Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
March 11, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 176744
Assessed Person(s):
Sherri Lynn Fisch
Appellant(s):
Sherri Fisch
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
65 Harrison Road
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1908-082-191-05200-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3435332 and 3440609
Taxation Year(s):
2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.:
756288
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Sherri Fisch
Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD:
February 10, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair Pierre R. Lavigne, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Sherri Fisch (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 65 Harrison Road, Toronto (the “Subject Property”). The Appellant took the position that the assessment of $2,485,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years was too high. In the Appellant’s view, the correct current value should be $2,275,045.
2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) took the position that the correct current value was $3,076,000. However, MPAC was not seeking a higher assessment and sought to confirm the current assessment of $2,485,000.
3No one appeared on behalf of the Municipality.
Areas of Agreement
4The parties agreed to a level of appraisal or assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) of 0.921 for equity reduction purposes.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding:
What is the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
Whether an equitable reduction in the assessment should be made under s. 43(3) (b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”).
Result
6The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the Subject Property’s correct current value for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $2,566,713.
7Based on the agreement between the parties that an equitable assessment would be 92.1% of the correct current value, the Board finds that the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $2,364,000 (rounded) for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a single-family detached residence located at 65 Harrison Road in the York Mills neighbourhood of the City of Toronto. The residence, built in 1989, is a two-storey building with a total built area of 4,690 square feet (“sq. ft.”) on a 11,250 sq. ft. lot, with 75 feet of frontage and a depth of 150 feet. MPAC has assigned a quality of construction to the residential property of 8 out of a possible 10. The property abuts a light traffic nuisance area. The property has an attached garage.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the Subject Property?
9Section 19(1) of the Act provides that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. Section 1 of the Act defines current value 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.” For the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, the valuation day is January 1, 2016.
10For value comparison purposes, MPAC and the Appellant presented their respective evidence which included both actual and time adjusted sale prices. Time adjusted sale prices estimate the value of a sale as of the January 1, 2016, valuation day based on changes that occurred in the market between the actual sale date and the valuation day. Both MPAC and the Appellant relied on an analysis based on an average time adjusted sale price per square foot of building area to determine the value of the Subject Property.
11At the hearing neither party disputed each other’s time adjustments. All prices referred to in this decision are the parties’ time adjusted prices.
12During the hearing, the parties also discussed using the bracketing technique to determine the current value of the Subject Property and gave their overall qualitative judgements of the comparable property sales as either inferior, similar, or superior to the Subject Property.
13MPAC proposed 12 sales as comparable to the Subject Property. They are listed in Schedule A at the end of this decision.
14The Appellant’s report relied upon four property sales. Of the property sales submitted by the parties, one property sale was common to both: 77 Gerald Street.
15The Appellant’s three additional proposed property sales can be found in Schedule B.
MPAC’s Current Value Analysis
16MPAC’s opinion of current value of $3,076,000 was derived from 12 property sales. MPAC’s analysis of its property sales resulted in sale prices per square foot of building area ranging from $482 to $1,150 with a median of $656. MPAC applied the median of $656 per square foot to the Subject Property’s built area of 4,690 sq. ft. to arrive at a current value for the Subject Property of $3,076,640.
17In its analysis, MPAC applied adjustments to the sale prices of its property sales, on an as needed basis, as follows: abutting light traffic (-7%); abutting an educational institution (-5%); and corner lot (-1%). These adjustments were not disputed by the Appellant.
18MPAC, in its expert report, also did a check of its analysis by evaluating what it considered the three best property sales for comparison purposes, which it determined are its property sale #3, located at 67 Forest Heights Boulevard, property sale #11, located at 42 Rollscourt Drive, and property sale #12, located at 16 Old Colony Road. The median sale price for these three properties equaled $630 per sq. ft. and applying that figure to the Subject Property’s built area of 4,690 sq. ft. resulted in a value of $2,954,700.
19MPAC also determined the median sale price of all 12 of its property sales at $3,237,000. The 12 sale prices ranged from $2,661,618 to $3,782,152.
