Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
December 24, 2021
FILE NO.:
WR 175293
Assessed Person(s):
Bill Giannopoulos; Fatima Melo
Appellant(s):
Bill Giannopoulos
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14
Respondent(s):
Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Property Location(s):
2 Ken Wagg Crescent
Municipality(ies):
Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Roll Number(s):
1944-000-160-36868-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3438203, 3443831
Taxation Year(s):
2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.:
756067
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Bill Giannopoulos; Fatima Melo
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Tony Kroi
Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Tracy Parsons (observing)
HEARD:
November 12, 2021 by telephone conference
ADJUDICATOR:
Anthony LaRegina, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The property owners, Bill Giannopoulos and Fatima Melo (the “Appellants”), filed a property assessment appeal for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding their property located at 2 Ken Wagg Crescent (the “Subject Property ”) in the Township of Whitchurch-Stouffville (the “Town”).
2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”), the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) conducted a general reassessment of the Subject Property and determined that its current value assessment (“CVA”) was $634,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. It is the Appellants’ position that MPAC’s CVA is too high and that the correct CVA should be reduced by 3.5% to 5.0% for both years. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the CVA should be reduced to $622,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
3Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the of the Act, the Town is a party to this proceeding as the municipality in which the Subject Property is located. Tracy Parsons attended the hearing on behalf of the Town as an observer.
Issues for the Hearing
4The issues in this proceeding are:
a determination of the correct current value of the Subject Property; and
whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
Result
5The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $632,000. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, a further equitable reduction of 7% is required to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity. The Board therefore reduces the returned assessment value from $634,000 to $587,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
Description of Subject Property
6The Subject Property is a residential single-family detached bungalow located at 2 Ken Wagg Crescent in the Township of Whitchurch-Stouffville. The Subject Property is a corner lot with an effective lot area of 0.1 acres which encompasses an effective frontage of 59.12 feet and an effective depth of 85.3 feet. The Subject Property was built in 2008 having a total building area of 1,439 square feet on the main level, 1,509 square feet in the basement with no finished space, and a 227 square foot attached garage. The Subject Property abuts utility boxes and has a light traffic pattern. The Quality of Construction is rated 6.5 and the condition is average. There is one dark-green utility box and two Rogers 5G boxes located on the lawn in front of the Subject Property.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Issue 1 – A determination of the correct current value of the Subject Property
7The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016 (“current value”). As defined in the Act, “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.”
MPAC’s Evidence
8MPAC submitted two exhibits as part of its evidence package: Exhibit 1, a Valuation Report and Exhibit 2, an Equity Report.
9To determine the correct current value, MPAC has utilized the direct sales comparison approach and submitted into evidence the sales of seven comparable properties located in the vicinity of the Subject Property which sold between January 2015 and October 2016, see Attachment 1. Comparable properties are rarely sold on the valuation day of January 1, 2016, so their sale values are normally time-adjusted to greater or reduced values depending on whether the date of the sale occurred before or after the valuation day. According to the time-adjusted evidence submitted by MPAC, there was a 44.68% increase in market value over a 23-month period starting January 2015 and ending in December 2016. MPAC created a time-adjustment factor table and graph by month covering the same period and applied these values to time-adjust the seven comparable property sales provided in evidence that were sold during 2015 and 2016 to a value based on a January 1, 2016 valuation date.
10MPAC’s comparable property sales are all bungalows located within 4.3 kilometres of the Subject Property and all have a dark-green utility box on the front lawn like the Subject Property.
11MPAC submits that the correct current value of the Subject Property lies within the time-adjusted sale range of the seven comparable properties between $610,960, the time-adjusted sale value of 586 Rupert Avenue, and $1,383,732 which represents the time-adjusted sale value of 9 Hill Top Trail.
