Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 24, 2020 FILE NO.: WR 164193

Assessed Person(s): Alfred Everett Dunham Appellant(s): Alfred Everett Dunham Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14 Respondent(s): Town of Richmond Hill Property Location(s): 88 Olde Bayview Avenue Municipality(ies): Town of Richmond Hill Roll Number(s): 1938-070-022-91600-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3384457 and 3403708 Taxation Year(s): 2019 and 2020 Hearing Event No.: 729298

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Alfred Everett Dunham	Jason Cherniak*
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Julie Landon
Town of Richmond Hill	No one appeared

HEARD: February 26, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Alfred Everett Dunham (the “Appellant”) has filed an appeal for the 2019 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2020 taxation year. The Subject Property is located on 88 Olde Bayview Avenue in the Town of Richmond Hill.

2It is the Appellant’s position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment of $1,090,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be $510,000. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value is $1,090,000.

3Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Town of Richmond Hill is a party to this proceeding. However, no one appeared on behalf of the Town.

4Section 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. MPAC asserts that a reduction to the current value is necessary. The Appellant asserts no position on equity.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding are:

1. A determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years; a. Direct Comparison Approach based on sales; b. Other negative impacts to the Subject Property
2. Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.

Result

6The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $740,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act a further reduction for equity is required and the equitable value is $670,000. The assessment is therefore reduced from $1,090,000 to $670,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The Subject Property is a residential dwelling located at 88 Olde Bayview Avenue in the Town of Richmond Hill. It is a one-storey, single family (detached on water) property built in 1960, with a total lot size of 0.19 acres (8,385.09 square feet (“sq. ft.”), total building area of 576 sq. ft., quality of construction rating of 5 and assessed at $1,090,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years?

Issue 1a – Direct Comparison Approach based on sales

8In determining the correct current value, the Board references s. 19(1) of the Act which states that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value, which is defined 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.” In other words, the best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the property on the valuation date or close to it. The valuation date for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

MPAC’s Suggested Comparable Properties

9Julie Landon, representative for MPAC, presents a Valuation Report, dated October 31, 2019 which she prepared and testifies to the information it contains. Ms. Landon testifies that she inspected the Subject Property on October 15, 2018 as part of the 2018 Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) and verified that the data and classification of the Subject Property were current and complete.

10In support of current value, Ms. Landon testifies that she relies on the market evidence of the following five sales of suggested comparable properties, which occurred over the period 2015 through 2016. Ms. Landon provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices; however, she relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in her analysis, utilizing the Direct Comparison Approach to value. The following table is the analysis of the five suggested comparable properties:

SALES ANALYSIS

5 SUGGESTED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	FRONTAGE (ft.)	LOT SIZE (acres)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE (time-adjusted)	SALE PRICE (per frontage) (ft.)
199 Lakeland Crescent	85.32	0.2	2,411	5.5	1959	2016	$1,714,400	$20,089
455 North Lake Road	50	0.16	2,911	7	1989	2016	$1,631,825	$32,620
442 Sunset Beach Road	100	1.36	2,854	6.5	1978	2016	$2,726,360	$27,263
571 North Lake Road	30	0.21	1,160	5.5	1968	2015	$933,622	$31,120
577 North Lake Road	25	0.17	883	5.5	1958	2016	$740,368	$29,614
Median	50	0.2	2,411	5.5	1968	2016	$1,631,825	$29,614 (average $28,141)
Subject Property	50	0.19	576	5	1960	NIL	Assess at $1,090,000	$21,800 (per ft.)

11Based on the above analysis Ms. Landon testifies that it is her opinion that the suggested comparable properties at 199 Lakeland Crescent; 455 North Lake Road; 571 North Lake Road; and 577 North Lake Road are the most comparable properties to the Subject Property. She testifies that after adjusting for differences to the Subject Property these four suggested comparable properties have an average cost per frontage foot of $26,000. When the $26,000 is applied to the Subject Property, it results in a current value of $1,300,000 ($26,000 X 50 feet).