20MPAC also considered its two sale properties with a light traffic nuisance similar to the Subject Property. Specifically, its property sale #3 located at 67 Forest Heights Boulevard and property sale #5 located at 64 Berkindale Drive, which were sold for $3,295,796 and $2,856,713, respectively.
21Lastly, at the hearing, MPAC submitted that its property sale #5 (64 Berkindale Drive) was the best overall property sale for comparison purposes and as such the best “indicator of value” with a sale price of $2,856,000.
22It was MPAC’s position that all of the foregoing analyses supported its conclusion of a current value for the Subject Property of $3,076,640.
The Appellant’s Current Value Analysis
23In its analysis, the Appellant applied adjustments to the sale prices of its property sales, on an as needed basis, as follows: abutting light traffic (either -2%, or -7%); abutting heavy traffic and proximity to place of worship (-5%, combined); and corner lot (-1%). At the hearing, these quantitative adjustments were not disputed by MPAC.
24The Appellant’s analysis of its property sales resulted in sale prices per square foot of building area ranging from $460.77 to $498.59 with an average of $485.08. The Appellant applied the average of $485.08 per square foot to the Subject Property’s built area of 4,690 sq. ft. to arrive at a current value for the Subject Property of $2,275,045.
25The Appellant submitted that, when using a rate per square foot of building area analysis for valuation purposes, on a singular basis the land must be similar to the Subject Property for comparative purposes, and that on an aggregate basis, a grouping of sale properties as a whole must be representative of the Subject Property for comparative purposes. The Appellant asserted that this was not the case for MPAC’s property sales which, for example, represented properties with significantly larger frontages and larger overall lot sizes than the Subject Property. The Appellant submitted that larger lots with greater frontage were “premium lots” and that “land drives value in this neighborhood.” On this subject, MPAC noted in their valuation report that for the last few years parts of York Mills have been redeveloped with newer and bigger high quality homes.
26Overall, the Appellant argued that its four property sales were more similar to the Subject Property than MPAC’s property sales.
27The Appellant further argued that its property sale #1, 77 Gerald Street, and property sale #4, 7 Truman Road, were most similar to the Subject Property in terms of lot size, built area, frontage, and age. The sale prices per sq. ft. built for these two properties, after time and quantitative adjustments, were $498 and $492, with a rounded average of $496. Applied to the Subject’s 4,690 sq. ft. of built area would produce a rounded value of $2,325,000.
28Lastly, the Appellant considered MPAC’s property sale #12 located at 16 Old Colony Road. The Appellant argued that this property was similar to the Subject Property in terms of year built, built area, and quality of construction. The sales price for this property was $2,661,000 which the Appellant argued could be further adjusted for the presence of an outdoor pool, larger land area, and more frontage when compared to the Subject Property. The Appellant submitted that after adjustments, the value of this property would approximate $2,400,000. No evidence was submitted by the Appellant to support any adjustment for the pool, land area or frontage. Without such evidence the Board has no basis upon which to make any quantitative adjustment.
29It was the Appellant’s position, based on the average per sq. ft. value of its four comparable sales, that its analyses supported its conclusion of a current value for the Subject Property of $2,275,045.
The Board’s Analysis
30The Board notes that 10 of MPAC’s 12 sale properties used for comparison purposes had larger land areas that ranged from 11,492 sq. ft. 16,545 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft. The Board also notes that eight of MPAC’s 12 sale properties had larger effective frontages that ranged from 80 feet to 121 feet compared to the Subject Property’s 75 feet. The year built of MPAC’s sales properties ranged from 1957 to 2005 compared to the Subject Property’s effective year built of 1989.
