Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
AND
Assessor Of Area #08 - Vancouver Sea To Sky Region
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Han v. Area 08 (2010 PAABBC 20100287) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
June 30, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
320 Bayview Place, Village of Lions Bay |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Submissions: |
From the Appellant, received May 25, 2010 |
|
From the Respondent, received May 25 & June 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Shiela Toth, Panel Chair |
INTRODUCTION
[1] The property under appeal (the Property) is a two storey home located on a large irregular shaped lot overlooking Howe Sound.
[2] The Appellant, Mr. Han, contends the assessment is too high and does not reflect the market value. Specifically, he suggests the land portion of the assessment is too high and states it should be “in the high $600,000 range”.
[3] Mr. Ma, on behalf of the Respondent Assessor, submits the current assessment of $909,000 represents the market value for the Property as of July 1, 2009.
Issue
[4] The issue is whether the assessed value reflects the actual value of the Property. For the 2010 roll, the actual value of the Property is the market value as of July 1, 2009, in its condition as of October 31, 2009.
Facts
[5] The Property is located in the village of Lions Bay, approximately 35 kilometres north of Vancouver. It is a mountainside community with most of the properties having views of Howe Sound. The Property is an irregular shaped 10,274 square foot lot on Bayview Place, a cul-de-sac. It is improved with a 1,228 square foot home built in 1972. It has steep roof lines, extensive use of glass, and decks to take advantage of the view.
Evidence and Submissions
Appellant
[6] Mr. Han submits an assessment comparison chart of 5 properties to illustrate the current land assessment of the Property at $765,000 is too high. Mr. Ma corrects some of the assessment data in his rebuttal,
[7] Mr. Han provides no information as to how the 5 properties compare to the Property as far as location, access or view. The single comparison on the same cul-de–sac (330 Bayview Place) has a land assessment equal to the Property, according to Mr. Ma’s corrected value.
[8] Mr. Ma also submits assessment data from properties located on the same cul-de-sac, Bayview Place. Two of the properties have the same land assessment value at $765,000, an additional two have a higher assessed value for the land.
[9] Because these assessment values have not been related to any sales data or market values and they are consistent within the immediate area where the Property is located, I find no evidence in these assessment comparables to establish a land assessment around the high $600,000 range.
[10] Mr. Han also includes a chart of 10 homes in the area that sold between May and December of 2009. He compares the selling price to the assessed value of each. He does not indicate any adjustments for time or for differences in land or improvements to the Property.
[11] Mr. Han states an experienced realtor suggested a selling price (as of “today”) for the Property in the low $800,000 range. On this basis, Mr. Han argues again the assessed value for the land should be in the high $600,000 range. However, for the 2010 roll, actual value is as of July 1, 2009. Mr. Han does not provide any information on market changes from July 1, 2009 and “today”. Because of no indication of market changes or a time adjustment, I give little weight to the realtor’s suggested selling price as an indication of market value for the Property.
[12] Mr. Han submits a third chart of the same 10 properties in the area that compares sold prices to assessment value by percentage difference. Lastly Mr. Han argues that the assessment increase is not based on market value but simply an “average increase” across the area and if so, then the assessed land value for the Property should remain under $700,000.
Respondent
[13] Mr. Ma submits an appraisal using the direct comparison approach to establish a market value for the Property. He uses three comparable property sales in Lions Bay. He makes adjustments to account for differences in land and improvements. Mr. Ma includes a market analysis to justify any time adjustments necessary due to the sale dates of the comparable properties. He also states, although there is some lot size differences, the three property sales and the Property are similarly sloped, view lots with minimal utility outside the footprint of the improvements on each lot, therefore, he has not made any adjustment for differences in lot size.
[14] The first comparable property sold for $873,400 on October 4, 2009. Mr. Ma makes a small adjustment for time. He also makes adjustments for a larger home and yard improvements based on BC assessment data. His adjusted sale price is $900,400.
[15] The second comparable property sold on July 20, 2009 for $940,000. This sale is included as 30 Lions Bay Avenue in Mr. Han’s chart of properties comparing assessment value to sale price. Mr. Ma makes adjustments, based on BC assessment comparison market data, for a newer, larger home, a garage and yard improvements. He establishes an adjusted sale price of $936,000.
[16] The third comparable property sold for $1,055,250 on May 18, 2009. This sale is included as 50 Seaview Place in Mr. Han’s chart of properties comparing assessment value to sale price. Mr. Ma adjusts for a newer home and additional decks. He establishes an adjusted sale price of $1,069,250.
[17] In his analysis, Mr. Ma weighs all three comparable properties and establishes the first comparable property as the best indicator of value because it has the least adjustments and the home is of similar size and age. From an adjusted sale price range of $900,000 - $1,069,000, Mr. Ma estimates $909,000 as a market value for the Property.
[18] Mr. Ma concludes with an analysis of the assessment to sale price (ASR) ratio in the area. He states the Lion Bay area had 12 sales in 2009 and has an ASR at 97.13 for the area.
Analysis
[19] The submitted sales data from which a market value for the Property can be estimated includes the chart of 10 sold properties submitted by Mr. Han and the three comparable properties submitted by Mr. Ma.
[20] Mr. Han’s chart shows a range of sale prices between $900,000 and $1,270,000. However, this range is quite broad and has not been adjusted for any differences in sales dates or differences in improvements, location or lot.
[21] Two of the three comparable properties submitted by Mr. Ma are also included in Mr. Han’s chart. Mr. Ma has analyzed these properties and adjusted them for time and differences in improvements. For this reason, I prefer the three sales included in Mr. Ma’s appraisal.
[22] Mr. Ma includes an analysis for his time adjustment that is based on the market activity in the area. I find this market based analysis reasonable. He states the adjustments for differences in the improvements are based on BC Assessment data. He does not submit any of this data or analysis within his appraisal, however, I have no contrary evidence for the adjustments made and accept them as reasonable.
[23] The range of the three adjusted sales values is $900,400 - $1,069,250. The first comparable, at the lower end of the range is improved with a home of the same age and of similar size as the subject. It also has the least adjustments. I find it to be the best comparable and find it reasonable to estimate market value for the Property at the lower end of the indicated range based on this comparable. I note that the estimated market value for the Property is also near the lower end of the range indicated by the sales in Mr. Han’s chart.
[24] Equity was not identified as an issue in this appeal, however, Mr. Ma submits ASR data and Mr. Han has submits a percentage difference chart of sales and assessment values. To find inequity, an assessment must be found to be inconsistent with the assessments of similar properties in the area. The land assessments for properties located on Bayview Place in evidence before me are consistent at $765,000 or higher. I find no evidence to suggest the Property has been inequitably assessed.
Conclusion
[25] I find $909,000 a reasonable estimate of market value for the Property as of July 1, 2009.
ORDER
[26] The Board confirms the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 08-45-537-00221.035:
|
Land: |
$ |
||
|
Improvements: |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
$ |