Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 31, 2024

FILE NO.: WR 186198

Assessed Person(s): Sandra Kendall; Paul Davidson

Appellant(s): Sandra Kendall

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s): King Township

Property Location(s): 5840 18th Sideroad

Municipality(ies): King Township

Roll Number(s): 1949-000-102-52000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3520302 and 3525385

Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024

Hearing Event No.: 783682

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Sandra Kendall	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Adrianna Combdon
King Township	No one appeared

HEARD: May 1, 2024 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Sandra Kendall (“Appellant”) is the owner of 5840 18th Sideroad in King Township (“Subject Property”). The Appellant appealed the assessment for the 2023 taxation year, and a further appeal was deemed for the 2024 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). The Appellant takes the position that the assessed value of $266,000 as determined by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is correct but requires an adjustment in the form of a nuisance reduction.

2MPAC opposes the appeals. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is the assessed value of $266,000 and that no further nuisance reduction is warranted.

3While the municipality is a statutory party to the appeal proceeding no one appeared at the hearing event on behalf of the municipality. Karen Wootton, Crystal Gregson and Peggy Tollett did attend as observers.

Background

The Subject Property

4The Subject Property is a farm property with a single-family detached home, two barns and two sheds, located on 11.95 acres of land. At the hearing, the Appellant stated that the property is used for the training of horses.

Assessment History

5The Subject Property’s current value was considered in 2022 under MPAC’s Request for Reconsideration process (“RFR”) and prior to that in 2017 - 2018 appeals filed by the Appellant and settled by the parties via minutes of settlement.

6As a result of the settled 2017 - 2018 appeals, the value of the Subject Property was reduced from $383,000 to $280,000.

7Subsequently and further to the 2022 RFR, the value of the Subject Property was reduced from $280,000 to $266,000 resulting from an agreed upon 5% adjustment in the form of a nuisance reduction.

Areas of Agreement

8The parties agree on the basis of the assessed value of the Subject Property of $266,000. However, the Appellant takes the position that a further adjustment in the form of a 20% - 50% reduction of the assessed value for nuisance (from an abutting property) is required.

Issues for the Hearing

9At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property?

• Specifically, does a further adjustment in the form of a nuisance reduction apply to the Subject Property’s current value for taxation purposes and if so, how much?

Result

10The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is the assessed value of $266,000.

11The Board finds that a further adjustment in the form of a nuisance reduction does not apply.

12The Board finds, with reference to similar lands in the vicinity, per s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, that no equity reduction is required for the 2023 – 2024 taxation years.

ANALYSIS

13At issue in this proceeding is the following matter:

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property? Specifically, does a further adjustment in the form of a nuisance reduction apply to the Subject Property’s current value for taxation purposes and if so, how much?

14Section 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 2023 - 2024 taxation years in question, the statutory valuation date is January 1, 2016.

15MPAC takes the position that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 - 2024 taxation years is $266,000. The Appellant takes the position that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $266,000 but requires a reduction in the form of a nuisance adjustment of between 20% to 50%.

Evidence and Submissions of the Parties

MPAC’s Position

16At the hearing, MPAC reviewed the valuation report prepared by its expert, Kelly McGhee, dated February 14, 2024.

17MPAC utilized the direct comparison approach to determine the value of the farm land, and the cost approach to determine the value of the improvements on the land.

18In its direct comparison approach, MPAC used five time-adjusted property sales. Its analysis resulted in a current value of the farm land of $116,000.

19In its cost approach, MPAC estimated the cost to replace the improvements less total depreciation realized by the improvements. Its analysis resulted in a current value of the improvements of $164,000.

20MPAC then combined the value of the land and improvements resulting in a value of $280,000 (rounded). It then applied the agreed 5% nuisance reduction (per the 2022 RFR) to obtain the current value of $266,000 (rounded).

21The resulting value of the Subject Property of $266,000 is allocated as follows: $156,700 Farm Residential, $99,700 Farm, and $9,600 Conservation Land.

22MPAC indicated in its submission that the Subject Property sold in March 2006 for $480,000.

23MPAC asserted that pursuant to the 2017-2018 appeal, the value of the Subject Property had already been agreed by the parties and that a further 5% nuisance reduction was applied to the value of the Subject Property pursuant to the 2022 RFR.

24At the hearing, MPAC stated that the nuisance reduction of 5% was erroneously applied to the entire value of the Subject Property, whereas as it should only have been applied to the residential portion of the property. MPAC did not seek this correction to the value of the Subject Property.

25Further, MPAC stated that in order to benefit from a nuisance adjustment for noise, the noise needs to be constant.

26MPAC stated that the Appellant was seeking a 50% reduction in the Subject Property’s current value due to a lack of by-law enforcement by the Township and ongoing by-law violations of the abutting neighbour.