31The Board notes that the Appellant’s four sales properties used for comparison purposes varied in: (i) built area from 4,542 to 5,241 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s built area of 4,690 sq. ft.; (ii) land area from 9,316 sq. ft. to 9,908 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s land area of 11,250 sq. ft.; (iii) frontage from 53 feet to 76 feet compared to the Subject Property’s frontage of 75 feet; and year built from 1992 to 2001 compared to the Subject Property’s year built of 1989. While similar in built area to the Subject Property, the sales properties were generally newer properties, on substantially smaller lots with less street frontage than the Subject Property.
32As described above, both parties utilized an average value per sq. ft. of building area analysis. Generally, this is not a reliable method of determining a property’s current value when the suggested property sales vary broadly along a number of different characteristics such as age, building size, land area, and quality of construction – which is the case here. As a result, the Board used the bracketing technique of property sales analysis. The bracketing technique is based on the principle that inferior properties usually sell for less than the Subject Property, and that superior properties usually sell for more. In this case, the bracketing technique is more reliable than a value per sq. ft. of building area.
33The parties agreed that MPAC’s property sales #3, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are superior to the Subject Property. The parties also agreed that the Appellant’s suggested sale of 149 Gordon Road was inferior to the Subject property. The Board accepts the parties’ position on those property sales.
34Following is the Board’s analysis of MPAC’s remaining property sales.
35The Appellant’s principal proposition was that in this market area there is redevelopment pressure such that land area is a prime driver of value. The Board agrees with the Appellant on this point. It was supported by MPAC’s evidence in its report that “For the last few years parts of York Mills have been redeveloped with newer and bigger high quality homes.” Bigger homes normally require bigger lots.
36The evidence from MPAC’s comparables also substantiate the Appellant’s proposition. An illustration comes from contrasting the common comparable at 77 Gerald Street, identified as Property #2 on MPAC’s list of comparables with MPAC’s comparables #1 and #6 in the following table:
COMP
ADDRESS
AGE
BUILT SF
Qual
FRONTAGE
LOT AREA
T.ADJ PRICE
MPAC 2
77 GERALD
2001
5,241
8
67
9,908
2,716,817
MPAC 1
7 SULGRAVE
1957
3,840
7.5
89
16,544
2,811,468
MPAC 6
17 VERNHAM
1989
3,743
7.5
93
12,369
2,923,765
37Here we see that older houses of inferior quality ratings and with smaller built area but with larger frontages and total lot areas (MPAC 1 and 6) sold for more than a newer larger square foot built area property of higher quality but on a smaller lot with less frontage. This substantiates the view that market participants attribute significantly more value to properties with large lot areas and frontages.
38MPAC’s property sale 1, 7 Sulgrave Crescent, is located within 0.61 kilometers of the Subject Property. It has a significantly larger land area of 16,545 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft., and more effective frontage at 90 feet compared to the Subject Property’s 75 feet. It has a smaller built area of 3,840 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and a quality of construction of 7.5 vs. 8 for the Subject Property. Its effective year built is 1957 compared to 1989 for the Subject Property. It suffers from a traffic nuisance like the Subject Property. MPAC had considered this property to be similar to the Subject Property, while the Appellant had judged it to be superior based on larger land area and frontage, factors which considering the age of the property would draw a premium for redevelopment purposes. On balance, the Board agrees with the Appellant that this property is superior to the Subject Property.
39MPAC’s property sale 2, 77 Gerald Street, (also the Appellant’s property sale #1) is located within 0.84 km of the Subject Property. It has a smaller land area of 9,908 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft. and smaller effective frontage of 68 feet compared to the Subject Property’s 75 feet. It has a larger built area of 5,241 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and a quality of construction of 8 like the Subject Property. Its effective year built is 2001 compared to 1989 for the Subject Property. The property has an outdoor pool whereas the Subject Property does not. MPAC had considered this property to be similar to the Subject Property while the Appellant considered it superior because of its more recent age of construction. Compared to the valuation day the Subject Property was 27 years old while this comparable was 15 years old. This property on a smaller lot with less frontage does not attract the corresponding premium for a larger lot size. In the absence of such a premium, this property is similar to the Subject Property when considering the influence of lot size, however it is superior to the Subject Property by reason of age and built area. Overall, the Board considers this property superior to the Subject Property.