12MPAC further submits that of its seven comparable properties there are three similar properties, Properties 1, 2 and 4; 27 Thicketwood Boulevard, 272 Debborah Place, and 78 Stuart Street respectively. MPAC submits that these properties have the most similarities to the Subject Property and the best comparable property is Property 2, 272 Debborah Place. MPAC has selected this property as the most comparable because it has 1,416 square feet of building area as compared to the Subject Property which has 1,439 square feet, has the same quality level of construction of 6.5, and the same average condition. While this property has a slightly larger lot size of 0.14 acres as compared to the Subject Property with 0.10 acres, it has an effective year built of 1988 as compared to the Subject Property which is 2008.
13MPAC submits that the Subject Property’s current value should be in line with the time-adjusted sale value of 272 Debborah Place, or $668,637, which also falls within the time-adjusted sale range of MPAC’s seven comparable property sales.
14MPAC requests that the Board find the correct current value for the Subject Property to be $669,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
The Appellants’ Evidence
15The Appellants submitted Exhibit 3 into evidence which consists of a letter and 17 photographs addressed to MPAC, the Town, and the Board itemizing and demonstrating the negative impact of the two very large and visible Rogers 5G network boxes on their front lawn.
16The Appellants submit that these boxes were installed in Fall 2019 to support the new Rogers 5G network. They are four feet tall, with one of them projecting noise from a fan inside the unit day and night. This box also has a hydro meter on the exterior. There is a total of three boxes located on the lawn in front of the Subject Property including the original dark-green utility box.
17The Appellants further submit that since the boxes were installed there have been service trucks almost daily in front of their property to maintain the boxes and service the 5G network in the neighbourhood. This has resulted in damage to the section of lawn between the sidewalk and the curb.
18The Appellants point out that when the boxes were first installed, they were littered with letters stating that living near them would cause cancer.
19The Appellants submit that a local real-estate agent has provided a verbal opinion that these boxes would have a negative impact of 5 to 10% on the value of the property.
20The Appellants conclude their case by arguing that they did not want these eyesores on their property and that MPAC has failed to address the negative impact on the value of the property and made no adjustment to the assessment of the Subject Property to compensate for the additional two large boxes.
21The Appellants request that the Board consider a conservative 3.5 to 5% negative adjustment to compensate for the daily nuisance and impact that the boxes have had on the enjoyment, as well as the value, of the Subject Property.
Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value of the Subject Property
22To establish a current value for the Subject Property, the Board has analysed all of the evidence submitted by both parties and concludes that the best evidence in support of the current value of the Subject Property are the seven comparable property sales submitted by MPAC. These properties are all located within 4.3 kilometres of the Subject Property, are all bungalows, and have similar quality of construction levels of 6.0 or 7.0 compared to the Subject Property which has a quality of construction level of 6.5. All of the properties are of average condition and all have a similar dark-green utility box.
23The Board agrees with MPAC that the current value of the Subject Property should fall within the time-adjusted sale range of these seven properties between $610,960 and $1,383,732 for sales which occurred between January 2015 and October 2016, and will therefore, rely on these seven property sales to establish the current value range of the Subject Property.
24The Board further agrees with MPAC that the best comparable property to the Subject Property is Property 2, 272 Debborah Place, which sold in October 2016 for a time-adjusted sale value of $668,637. While 272 Debborah Place is 20 years older than the Subject Property, this is counterbalanced by the fact that it has a 40% larger lot size, a double garage, a 750 square foot finished basement, and one additional bedroom, as compared to the Subject Property. The main floor and basement building areas are virtually identical.
25Based on the close similarity of both the Subject Property and 272 Debborah Place, MPAC submits that the correct current value of the Subject Property should be $669,000. The Board notes that MPAC has not taken into consideration that the Subject Property is a corner lot with light traffic as compared to 272 Debborah Place, which is not a corner lot and has no traffic adjustment. In cross-examination MPAC admitted that these variables each account for a 1% negative adjustment or a total of 2% reduction.
