Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 15, 2018 FILE NO.: WR 154305

Assessed Person(s): Giuseppe Tedesco, Leanne Tedesco Appellant(s): Giuseppe Tedesco, Leanne Tedesco Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 27 Respondent(s): Town of Lasalle Property Location(s): 1790 Lansdowne Avenue Municipality(ies): Town of Lasalle Roll Number(s): 3734-020-000-04876-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3269777 and 3313970 Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 Hearing Event No.: 701268

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

Heard: July 11, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Giuseppe Tedesco, Leanne Tedesco	Self-represented
MPAC	Justin Jewhurst
Town of Lasalle	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

INTRODUCTION

1Giuseppe Tedesco and Leanne Tedesco have appealed the 2017 taxation year assessment of their property, located at 1790 Lansdowne Avenue in the Town of Lasalle (“the subject property”). Mr. Tedesco argues that his assessment is too high due to the proximity to a busy road and in relation to the values of other properties in the vicinity.

2MPAC’s representative, Justin Jewhurst, argues that the assessment as returned at $491,000 is correct and equitable.

LEGISLATION

3Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act"), requires the 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 property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, which, in this case is January 1, 2016 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

4Once I have determined the current value, s. 44.(3)(b) requires that I “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.

5In addition to the 2017 taxation year appeal filed by the Appellants, there is a 2018 taxation year appeal before the Board. This is because, pursuant to s. 44.(26), a 2018 appeal is deemed to have been filed if the 2017 taxation year appeal was “not finally disposed of before March 31, 2018.”

DECISION

6For the reasons stated below and pursuant to s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, I find that the current value of the subject property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, is $491,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. I also find that the evidence does not support a reduction of this value to achieve an equitable assessment, pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

7Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property is confirmed at $491,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years in the Residential property class.

CURRENT VALUE

8The best evidence of current value of a residential property is an open market sale of that property on or near the valuation day. When that evidence is not available, open market sales of similar properties on or near the valuation day are the next best evidence.

9The subject property is located in a new subdivision in central Lasalle. It is improved with a one-storey, single family detached residence, built in 2013. The residence has a total of 2,088 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of building area and 2,088 sq. ft. of unfinished basement area. There are three bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms. There is an attached garage measuring 524 sq. ft. The lot is irregular in shape measuring 0.21 acres with 78 feet of effective frontage and 119 feet of effective depth. The property is located on a cul-de-sac and there are no sidewalks.

10Mr. Tedesco testified his property’s value should be impacted by his close proximity to Malden Road which he describes as busy and will become busier as the municipality has approved an additional lane. His video evidence shows that there is no barrier between Malden Road and his property except for an unimproved parcel of land. He testified he bought the lot in 2012 for a discounted price due to its proximity to Malden Road. Mr. Jewhurst testified that in the past MPAC had applied a -4% variance to the subject property but ceased this adjustment because such variances are built into MPAC’s model.

11Both parties presented the sales of a number of properties. I am not considering Mr. Tedesco’s sale of 1695 Morton Drive as the sale price of $10,000 does not reflect an open market sale. In addition, I am not considering Mr. Tedesco’s sale of 1725 Lansdowne Avenue because, having two storeys, it is not comparable to the subject property which has only one storey. The relevant characteristics of the remaining sales, all of which have single storey residence, are set out in the following table. Mr. Jewhurst presented Sales 1-6 and Mr. Tedesco presented Sales 7and 8.

#	Address	House Size (sq. ft.)	Lot Width (ft.)	Lot Depth (ft.)	Year Built	Sale Date	Sale Price	TASP
	1790 Lansdowne Avenue	2,088	78	119	2013	N/A	N/A	N/A
1	1404 Outram Avenue	2,024	68	135	2012	August 2014	$450,000	$497,092
2	1409 Outram Avenue	2,016	68	134	2011	January 2015	$520,000	$555,804
3	1395 Monty Street	2,209	70	150	2009	November 2015	$589,000	$595,772
4	1395 Outram Avenue	2,252	68	135	2010	December 2014	$682,000	$734,913
5	6422 Woodbridge Drive	2,484	70	125	2014	November 2016	$665,000	$629,233
6	1601 Stanton Avenue	2,573	69	142	2011	September 2016	$665,000	$633,778
7	2105 Suzanne Street	1,975	84	111	2005	March 2015	$372,000	$394,000
8	1799 Lansdowne Avenue	1847	58	117	2004	February 2014	$430,000	$491,490

12Sales 2 through 8 have partially finished basements whereas the subject property and Sale 1 do not. Sales 1, 2 and 3 have 7 quality of construction, the same as the subject property. Sales 4, 5, 6 and 8 have a 7.5 quality of construction and Sale 7 has a 6.5 quality of construction.