40The Board rejects MPAC’s property sale 4, 7 Gerald Street as a comparable sale. This property is a 1¾ storey property whereas the Subject Property is a 2-storey property. Further, the sale price per square foot is a significant outlier at $1,150/sq. ft. when compared to all other suggested property sales, whose value ranges from $482 to $868 per sq. ft. Given the sufficiency of sales properties for comparison purposes, the Board does not need to consider types of structures that are different from all other comparable sales and which in this case, is also an outlier.
41MPAC’s property sale 5, 64 Berkindale Drive, is located within 0.36 km of the Subject Property. It has the same land area of 11,250 sq. ft. as the Subject Property and the same effective frontage of 75 feet as the Subject Property. It has a smaller built area of 3,338 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and a lower quality of construction of 7.5 compared to 8 for the Subject Property. Its effective year built is 2005 compared to 1989 for the Subject Property. It suffers from a traffic nuisance like the Subject Property. MPAC considered this sale as its best comparable, the Appellant considered it superior, even though it had a smaller built area had an effective age of 11 years compared to the subject’s 27 years. On balance, the Board is satisfied that the effective age of this property, which was not contested by the Appellant, demonstrates that it has had a major renovation. In the Board’s view this factor outweighs the relatively smaller square footage and 0.5 difference in quality. Overall, this property is superior to the Subject Property because of its younger effective age.
42MPAC’s property sale 6, 17 Vernham Crescent, is located within 0.17 km of the Subject Property. It has a larger land area of 12,369 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft. and more effective frontage at 93 feet compared to 75 feet for the Subject Property. It has a smaller built area of 3,743 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and a lower quality of construction of 7.5 compared to 8 for the Subject Property. Its effective year built of 1989 is the same as the Subject Property’s. The property abuts an educational institution. MPAC considered this sale to be similar to the Subject Property, the Appellant considered it superior because of the significantly larger frontage and land area. On balance, the Board is satisfied that this property is superior to this Subject Property by reason of its superior frontage and land area.
43MPAC’s property sale 7, 23 Swansdon Drive, is located within 0.59 km of the Subject Property. It has a significantly larger land area of 16,000 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft. and more effective frontage at 80 feet compared to 75 feet for the Subject Property. It has a smaller built area of 3,571 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and the same quality of construction of 8 as the Subject Property. Its effective year built is 1969 compared to 1989 for the Subject Property’s. The property has an outdoor pool whereas the Subject Property does not. Unlike the Subject Property, this property does not suffer a traffic nuisance. MPAC considered this property similar, while the Appellant considered it superior because of frontage and land area. On balance, the Board is satisfied that this property is superior to the Subject Property based on the frontage and land area.
44MPAC’s property sale 12, 16 Old Colony Road, is located within 0.68 km of the Subject Property. It has a larger land area of 13,650 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft. and significantly more effective frontage at 105 feet compared to 75 feet for the Subject Property. It has a built area of 4,375 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and the same quality of construction of 8 as the Subject Property. Its effective year built is 1985 compared to 1989 for the Subject Property’s. It has an outdoor pool which the Subject Property does not. Unlike the Subject Property, this property does not suffer a traffic nuisance. MPAC considered this property similar, while the Appellant considered it superior because of frontage and land area. On balance, the Board is satisfied that this property is superior to the Subject Property based on the frontage and land area.
45Following is an analysis of the Appellant’s 3 remaining property sales.
46The Appellant’s property sale 2, 42 Cotswold Crescent has a smaller land area of 9,316 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft. and less effective frontage at 67.5 feet compared to 75 feet for the Subject Property. It has a built area of 4,989 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and the same quality of construction of 8 as the Subject Property. Its effective year built is 1996 compared to 1989 for the Subject Property’s. Unlike the Subject Property, this property does not suffer a traffic nuisance. MPAC considered this property to be inferior because it was not in the same neighbourhood as the Subject Property. The Appellant considered it similar, though they acknowledge its land area was 17% smaller than the Subject Property. The Appellant had submitted that frontage and land area were the principal drivers of value. We agreed with that submission in many of our previous determinations. The same logic must apply to smaller lots. On balance, the Board is satisfied that this property is inferior to the Subject Property based on frontage and land area, given its similarity in age and square footage.
