 671 sq. ft. The home is rated as a 6.0 quality of construction (“QC”). The property abuts a mid-block public walkway.
3Frank Nagy, representing MPAC, advised that he took carriage of this file mid-way through the process. He said that the initial return on the roll current value assessment for the SP was $1,163,000. He said that the Appellant filed a request for re-consideration (“RfR”). The Appellant also requested that the lot size be re-measured as she was disputing the figures used by MPAC. At the RfR the assessed value was reduced to $756,000. The lot was then re-measured and the initial data in MPAC’s records was found to be inaccurate and it was corrected. As the corrected measurements were less than the incorrect measurements the assessor determined that the assessment of $756,000 was too high and applied a $32,000 reduction. This reduced the assessment of the SP to $724,000.
4Mr. Nagy entered the sales of six comparable properties that he said were good comparators to the SP. He said he used the direct sales comparison approach to value and agreed with the previous assessor’s opinion that the current value of the SP was $724,000. He said that this value was fair and reasonable and recommended that the Board reduce the assessment to that value.
5Peter Szkorla, representing the Appellant, entered several properties for consideration. However, only three of those properties had recent sales. He also pointed out that there was considerable aircraft traffic constantly over the SP, including helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. He submitted video evidence to show the annoyance that these aircraft created at the SP. He said that there were times that quiet enjoyment was not possible when using the backyard. He also pointed out that Ellerbeck Street was frequently used by the Toronto Transit Commission as a by-pass route when traffic had to be diverted from Danforth Avenue (“the Danforth”), a popular nearby thoroughfare that frequently hosted community events, resulting in the Danforth being closed.
6Mr. Szkorla asked the Board to reduce the assessment of the SP to $637,034 to account for the various nuisances associated with the SP.
7The issue before the Board for determination is whether the assessment of the SP for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years is at current value and whether the assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
DECISION
8The Board is required by s. 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) to determine the current value of the land and 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.
9The Board finds the current value of the SP as of January 1, 2016, to be $802,000. An equity adjustment was required to $760,000 as similar lands in the vicinity were not being assessed at their correct current values. However, at the RfR MPAC offered a value of $724,000, a value that included a $32,000 reduction for incorrect lot size measurements. The Board reduces the current value of the SP to $724,000 from $756,000.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Relevant Legislation
10Section 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 Position and Evidence
11Mr. Nagy’s valuation report and equity analysis were entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. He testified that the direct sales comparison approach to value was used in determining the current value of the SP.
12Mr. Nagy entered the sales of six comparable properties that he opined were good comparators to the SP. He said that all of the comparable properties were the same structure type and all had the same QC of 6.0, with the exception of Property Six, which had a QC of 5.0. He advised that the sales prices of the comparable properties had been time adjusted to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. He said that although only Property One was in the same neighbourhood as the SP all of the rest were not but were located within 1.14 kilometres of the SP.
13Mr. Nagy said that despite there being a gap in the actual year built of 38 years all of the properties had an effective year built that was within five years of the SP, with the exception of Property Six that had an 11 year gap. He said that he believed that the comparable properties were far more similar than dissimilar and encouraged the Board to consider them.
14Mr. Nagy entered an equity analysis study into evidence whereby he analyzed the sales of 30 similar lands located within 1.5 kilometres of the SP. His opinion of value of the SP was $809,000. He determined that the median assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) was 0.947, indicating that similar lands in the vicinity had been assessed at slightly less than 5% of their current values. He said that this indicated to him that an adjustment was required for equity. He performed a calculation using his opinion of value and multiplying it by the median ASR and returned a value of $766,000. He said that his predecessor had, at the RfR, offered a value of $756,000 and out of a sense of fairness he would honour that offer.
15Mr. Nagy testified that upon re-measuring the lot size of the SP a significant discrepancy existed from the original measurements that affected the assessed value. To account for the difference he used comparable Property One as the best comparable to the SP and calculated the value difference in lot size between the two properties and arrived at a value of $32,000. This value was deducted from the $756,000 assessment offered at the RfR to get to MPAC’s final offer of $724,000.
16Mr. Nagy concluded his presentation by opining that the recommended assessment of $724,000 was fair and reasonable and recommended that the Board reduce the assessment to that value.
Appellant’s Position and Evidence
17Mr. Szkorla’s documentary package was entered into evidence as Exhibit 2 and a Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) memory stick was entered as Exhibit 3. The USB stick contained numerous videos of various aircraft flying over the SP at different times of the day, creating a noise nuisance that he believed should be taken into account.