13I find that Mr. Jewhurst’s Sales 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are superior to the subject property. While they are all a similar age, unlike the subject property, they all have finished basements. Sales 2 and 4 have pools and Sales 3, 4, 5 and 6 have larger building areas and Sales 3 and 6 have much larger garages. Further, I accept Mr. Tedesco’s testimony that these properties are located in an area that is superior to his property’s location: they are close to conservation land and trails and farther away from a busy main street, Malden Road. As a result, I find that the subject property would likely sell for less than these properties.

14Sale 1 is very similar to the subject property in age, lot and building size and it is similar in the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, unfished basement and size of garage. Mr. Tedesco argued that it, like Sales 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, is superior to the subject property because it is farther away from Malden Road. While it may be in a superior location, I find that, on balance it is very similar to the subject property. On balance, I find that the subject property would not sell for more than Sale 1. The time-adjusted sale price is $497,000 or $246/sq. ft. of building area.

15Sale 7 has a similar sized lot but the building is older and smaller and MPAC has allocated a 6.5 quality of construction which is slightly less than the subject property. However, it has a partially finished basement. Mr. Tedesco’s photographic evidence shows a very similar looking building to the subject property. Mr. Jewhurst argued it is not comparable to the subject property because it is located in different homogeneous neighbourhood, which, he stated, are allocated by MPAC based on market data. Mr. Tedesco argued it is no farther away from his property than Mr. Jewhurst’s sales but is on the other side of Malden Avenue. I find that, on balance, Sale 7 is slightly inferior to the subject property in terms of age, quality of construction and building size. Therefore, I find that the subject property would likely sell for more than the time-adjusted sale price per square foot of $200 (394,320/1,975 sq. ft.).

16Sale 8 is located directly across the street from the subject property. It has a partially finished basement but it has a smaller lot and an older and smaller building than the subject property. Although it is the best comparable in terms of proximity to Malden Road, on balance, I find it is slightly inferior to the subject property. Using MPAC’s time-adjustment factors results in a time adjusted sale price of $491,490 or $266.10 per square foot of building area.

17Based on the evidence received, I find that the current value of the subject property is likely correct at $491,000. Based on the sales evidence the subject property would likely sell for more than $200/sq. ft. but less than $246/sq. ft. The assessed value per sq. ft. of the subject property is $235 which falls within this range of values.

18I considered Mr. Tedesco’s argument that his close proximity to traffic should affect the value of his property and Mr. Jewhurst’s argument that it is included in MPAC’s model that was used to determine the assessed value. I have determined that current value of the subject property is $491,000 or $235/sq. ft. of building area. Of the three comparable sale properties, Sale 1 is not in close proximity to the traffic and the higher sale price of $246/sq. ft. may reflect a superior location. The evidence provided for Sale 7 is that it, too, is not in close proximity to traffic. However, it is an inferior property and the sale price of $200/sq. ft. reflects this. Sale 8 is located across the street from the subject property and, therefore, is in similar proximity to traffic. Although it is inferior to the subject property in age and building size it has a time-adjusted sale price of $266/sq. ft. which exceeds the current value of the subject property. Based on this analysis, I am satisfied that no adjustment is required for the proximity to traffic.

EQUITY

19Once I have determined current value, s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act requires that I look at the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and determine if it would be fair or equitable to assess this property at its current value. Section 19.(1) of the Act provides that all property is to be assessed at its current value. I may only assess a property below its current value with evidence that similar property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value.

20Mr. Tedesco raised the issue of equitable assessment. In reviewing the sales evidence he noted that some properties have lower assessed values than his property and that some properties were assessed close to their sale values. He made no arguments as to how such assessments correspond to an inequitable assessment of his property.

21Mr. Jewhurst presented an equity study of 30 properties in the vicinity of the subject property in which the median assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) is 0.973. In other words, the median assessment was 97.3% of the sale price.

22This study, with its larger sample of sales, is preferred to smaller samples. It shows that property in the vicinity of the subject property tends to be is assessed close to its current value and, therefore, it would be fair to assess the subject property at its current value.

CONCLUSION

23Based on the evidence presented, I find that 1790 Lansdowne Avenue would likely have sold for $491,000 on January 1, 2016. That is the current value of the property. There is no evidence that it would be unfair to assess the subject property at its current value.