47The Appellant’s property sale 4, 7 Truman Road, is located on the East side of Bayview like the Subject Property and according to MPAC, it sits on the corner of Bayview and thus suffers a heavy traffic nuisance whereas the Subject Property suffers a light traffic nuisance. It has a smaller land area of 9,796 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 11,250 sq. ft. and similar effective frontage at 76 feet compared to 75 feet for the Subject Property. It has a built area of 4,542 sq. ft. compared to the Subject Property’s 4,690 sq. ft. and the same quality of construction of 8 as the Subject Property. Its effective year built is 1992 compared to 1989 for the Subject Property. MPAC considered this property inferior based on the greater traffic nuisance, the Appellant considered it similar. On balance, the Board is satisfied that this property is inferior to the Subject Property because of the greater traffic nuisance and the smaller lot size.
Findings on Issue 1
48Based on the evidence and the above analysis, the Board finds that of the three property sales agreed by the parties or determined by the Board to be inferior, 42 Cotswold Crescent sold for the highest price of $2,471,808. This is the lower end of the value bracket.
49All other comparable sales were agreed by the parties or determined by the Board to be superior. The lowest price of these superior properties was for 12 Old Colony Road at $2,661,618. This is the upper end of the value bracket.
50As the Board has no reason to prefer one end of the bracket or the other, the Board finds that the Subject Property’s current value is halfway between the lower and higher end of the bracket or $2,566,713. This is the correct current value of the Subject Property.
Issue 2 - Whether an equitable reduction in the assessment should be made under s. 43(3) (b) of the Act.
51The parties agreed that an equitable reduction based on an assessment to sale ratio of 0.921 is required. As the correct current value is $2,566,713, the agreed upon reduction will produce an equitable assessment of $2,364,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
52The Board determines that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,566,713 and that an equitable adjustment to $2,364,000 (rounded) is required.
ORDER
53The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years be reduced from $2,485,00 to $2,364,000.
“Christopher Voutsinas”
CHRISTOPHER VOUTSINAS
VICE-CHAIR
“Pierre R. Lavigne”
PIERRE R. LAVIGNE
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
SCHEDULE A
Property and Sales Information
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property #3
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808201000400
190808212000100
190808215000600
Address
65 HARRISON RD
7 SULGRAVE CRES
77 GERALD ST
67 FOREST HEIGHTS BLVD
Neighbourhood
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
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)
Distance in km
0.6091
0.8338
0.448
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$2,485,000
$2,102,000
$3,189,000
$2,943,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale
Sale Date
20161031
20160418
20160630
Sale Amount
$3,326,000
$2,900,000
$3,645,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$2,811,468
$2,716,817
$3,295,796
Time Adjustment Factor
0.8453
0.9368
0.9042
Site
Effective Frontage (F)
75
89.98
67.5
121
Effective Depth (F)
150
183.87
146.79
131.45
Effective Site Area (SF)
11,250
16,544.62
9,908.32
15,905.45
Abuts Variable(s)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light (-7%)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light (-7%)
Proximity Variable(s)
(9) Traffic Pattern - Heavy (-7%)
On Site Variable(s)
Residential Structure
Year Built
1989
1957
2001
1992
Effective Year Built
1989
1957
2001
1992
Quality of Construction
8
7.5
8
8
SCHEDULE A – Continued
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property #3
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808201000400
190808212000100
190808215000600
Address
65 HARRISON RD