27MPAC took the position that the Subject Property’s value had already been agreed upon and that the 5% reduction per signed minutes of settlement is binding and there could be “no renegotiating”.

28MPAC also asserted that the Appellant had provided no market evidence or property sales to support its position on current value and the quantum of nuisance adjustment.

29MPAC took the position that no change in the previously agreed assessed value between the parties is warranted.

30MPAC concluded that the Board cannot apply a reduction without evidence from the Appellant.

31MPAC stated at the hearing that there were sales of properties adjacent to the Subject Property – and one which is closer to the nuisance that sold in 2019 for $1.5 million.

32While the Appellant took the position that the Township was taking no action, MPAC referred to evidence from the Appellant that indicated that legal action had been pursued by the Township and that the abutting property owner plead guilty and was fined $5k.

33MPAC also referred to a letter in the Appellant’s evidence which indicated, among other things, that the Appellant’s complaints had been considered and that the Township was no longer in a position to commence prosecutions.

34As such, it was MPAC’s position that the Appellant had received consideration and municipal services by the Township in connection with its complaints.

35With respect to equity, MPAC selected 30 similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property. MPAC’s equity analysis resulted in a level of assessment / assessment to sale ratio of 0.97 and a coefficient of dispersion of 10.0. MPAC concluded that no equity reduction was necessary.

Appellant’s Position

36At the hearing, the Appellant indicated that the current value of $266,000 for the Subject Property is allocated as follows: $156,700 in Farm Residential, $99,700 in Farm, and $9,600 Conservation Land/Exempt (same as MPAC’s allocation).

37The Appellant did not object to MPAC’s valuation nor its equity analysis.

38The Appellant indicated that the 2022 RFR was pursued as a result of 1. the Township’s refusal to enforce its by-laws, and 2. nuisance due to noise - in connection with the abutting neighbour property.

39The Appellant asserted that the agreed 5% reduction was for “settlement purposes” only and in their view was a “starting point” and not considered final by the Appellant.

40The Appellant asserts that the current appeals are the result of increased noise, dust, fumes, and vibrations due to an expansion of works at the nuisance property.

41At the hearing, the Appellant indicated that they were “not fighting the assessment” but argued that a further 20% - 50% nuisance reduction should be applied to the assessment of the Subject Property.

42The Appellant argued that the nuisance had expanded since 2022 (when the 5% adjustment had been agreed between the parties) due to increased activity levels and changes in use at the abutting property, and lack of compliance with various licenses. This included the presence of seven open dumpsters, 10 front-end loaders, discarded tires, rubble and what appear to be garbage and waste management activities.

43The Appellant objected to the property sales used for valuation comparison purposes by MPAC. The Appellant asserted that the search criteria were too broad and that no appropriate comparator properties were available. The Appellant claims that the sales comparators were not farms and that some had more impressive homes.

44The Appellant argued that while MPAC did not find compelling evidence of noise during its site visits, that these visits were random, and no dates or times of the visits had been recorded by MPAC.

45The Appellant expressed frustration with the Township as the Township stated that it would not be pursuing zoning or by-law violations at the abutting property. The Appellant referenced a letter dated January 12, 2022 from Aird & Berlis in its evidence that confirmed the same.

46The Appellant argued that the other properties abutting the nuisance property were not comparable in that one property sloped away from the nuisance property and that the properties had brick homes, whereas the Subject Property did not.

47The Appellant stated that the Subject Property is used to train horses and that this activity had to be moved to another location due to the nuisance.

48The Appellant also indicated that the neighbour operated at night and on weekends including Sunday. The Appellant expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with the Township as the “Township won’t do anything”.

The Board’s Analysis

49The Board has considered both parties’ evidence and arguments at the hearing.

50While the Board understands the Appellant’s sense of frustration, disappointment, and discomfort, the Board’s authority is to determine the correct current value of the Subject Property for taxation purposes. In this regard, the Appellant has provided insufficient market-based and sales evidence for the Board to make a determination of both current value, on the one hand, and nuisance reduction, on the other hand.

51Per its expert report, MPAC’s valuation analysis is based on a combination of the sales comparison approach (for land) and the cost approach (for improvements) – both accepted methodologies for valuation purposes. MPAC’s equity analysis is based upon a reasonable sample set of 30 market-based sales of similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property.

52The Board prefers MPAC’s market-based valuation and equity analysis over the Appellant’s arguments, largely qualitative and subjective, and limited evidence in establishing the current value of the Subject Property and associated nuisance adjustment.

Findings on Issue 1

53Based on the above analysis and evidence received, the Board finds that the Subject Property’s correct current value for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is $266,000 (no equity reduction required).

54Also, the Board finds that no further nuisance adjustment be applied.

ORDER

55The Board orders the Subject Property’s assessment of $266,000 and its apportionments of Residential $156,700, Farm $99,700 and Conservation Land $9,600 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years confirmed.