18Mr. Szkorla entered six comparable properties for consideration. However, only three of those properties had sales that occurred within a year on either side of the valuation date, which is the time period that the Board considers ideal for consideration. All of those properties had a different QC rating from the SP.
19Mr. Szkorla also argued that there were numerous times during the year when Ellerbeck Street is used as a by-pass route by transit and other traffic when the Danforth is closed for community events. He says that this is a nuisance that ought to be compensated with a negative adjustment.
20Mr. Szkorla argued that although the SP had a QC rating of 6.0 he believed that this was wrong, in comparison to the comparable properties. He believed that the QC of the SP should be 5.0 to 5.5 as it was not finished as nicely as the comparable properties. Although he provided exterior pictures of the SP and other properties that he referenced in his evidence he did not provide any photographic evidence of the SP to support this claim.
21Mr. Szkorla similarly argues that in recent years there has been a dramatic increase in air traffic. He referred the Board to the videos in Exhibit 3 that clearly demonstrated a significant amount of different types of aircraft flying over the SP. In some of the videos it appeared, at times, that helicopters were hovering over the SP and the noise was very prevalent. He said that this is a frequent occurrence. It is believed that a number of the helicopters belong to media outlets that are reporting on events of significance or traffic. The SP is also in an eastbound air traffic corridor from the Billy Bishop Airport. He said that an adjustment for a noise nuisance was warranted.
22Mr. Szkorla said that Ellerbeck Street consisted of a blend of different types of housing, including multi residential buildings. He argued that this negatively affected the value of the SP, although he did not provide any evidence to support this belief.
23Mr. Szkorla argued that the Board should not consider MPAC’s comparable properties located at 978 Carlaw Avenue and 56 Eaton Avenue. He said that the Carlaw property’s sale date was too far removed from the valuation date, its’ lot size was double that of the SP and it had better amenities. He argued that the Eaton property was located in a different neighbourhood, it was a QC 5.0 whereas the SP was a QC 6.0 and the lot size was different. He agreed that the remainder of MPAC’s comparable properties were acceptable.
24Mr. Szkorla ended his presentation by asking the Board to reduce the CVA of the SP to $584,777, based on various calculations he had provided the Board. However, upon cross-examination he realized that he had made an error in those calculations and revised his reduction request to $637,034. He did ask the Board to consider applying a noise nuisance adjustment of 5% to account for the increase in air traffic.
25Mr. Nagy responded by saying that he agreed with Mr. Szkorla’s request for a noise nuisance reduction as he was not in receipt of the evidence in Exhibit 3 when he assessed the SP. He agreed that 5% was an appropriate adjustment.
Board's Deliberations - Current Value
26The best evidence of current value is the sale of the subject property if the sale meets the definition of current value on or near the valuation day. When no such sale occurs, as in this instance, the Board looks to the sale of similar properties in the vicinity to determine current value.
27The Board has carefully considered the testimony of the parties and the documentary evidence tendered as exhibits.
28The Board, when comparing properties, does not expect exactness or sameness. Therefore, the Board looks at similarity of characteristics, amenities and location to determine comparability.
29The Board usually considers the sales of comparable properties that have occurred within one year on either side of the valuation date as the ideal time period for consideration. The Board occasionally does extend the time period for considering comparable properties when the parties have demonstrated that there are an insufficient number of relevant sales during the ideal time period.
30MPAC entered the sales of six properties in close proximity to the SP that the assessor opined were good comparators to the SP. Despite the differences between the comparable properties and the SP the Board finds there is sufficient similarity to make a valid comparison, with the exception of Property Six at 56 Eaton Avenue. This property is rated as a QC 5.0 while the SP and the remaining comparable properties are rated as QC 6.0. The parties agreed that the QC was a significant factor; therefore the Board will only consider comparables that have the same QC.
31The Board considered Mr. Szkorla’s objection to Property One being used as a comparable property, owing to the time period of the sale date from the valuation date and other differences. The sale occurred within the time period that the Board considers ideal for comparison and finds that the characteristics of similarity are sufficient for a valid comparison to be made. Therefore, the Board rejects Mr. Szkorla’s request to disregard Property One as a comparable property.
32The Board finds that the remaining comparable properties have sufficient characteristics of similarity to enable a valid comparison to be made with the SP. The properties are reflected below in Table 1.
33Mr. Szkorla entered six comparable properties for consideration. However, only three of those properties had relevant sales. Those properties all have a QC rating of 5.5, while the SP has a QC of 6.0. Mr. Szkorla objected to one of MPAC’s comparable properties, partly based on it having a different QC rating. The Board did exclude that property as there was no way for the Board to make adjustments for the differing values between QCs. Therefore, the Board will exclude all of the comparable properties entered by Mr. Szkorla.