7 SULGRAVE CRES
77 GERALD ST
67 FOREST HEIGHTS BLVD
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
4,690
3,840
5,241
5,234
Basement Area (SF)
2,136
2,234
2,435
2,762
Finished Basement Area (SF)
1,815
1,767
2,118
Modifications
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
1989
1957
2001
1992
Building Total Area (SF)
480
480
489
720
Quality of Construction
5
4
4
4
Structure Description
(108) Outdoor Pool
Year Built
2010
Building Total Area (SF)
512
Quality of Construction
2
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Total Area adjusted for differences in Site Variables
$732
$482
$630
Current Value = Median ($656) x Building Total Area (4,690) = $3,076,640
SCHEDULE A – Continued
Subject Property
Property #4
Property #5
Property #6
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808216000200
190808216002400
190808219103900
Address
65 HARRISON RD
7 GERALD ST
64 BERKINDALE DR
17 VERNHAM CRT
Neighbourhood
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
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)
Distance in km
0.4018
0.3642
0.171
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$2,485,000
$2,398,000
$4,999,000
$2,271,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale
Sale Date
20160913
20150611
20160819
Sale Amount
$3,700,000
$2,499,000
$3,346,200
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$3,179,384
$2,856,713
$2,923,765
Time Adjustment Factor
0.8593
1.1431
0.8738
Site
Effective Frontage (F)
75
75
75
93
Effective Depth (F)
150
200
150
133
Effective Site Area (SF)
11,250
15,000
11,250
12,369
Abuts Variable(s)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light (-7%)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light (-7%)
(E) Abuts Educational Institution (-5%)
Proximity Variable(s)
On Site Variable(s)
Residential Structure
Year Built
1989
1966
1955
1956
Effective Year Built
1989
1992
2005
1989
Quality of Construction
8
7.5
7.5
7.5
SCHEDULE A – Continued
Subject Property
Property #4
Property #5
Property #6
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808216000200
190808216002400
190808219103900
Address
65 HARRISON RD
7 GERALD ST
64 BERKINDALE DR
17 VERNHAM CRT
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
1 3/4 Storeys
2 Storeys - demolished after sale
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
4,690
2,572
3,338
3,743
Basement Area (SF)
2,136
1,503
1,681
1,582
Finished Basement Area (SF)
1,815
1,000
1,000
1,075
Modifications
B, (Year) 2007
C, (Year) 2014
C, (Year) 1995
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(101) Detached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
1989
1966
1955
1956
Building Total Area (SF)
480
488
480
480
Quality of Construction
5
3
4
4
Structure Description
(108) Outdoor Pool
Year Built
1975
Building Total Area (SF)
800
Quality of Construction
2
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Total Area adjusted for differences in Site Variables
$1,150
$856
$766
Current Value = Median ($656) x Building Total Area (4,690) = $
SCHEDULE A – Continued
Subject Property
Property #7
Property #8
Property #9
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808219112500
190808220002600
190808223000300
Address
65 HARRISON RD
23 SWANSDOWN DR
1 HONEYWELL PL
35 ROLLSCOURT DR
Neighbourhood
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
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)
Distance in km
0.5948
0.2199
0.3989
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$2,485,000
$2,427,000
$3,263,000
$3,262,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale
Sale Date
20160628
20151102
20151028
Sale Amount
$3,688,000
$3,370,000
$3,600,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$3,334,677
$3,470,279
$3,782,152
Time Adjustment Factor
0.9042
1.0298
1.0506
Site
Effective Frontage (F)
75
80
99
68
Effective Depth (F)
150
200
125
169
Effective Site Area (SF)
11,250
16,000
12,375
11,492
Abuts Variable(s)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light (-7%)
Proximity Variable(s)
On Site Variable(s)
(C) Corner Lot (-1%)
