Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 08, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 152242

Assessed Person(s): Bradley Hallson Mathews, Judith Anne Forma

Appellant(s): Bradley Hallson Mathews, Judith Anne Forma

Respondent(s): City of Orillia

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Property Location(s): 3A Karen Crescent

Municipality(ies): City of Orillia

Roll Number(s): 4352-020-207-19200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3233236 and 3308496 (deemed 2018 appeal)

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No. 693966

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

Heard: March 21, 2018 in Orillia, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Brad Mathews and Judith Anne Forma	Self-represented
MPAC	Joan Manley
City of Orillia	No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE ON MARCH 21, 2018

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application for the 2017 taxation year. The subject property is a single storey residential dwelling with a total building area of 1,104 square feet built in 1977. The structure sits on an irregular triangular lot with the top of the triangle to the left of the structure being the side-yard.

2Brad Mathews and Judith Forma, (“the Appellants”), purchased the property in August 2008 for $240,000. There was no driveway on the property. Prior to purchase, the Appellants inquired in respect to creating a driveway and building a garage. They were advised that they could apply to the local Committee of Adjustments. The Appellants drive and therefore needed a driveway and garage for their car(s). Further, they own a recreational vehicle and intended to park same on the side-yard.

3Since purchasing the property, the Appellants applied to the City of Orillia for permission to create a driveway and build a garage. The application has been denied. Further, they are prohibited from parking their recreational vehicle on the side-yard by Zoning By-law 2014-44.

4There is insufficient room at the back of the property to park the recreational vehicle, even without a driveway and garage.

5As a result, the Appellants argued that the assessment should be frozen at the previous cycle assessment of $235,000 since five of the six comparable properties proposed by MPAC all have driveways, usable back-yards and at least two have been renovated. MPAC argued that the assessment should be $250,000.

ISSUE

6The issue to be determined, therefore, was the correct current value of the property for the 2017 taxation year, considering the restricted use of the back-yard, side-yard and the inability to create a driveway and/or build a garage.

DECISION

7The Board determined the correct current value for the 2017 taxation year was $238,000. The Board further determined that no further adjustment for equity was warranted.

EVIDENCE

MPAC

8The assessor, Joan Manley, filed a Valuation Report proposing an assessment of $250,000 as of January 1, 2016 (valuation day) using the Direct Comparison Approach. She proposed the sales of six comparable properties, all described as ‘similar’, with a range of values of $238,412 to $309,735, time adjusted.

9From the material filed and on the oral evidence of Ms. Manley, it was clear that MPAC was aware of the requirements of By-law 2014-44 and the restrictions it imposes on the use of the subject property. In consideration of those restrictions MPAC had applied a reduction of 5-6% on the assessment of the previous taxation cycle, however they did not apply it to the current taxation cycle.

Appellants

10Mr. Mathews challenged MPAC’s evidence based on his personal knowledge of the comparable properties used by MPAC.

11His evidence was that at least five of the six comparable properties had usable back-yards as well as driveways. Further, none of the comparable properties had similar restrictions on use of their use of side-yards.

12Effectively, Mr. Mathews was requesting that a reduction of 5-6% be carried forward to the present assessment cycle on account of the continued restrictions on the permitted uses of his property, as compared to those relied upon by MPAC.

LEGISLATION

13Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31 (“Act”) requires this Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to “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 willing buyer.” That is, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2016 for the 2017 taxation year.

14Once the current value has been determined, s. 44.(3)(b) requires that the Board “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” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

ANALYSIS

15On the evidence received, I was satisfied that Mr. Mathews had direct and reliable knowledge of the state of the comparable properties relied upon by MPAC as well as the permitted uses of the respective lots. I find that those comparable properties did not have restrictions similar to the subject property.

16The evidence was also clear that MPAC had recognized those restrictions and applied a reduction of 5-6% in the previous assessment cycle.

17I found it was appropriate to apply a 5% reduction to MPAC’s assessment. Applying a 5% reduction on the $250,000 assessment proposed by MPAC reduced the assessment to $237,500 or $238,000 rounded. This was consistent with the low end of the range of the comparable properties relied upon by MPAC. I find the current value of the property to be $238,000.

EQUITY

18The only evidence received on the issue of equity was from MPAC.

19The evidence consisted of MPAC’s Assessment to Sales Ratio Study (ASR) of thirty (30) similar properties in the vicinity resulting in a median of 1.015.

20The assessor stated that equity was achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 -1.05 and that in this case no adjustment for equity is required The Board accepted the uncontested evidence of the assessor on the issue of equity and finds that

CONCLUSION

21The Board determined that the correct current value for the 2017 taxation year was $238,000 (rounded). Further, that no reduction for equity was warranted.

2018 DEEMED APPEAL

22An 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.

23Section 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.