26Based on the Subject Property being a corner lot and having a light-traffic variable, the Board will make a 2% downward adjustment to MPAC’s recommended current value of $669,000 to $655,620.
27In addition, the Board will also consider the arguments made by the Appellants in relation to the two large 5G boxes which were installed by Rogers in 2019 and were therefore, not included in the January 1, 2016 returned assessment value.
28The Appellants provided clear evidence that the two large boxes, one of which makes noise non-stop, are both an eyesore and a nuisance. The Appellants also submitted that since the boxes were installed there are service people working on the property almost daily. After viewing the photographs, the Board agrees that these boxes are eyesores and negatively impact the current value of the property.
29MPAC did not deny that these large boxes should qualify for an adjustment to the current value of the property, only that MPAC has yet to determine exactly what that adjustment should be.
30Based on the evidence presented by the Appellants, the Board finds that the two additional Rogers boxes warrant a negative adjustment to the current value of the property as they are a nuisance, an eyesore and continuously emit noise. If light traffic warrants a minus 1% adjustment on the current value, these boxes warrant something greater. In the absence of any other evidence, and until MPAC completes the quantitative studies supporting an adjustment for 5G boxes, the Board will accepts the lower estimate provided by the Appellants of a reduction of 3.5% as a reasonable adjustment to the current value of the Subject Property.
31The Board will therefore make a further negative adjustment of 3.5% to the current value of the Subject Property from $655,620 to $632,673.
32Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $632,673 rounded to $632,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation year.
Issue 2 – Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
33Section 44(3)(b) of the Act directs that, after determining current value, the Board shall 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.”
34The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of a sample of sold properties is a tool used often to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other properties are assessed below their current value, a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.
35MPAC presented an equity analysis of 30 property sales of single-family detached homes (Not-On-Water) with a property code of 301 that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, located within 1.0 kilometre of the Subject Property. This equity analysis of the 30 properties results in a median ASR of 0.93 with a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 3.9. MPAC submits that its standards indicate that for single-family detached properties, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05, and the COD should be less than 15. In this case, the median ratio of 0.93 is below the acceptable range, and therefore MPAC has recommended a 7% downward adjustment to its suggested correct current value from $669,000 to a CVA of $622,000 in order to compensate for the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
36The Appellants introduced no evidence in support of an equity adjustment.
Findings on Issue 2 - Equitable Reduction in Assessed Value
37The Board will accept MPAC’s evidence in support of an equitable reduction based on the ASR of 0.93 and a COD of 3.9 The Board agrees with MPAC that a 7% additional downward adjustment to the current value of the Subject Property is warranted to ensure that the assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
38The Board will therefore make a further 7% downward adjustment to the correct current value of $632,000 to an assessment value of $587,760 rounded to $587,000 to compensate for the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
39The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $632,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. Furthermore, the Board finds that a further 7% equity reduction is required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Act resulting in an assessment value $587,000.
ORDER
40The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property be reduced from $634,000 to $587,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
“Anthony LaRegina”
ANTHONY LaREGINA
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
ATTACHMENT 1
MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property #3
Property #4
Property #5
Property #6
Property #7
Roll Number
194400016036868
194400019705616
194400019208322
194400020047300
194400018506952
194400018258300
194400019725388
194400006686108
Address
2 KEN WAGG CRES
27 THICKETWOOD BLVD
272 DEBBORAH PL
586 RUPERT AVE
78 STUART ST
120 MILLARD ST
58 KATHERINE CRES
9 HILL TOP TRAIL
Legal Description
PLAN 65M4030
LOT 66
PLAN 65M3089
LOT 51
PLAN 65M2128
LOT 137
PLAN 569 PT
LOT 98 PT
LOT 99 RS66 PARTS 15 AND 16
PLAN M1544
LOT 66
PLAN M1511
LOT 31
PLAN 65M3119
LOT 10
PLAN 65M 2412
LOT 14
Neighbourhood
O61 - 1101
O62 - 1110
O58 - 1106
O51 - 1104
O63 - 1102
O55 - 1102
O62 - 1110
O91 - 204
Property Code & Desc.