Residential Structure
Year Built
1989
1969
1991
1992
Effective Year Built
1989
1969
1991
1992
Quality of Construction
8
8
8.5
8.5
SCHEDULE A – Continued
Subject Property
Property #7
Property #8
Property #9
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808219112500
190808220002600
190808223000300
Address
65 HARRISON RD
23 SWANSDOWN DR
1 HONEYWELL PL
35 ROLLSCOURT DR
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
4,690
3,571
5,355
5,482
Basement Area (SF)
2,136
1,739
2,802
2,625
Finished Basement Area (SF)
1,815
1,475
2,272
2,263
Modifications
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(108) Outdoor Pool
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
1989
1969
1991
1992
Building Total Area (SF)
480
576
720
480
Quality of Construction
5
2
5
5
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(108) Outdoor Pool
Year Built
1969
1992
Building Total Area (SF)
480
512
Quality of Construction
4
2
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Total Area adjusted for differences in Site Variables
$868
$609
$642
Current Value = Median ($656) x Building Total Area (4,690) = $
SCHEDUE A – Continued
Subject Property
Property #10
Property #11
Property #12
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808224003100
190808224003900
190808228002000
Address
65 HARRISON RD
7 PADDOCK CRT
42 ROLLSCOURT DR
16 OLD COLONY RD
Neighbourhood
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
C73 - 913
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)
Distance in km
0.3567
0.414
0.6764
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$2,485,000
$3,586,000
$3,001,000
$2,714,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale
Sale Date
20160616
20150818
20161110
Sale Amount
$3,900,000
$3,298,800
$3,200,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$3,526,366
$3,611,916
$2,661,618
Time Adjustment Factor
0.9042
1.0949
0.8318
Site
Effective Frontage (F)
75
92
81
105
Effective Depth (F)
150
150
166
130
Effective Site Area (SF)
11,250
13,800
13,446
13,650
Abuts Variable(s)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light (-7%)
Proximity Variable(s)
On Site Variable(s)
Residential Structure
Year Built
1989
1989
1990
1985
Effective Year Built
1989
2005
1990
1985
Quality of Construction
8
8
8
8
SCHEDULE A – Continued
Subject Property
Property #10
Property #11
Property #12
Roll Number
190808219105200
190808224003100
190808224003900
190808228002000
Address
65 HARRISON RD
7 PADDOCK CRT
42 ROLLSCOURT DR
16 OLD COLONY RD
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
4,690
5,235
5,003
4,375
Basement Area (SF)
2,136
2,573
2,581
2,330
Finished Basement Area (SF)
1,815
2,004
2,091
Modifications
B, (Year) 2015
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(108) Outdoor Pool
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
1989
1990
1990
1985
Building Total Area (SF)
480
512
720
480
Quality of Construction
5
2
4
4
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(108) Outdoor Pool
Year Built
1989
1990
Building Total Area (SF)
720
450
Quality of Construction
5
2
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Total Area adjusted for differences in Site Variables
$626
$671
$566
Current Value = Median ($656) x Building Total Area (4,690) = $
WR 176744
SCHEDULE B
Comparable Properties
Property Data
Assessment Data
Sales Data
No.
MPAC
Appellant
Roll Number
Subject Property
Asst Value (2020 Tax Year)
Sale Price
Sale Date
TREB TAF-C12
TREB TAS
TREB TAS/FT
Adjust-ment
Adjusted TAS
Eff Year Built
Variables
Modification
1
2
190808212000100
77 Gerald Street
$3,189,000
$2,900,000
4/18/2016
0.969
$2,809,810
536.12
-7%
498.59
2001
2
190808266002700
42 Cotswold Crescent
$2,651,000
$2,350,000
8/25/2015
1.052
$2,471,808
495.45
-7%
460.77
1996
3
190808246001100
149 Gordon Road
$2,464,000
$2,114,600
1/18/2016
1.000
$2,114,600
508.68
-4%
488.34
1993
Abuts Light Traffic (-2%), Corner Lot (-1%)
4
190808230000300
7 Truman Road
$1,962,000
$2,380,000
2/4/2016
0.990
$2,355,327
518.57
-5%
492.64
1992
Abuts Light Traffic (-2%), Corner Lot (-1%)
Average
514.71
485.08