Appellant’s Suggested Comparable Properties

12In support of current value, Counsel submits 11 suggested comparable properties. Based on an analysis of the properties and price trends, the suggested comparable property at 581 North Lake Road, which was sold in 2019 for $650,000 was found to be the most comparable property to the Subject Property. When this sales price is adjusted for the diminishing shoreline access and limited redevelopment potential of the Subject Property the current value should be $510,000.

13The following table is an analysis of these eleven suggested comparable properties:

SALES ANALYSIS

11 SUGGESTED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	FRONTAGE (ft.)	LOT SIZE (sq. ft.)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE
581 North Lake Road	30	5,000	unknown	unknown	unknown	2019	$650,000
25 Willowbank Avenue	30	2,932	unknown	unknown	unknown	nil	nil
473 North Lake Road	45	7,875	unknown	unknown	unknown	nil	nil
95 Sylvan Crescent*	100	10,400	unknown	unknown	unknown	2018	$1,750,000
104 Olde Bayview Avenue*	37.5	3,750	unknown	unknown	unknown	2019	$753,000
23 Wildwood Avenue*	35	2,858	unknown	unknown	unknown	2018	$683,000
53 Wildwood Avenue*	30	2,499	unknown	unknown	unknown	2018	$774,000
17 Rosemary Avenue*	30	3,000	unknown	unknown	unknown	2018	$728,000
280 Douglas Road*	30	3,000	unknown	unknown	unknown	2018	$964,600
92 Olde Bayview Avenue*	25	unknown	unknown	unknown	unknown	nil	nil
112 Olde Bayview Avenue*	25	unknown	unknown	unknown	unknown	2017	$800,000
Median	30	3,000	unknown	unknown	unknown	2018	$728,000
Subject Property	50	8,276	576	5	1960	NIL	Assessed at $1,090,000

* non-waterfront property

14The Board rejects the Appellant’s 11 suggested comparable properties for the following reasons:

a) Crucial information (total building area, age, quality) was not provided for many of the suggested comparable properties;

b) Eight sales of suggested comparable properties occurred over the period 2017 to 2019, which is too far removed from the valuation date of January 1, 2016 to provide any meaningful test of current value;

c) Eight of the suggested comparable properties are non-waterfront properties, whereas, the Subject Property is a waterfront property; and

d) Three of the suggested comparable properties were not sold.

Based on this analysis, the Board finds that the Appellant’s evidence does not assist the Board in its determination of current value.

Issue 1b – Negative Impacts on Value of Subject Property

15Counsel for the Appellant submits a Property Valuation Report prepared by Sharon Parenteau, Sales Representative, Keller Williams Referred Urban Realty, Inc. on November 19, 2019 (revised on January 9, 2020). Unfortunately, Ms. Parenteau was not in attendance for today’s hearing. Counsel presents submissions from the report and the Board agrees to assign the appropriate weight to the given submissions without any cross-examination.

16The Appellant submits that the Subject Property is negatively impacted by the fact that the lot is irregular shaped, over thirty-five percent is sharply sloping; municipal by-laws restrict lot coverage of forty percent (set-back requirements), limiting the size of new construction; and located within the boundaries of the Special Policy Review Area, which deals with north shore flood plain risk management. Counsel called on the Appellant as a witness, and he testifies to the same negative impact on the Subject Property.

17Counsel further submits that the Subject Property does not own 50 feet of waterfront as stated by MPAC. Counsel submits that the Subject Property only owns 12.7 feet of waterfront, because in 2016 it purchased a portion of waterfront land (12.7 by 10 feet) from the Town (identified as PIN 032020416) for $11,000, as demonstrated on a copy of the Plan of Survey of Part of Lane Registered Plan 184, Town of Richmond Hill, dated May 9, 2016 and Service Ontario Property Index Map for York Region No. 65, printed on June 25, 2019. Prior to the purchase, the Subject Property was assessed as a non-waterfront property with 50 feet of frontage.