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached
(Not On Water)
Distance in km
0.5351
1.6005
1.9468
0.7732
1.4516
1.4194
4.3037
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$634,000
$697,000
$663,000
$576,000
$599,000
$629,000
$868,000
$940,000
Sale
Sale Date
20160125
20161021
20150402
20150123
20160816
20150629
20150317
Sale Amount
$690,000
$769,500
$528,500
$530,000
$800,000
$825,000
$1,175,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$684,565
$668,637
$610,960
$648,401
$714,866
$919,949
$1,383,732
Time Adjusted Sale Ratio
1.0182
0.9916
0.9428
0.9238
0.8799
0.9435
0.6793
Time Adjustment Factor
0.9921
0.8689
1.156
1.2234
0.8936
1.1151
1.1776
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.1
0.14
0.11
0.14
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.1
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.15
0.14
0.15
0.69
Abuts Variable(s)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light,
(U) Abuts Utility Box
(U) Abuts Utility Box
(U) Abuts Utility Box
(U) Abuts Utility Box, (C) Abuts Commercial
(P) Abuts Public Walkway,
(U) Abuts Utility Box
(J) Traffic Pattern - Medium,
(U) Abuts Utility Box
(U) Abuts Utility Box
(G) Abuts Golf Course,
(U) Abuts Utility Box
Proximity Variable(s)
On Site Variable(s)
(C) Corner Lot
(M) No Sidewalk On Street
(M) No Sidewalk On Street
(M) No Sidewalk On Street
(C) Corner Lot,
(M) No Sidewalk On Street,
(K) No Curbs And Gutters
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
Year Built
2008
1998
1984
1969
1975
1974
1997
1988
Effective Year Built
2008
1998
1988
1969
1975
1974
1997
2004
Design Type(s
(N) Not Defined
(N) Not Defined
(N) Not Defined
(N) Not Defined
(N) Not Defined
Structure Variable(s)
(B) Basement Walkout
Structure Condition Code
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Quality of Construction
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6.5
7
Full Storeys
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
Bedrooms
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Baths
2
2
2
1.5
2
2
3
3
Fire Places
1
1
1
1
1
Air Conditioning
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Driveway
Separate Or
Private Driveway
Separate Or
Private Driveway
Separate Or
Private Driveway
Separate Or
Private Driveway
Separate Or
Private Driveway
Separate Or
Private Driveway
Unspecified/Not Applicable
Separate Or
Private Driveway
Building Total Area (SF)
1,439
1,371
1,416
1,200
1,245
1,350
2,094
2,145
Upper Floor Area (3rd and above)(SF)
Basement Type
Recreation Room -Average Quality
Recreation Room -Average Quality
Recreation Room -Average Quality
Recreation Room -Average Quality
Finished Basement Average Quality
Finished Basement Average Quality
Basement Area (SF)
1,509
1,413
1,500
1,200
1,160
1,422
2,185
2,234
Finished Basement Area (SF)
750
935
444
1,235
1,558
1,500
Basement Height
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Modifications
A, (Year) 2000
C, (Year) 2014
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached
Garage
(116) Attached
Garage
(116) Attached
Garage
(116) Attached
Garage
(121) Basement Garage
(102) Shed
(116) Attached
Garage
(116) Attached
Garage
Year Built
2008
1998
1984
1969
1975
1984
1997
1988
Building Total Area (SF)
227
480
480
240
413
100
480
720
Quality of Construction
3
4
3
3
3
1
4
4
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
1974
Building Total Area (SF)
240
Quality of Construction
3
Structure Description
(108) Outdoor Pool
Year Built
1986
Building Total Area (SF)
512
Quality of Construction
2