34The Board considered Mr. Szkorla’s arguments regarding traffic and being situated on a street that had a blend of different types of properties, including multi residential and rejects these arguments. The Danforth has long been known as a hub of special events and it is frequently closed for special or community events. Traffic has long been diverted off the Danforth onto nearby streets as a by-pass. Although traffic may be a nuisance factor the Appellant did not provide an opinion of what he thought an appropriate reduction would be, as he did with the noise nuisance. Similarly, the blend of housing on Ellerbeck Street has been this way for many years. It is an established neighbourhood and would have had this blend when the Appellant purchased the property. Additionally, no evidence was introduced to support the claim having a property in a blended neighbourhood negatively affected property values.
35The Board considered the argument put forward by Mr. Szkorla regarding the noise nuisance by various aircraft flying over the area. The video evidence in Exhibit 3 clearly demonstrates the frequency that this occurs and how it affects the quiet enjoyment by the Appellant. The assessor said that if he had been aware of the issue when assessing the SP he would have accounted for it and agreed that a 5% noise nuisance reduction is appropriate. The Board will apply a 5% reduction to the assessment of the SP.
36The comparable properties submitted by MPAC are:
Table 1
| Property | Effective Year Built | Year Built | Building Size (Sq. Ft.) | Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) | Quality Construction (QC) | Garage | Time Adjusted Sale Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Property | 1973 | 1911 | 886 | 1,508 | 6.0 | No | N/A |
| One | 1970 | 1934 | 853 | 2,500 | 6.0 | Detached | $815,959 |
| Two | 1975 | 1949 | 768 | 2,984.04 | 6.0 | No | $675,597 |
| Three | 1973 | 1943 | 794 | 3,537.17 | 6.0 | Detached | $706,664 |
| Four | 1968 | 1929 | 841 | 3,289.44 | 6.0 | Detached | $883,724 |
| Five | 1973 | 1944 | 671 | 5,867.05 | 6.0 | Attached | $789,053 |
37As can be clearly seen by the above table the comparable properties and the SP are similar in many respects. Although the actual year built varies, the effective year built is very close. The effective year built means that some modification has been completed. The lot sizes vary considerably but this is offset by the relative similarity of the building size. The SP has few enhancements while comparable properties One, Three, Four and Five have garages. While not reflected in the table it is worth noting that properties Two, Three, Four and Five have some portion of the basement finished, while the SP and property One do not.
While the Board is normally reluctant to compare properties using only one characteristic of similarity it is occasionally necessary to do so when the properties are strikingly similar, as they are in this instance. Therefore, the Board will determine the average sale price per square foot of the comparable properties and apply that average to the square footage of the SP.
38The Board determined the average sale price per square foot of the comparable properties by dividing the sq. ft. of each comparable property against the TAS price. Using rounded values the Board determined that the average value per square foot was $990. This value was applied to the sq. ft. of the SP that returned a value of $877,000 (rounded). The Board then deducted the $32,000 lot adjustment from this value and found the current value of the SP to be $845,000 (rounded).
39The Board applied a 5% negative adjustment to this value to account for the noise nuisance suffered by the Appellant. This adjustment reduced the current value of the SP to $802,000 (rounded).
Board's Deliberations – Equity
40MPAC entered an equity study into evidence whereby the sales of 30 similar properties located within 1.5 kilometre of the SP were analyzed. He determined that similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at slightly less than 5% of their current values and that an equity adjustment was required, based on the median ASR being 0.947.
The Board has determined that the current value of the SP is $802,000 (rounded). The Board finds that as the median ASR is 0.947, a value outside of the ideal range of 0.95 to 1.05. This indicates that similar lands in the vicinity are not being assessed at or near their correct current values and that an adjustment for equity is required. The Board found that this adjustment returned a value of $760,000 (rounded).
41The Appellant did not submit any equity evidence.
CONCLUSION
42The Board finds the current value of the SP to be $802,000 (rounded) for 2017 and 2018 taxation years and finds that an equity adjustment to $760,000 is required. However, at the RfR MPAC offered a value of $724,000 that included a $32,000 reduction to account for incorrect lot size measurements. The Board reduces the current value assessment from $756,000 to $724,000 for the 2017 and the deemed 2018 taxation years.
2018 DEEMED APPEAL
43An 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.
44Section 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.
“Tyrone D. Skanes”
TYRONE D. SKANES
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```