18Regarding the Subject Property’s waterfront footage, whether it is 50 feet or 12.7 feet, the Board finds that there is merit to the Appellant’s argument that the Subject Property only has 12.7 feet of waterfront, because prior to the 2016 purchase of a portion of waterfront land (12.7 by 10 feet) from the Town (identified as PIN 032020416), the Subject Property was assessed as a residential property not on water with 50 feet of frontage. Therefore, the Board finds that the waterfront is 12.7 feet.

19In reviewing the copy of the Plan of Survey of Part of Lane Registered Plan 184, Town of Richmond Hill, dated May 9, 2016 and Service Ontario Property Index Map for York Region No. 65, printed on June 25, 2019, the Board finds that only the 12.7 feet are truly waterfront, and the remaining frontage of the Subject Property does not have direct access to the waterfront. Therefore, the Board finds that the portion of waterfront land is 12.7 feet for the Subject Property and that this frontage is taken into consideration by the Board in determining the correct current value as stated above.

20Regarding the Appellant’s issues that the Subject Property is negatively impacted by having an irregular shaped lot, with over 35 percent sharply sloping; restricted by municipal by-laws (set-back requirements) limiting the size of new construction; and located within the Special Policy Review Area, which deals with north shore flood plain risk management, the Board finds that the Appellant presents no factual evidence to quantify the negative impact these issues have on the assessed value of the Subject Property. Therefore, the Board finds that no quantifiable evidence was adduced to justify any negative adjustments to the correct current value determined above.

Findings on Current Value

21The Board finds the best evidence in support of current value to be the five sales presented by MPAC that sold in 2015 and 2016, with a time-adjusted sale range from $740,000 to $2,726,360; frontages from 25 feet to 100 feet; total building areas from 883 sq. ft. to 2,911 sq. ft.; quality ratings from 5.5 to 7 and years built 1958 to 1989. This is compared to the Subject Property with a frontage of 50 feet, total building area of 576 sq. ft., quality rating of 5, year built 1960 and assessed at $1,090,000.

22Based on this analysis, the Board finds that the Subject Property is in the older range of year built, with a lower quality rating, significantly smaller in total building area and would sell at the lowest end of the range for $740,000. Therefore, the Board finds the correct current value is $740,000.

Issue 2 - Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.

23MPAC presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 30 comparable properties are compared to their respective sale prices to determine the Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”). The ASR is computed by dividing the assessed values of the property sold, by its sale price.

24MPAC states that these 30 comparable properties are Property Codes 313 – Single Family Detached on Water; Property Code 301- Single Family detached not on water; sold in 2015 and 2016; and located within 1.5 kilometres of the Subject Property.

25The analysis of the sale of these 30 comparable properties shows a Level of Appraisal (“LOA”) of 0.906 and a Coefficient of Dispersion (“CoD”) 10.9. Based on this finding, MPAC’s opinion is that an equity reduction is required, because the findings fall outside MPAC’s standards of 0.95 to 1.05 for the LOA and below 25 for the CoD.

26Based on this finding MPAC calculates that the equitable value is $1,177,000 (current value of $1,300,000 x 0.906). However, MPAC is not seeking a higher value and is asking to have the returned assessment of $1,090,000 confirmed.

27The Appellant presents no evidence in support of equity and asserts no position.

Findings on an Equitable Reduction

28In reviewing the equity analysis presented above, the Board finds the best evidence is the Median LOA of 0.906 presented by MPAC. The LOA of 0.906 is based on 30 sales of similar property types, in the same vicinity and supports an equity reduction. Therefore, the Board applies the Median LOA to the correct current value of $740,000 to arrive at an equitable value of $670,000 rounded ($740,000 x 0.906).

29The Board finds that although the Appellant presents no evidence and asserts no position in support of equity, the Board accepts MPAC’s evidence and findings that an equity reduction is required and applied its findings to the correct current value as stated above.

CONCLUSION

30The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $740,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act a further reduction for equity is required. The Board finds the equitable value is $670,000.

ORDER

31The Board orders that the assessment is reduced from $1,090,000 to $670,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.