Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
Joan D James
AND
Assessor Of Area #04 - Central Vancouver Island
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
James et al. v. Area 04 (2010 PAABBC 20100698) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
August 10, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
2866 Norman Road, Nanaimo Rural |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
By Written Submissions closing July 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Submissions: |
From the Appellant received April 29, May 27 and June 15, 2010 |
|
From the Respondent received July 14, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Cheryl Vickers, Panel Chair |
INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES
[1] The property at 2866 Norman Road is a .4 acre lot with 235 lineal feet of waterfrontage on Quenelle Lake, improved with a 752 square foot single family residence constructed in 1971. There are easements registered on title providing access to the property over neighbouring properties.
[2] The Appellants and owners of the property, John and Joan James, have been embroiled in a dispute with neighbouring landowners for some time now respecting access to their property. Mr. James describes the property as being “illegally landlocked” and as “not liveable, rentable or saleable”. Mr. James has provided the Board with a number of documents including excerpts from court judgments, photographs, maps and letters as evidence of the illegal blockage of the access easement to his property. Mr. James submits there is continuing non-compliance with a court order and alleges several violations of zoning, building permits, building codes and other regulations in the construction of a building that he says extends illegally onto the access easement. Complaints directed to various individuals have not resolved the situation and Mr. James expresses frustration and anger at authorities “passing the buck”.
[3] Mr. James submits his property is not “legally taxable”. He accuses various authorities, including the Board, as aiding and abetting criminal mischief and of not enforcing court orders, bylaws or regulations to resolve the access issue, and thereby render the property “legally taxable”. He also alleges that he and his wife have suffered injury as a result of the actions of civic authorities.
[4] The jurisdiction of this Board is limited. In an appeal, the Board has jurisdiction to determine whether a property is entitled to an exemption from taxation and whether the assessed value of the property reflects its probable market value as of the relevant valuation date, in this case, July 1, 2009. The Board has no jurisdiction to enforce court orders or to require access to a property. The Board has no jurisdiction with respect to a claim for injury. Unless the property is entitled to a statutory exemption from taxation, all the Board can do is review the evidence provided to determine whether the property is assessed at its probable market value as of the relevant valuation date. The determination of the tax rate that is applied to the assessed value is not a matter within the Board’s jurisdiction.
[5] The Property Assessment Review Panel determined the actual, or market, value of the property to be $179,700. Given Mr. James’ assertion that the property should not be taxed, the only issues for this Board are whether the property is entitled to an exemption from taxation and if not, whether the Review Panel’s determination of actual value is appropriate.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Is the Property exempt?
[6] Despite Mr. James claims that he is being “illegally taxed” I have not been pointed to any legislative authority that would entitle the property to be exempt from taxation, nor am I aware of any legislative authority that would entitle this property to an exemption from taxation. The issues with access do not render the property non-assessable or exempt from taxation. The issues with access should be considered, however, in determining the probable market value of the property.
Market Value
[7] The only market evidence before me is that provided by Evelyn Katz, an appraiser with BC Assessment. Ms. Katz provides evidence of three sales in 2009 of single family homes of similar vintage on similarly sized lots. None of the sale properties are lakefront properties. The sale prices range from $251,000 to $339,500. Ms. Katz’s evidence is that all three of the sale properties are inferior to the subject.
[8] Ms. Katz’s evidence is that 2866 Norman Road is unique as it is the only non-acreage lakefront property. All of the other properties on Quenelle Lake are acreages of varying sizes with an average size of 5 acres. Apparently, there were no sales of lakefront properties on Quenelle Lake in 2008 or 2009. While describing 2866 Norman Road as superior due to its waterfrontage, she acknowledges it is negatively impacted by the access issues. In her opinion, the property “could easily have been expected to sell for $179,700 on July 1, 2009.” She submits that because the subject is a lakefront property, the assessed value may be conservative, but that the conservative value “adequately considers any negative impact of the access issues”.
[9] I accept that 2866 Norman Road is a unique property, not only because of its location and size, being the only small waterfront property on Quenelle Lake, but also because it has problems with access. The market evidence before me indicates that similarly sized lots with similar homes that are not waterfront but that have proper access sold in 2009 for between $250,000 to $339,500. There is no market evidence before me, however, to assist with quantifying an adjustment to this suggested market value range to account for the superior feature of the subject’s waterfront or the inferior feature of problematic access. I find it hard to accept that the property would have no market value even with the ongoing and unresolved dispute over access, and there is no evidence before me such as attempts at marketing or sales of other limited or no-access properties to support a conclusion that the property would have a nominal or no market value. Nor do I have evidence of a cost to cure the access problem that could potentially be deducted from the estimated market value of a property without access problems. On the other hand, there is also no evidence to support Ms. Katz’s opinion that the property “could easily have been expected to sell for $179,700 on July 1, 2009”. All the evidence before me indicates is that similar properties without waterfront but with proper access, could be expected to sell for between $250,000 to $339,000.
[10] I do not know what evidence the Review Panel relied on in determining a value of $179,700. Despite the appearance of being a somewhat arbitrary conclusion, at least in the context of the evidence before me, it at least implies that the negative feature of the property’s access problems outweigh the positive feature of waterfrontage, which does not seem to be an unreasonable conclusion on the evidence before me. I can at least be satisfied that the Review Panel’s conclusion of value considers the issue of access, as clearly without an access problem, the market value of the property would be considerably higher.
[11] On the limited evidence before me, I am satisfied that the property’s 2010 assessed value is appropriate.
ORDER
[12] The Board confirms the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 04-68-768-03393.100:
|
Land: |
$ |
||
|
Improvements: |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
$ |