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: |
Lloyd v. Area 08 (2010 PAABBC 20100793) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
July 13, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
673 Riverside Drive, District of North Vancouver |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Submissions: |
From the Appellant, received June 11 and June 25, 2010 |
|
From the Respondent, received June 11 and June 25, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Rosemary Barnes, Panel Chair |
INTRODUCTION
[1] The appeal is from the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel (the Review Panel) with respect to the assessment of a single family residential property located at 673 Riverside Drive in the District of North Vancouver, BC (the Property). The Review Panel determined the assessed value of the land at $1,165,000 and improvements at $111,000 for a total assessed value of $1,276,000. The Appellant, Ellen Lloyd, is the owner of the Property. She contends that the assessed value of the Property is too high and does not take into consideration the Property’s unique location and restrictions that affect its utility. The Assessor argues that the assessment is in the range of actual value, has taken into account some of the unique characteristics and restrictions affecting the Property, and should be confirmed.
ISSUE
[2] The issue is to determine if the assessed value reflects market value. 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.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
[3] The Property is located in the Seymour area, north of the Mt. Seymour Parkway, in the District of North Vancouver. It consists of a 0.75 acre (32,670 sq. ft.) irregular shaped lot backing onto the Seymour River with 113.62 feet of river frontage. Access to the Property is by way of a short, gravel, and undeveloped roadway known as Bridgetown Road. The registered title shows there are two statutory right-of-ways in favour of Telus Communications and BC Hydro. There are a few power poles onsite with overhead wiring running down the side of the lot. The total encumbered area is 3,190 sq. ft., comprising a 10 foot wide strip along the side and across the middle of the site. The Property is presently zoned RS2 which allows for residential lots 11,840 sq. ft. in size. Although there is potential in the area for smaller lots development, assembly would be required and there would be road construction and servicing cost. Therefore, it is a non-issue at this stage. The Property is located in a Development Permit Area for Streamside protection and the protection of the environment and a portion of the lot is on the 200 year flood plain.
[4] The Property is improved with a one storey, 1,567 square foot non-basement dwelling built in 1937, but completely renovated in 2007. The house is situated closer to the river on the north portion of the lot. The building location is legally non-conforming due to its proximity to the River. Sewage disposal is by means of a septic system.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
[5] The evidence before me consists of a written submission from Ellen Lloyd dated June 10, 2010, followed by a written response to the Assessor’s submission on June 24, 2010. The Assessor’s submission consists of a letter dated June 11, 2010 from Mr. Richard Starcevic, Acting Senior Appraiser for the Vancouver Sea to Sky Region along with an appraisal report by Mr. Trevor Hart dated June 11, 2010. The Assessor provides a written response to Mrs. Lloyd’s submission on June 25, 2010.
What is the actual value of the Property as of July 1, 2009?
[6] Mr. Hart is an appraiser employed by BC Assessment. In his report he uses the direct comparison approach to value. His market evidence consists of three sales ranging in price from $850,000 to $1,700,000, all located in the same neighbourhood, within one kilometre of the Property.
[7] Mr. Hart notes that prices in the general real estate market were increasing in the summer of 2009. However, his three comparable sales all occurred within one month of the valuation date of July 1, 2009. Therefore, he does not apply time adjustments to his sales.
[8] Mr. Hart applies adjustments for site size and location, as well as for the age, size, building type, condition and quality of the improvements. He describes various negative factors affecting the subject’s land; such as its location on a 200 year flood plain, non-conforming status and lack of a sanitary sewer connection. He applies an overall discount of minus $100,000 to each of his comparables to account for these factors. Recognizing the negative factors concerning the dwelling, which he considers to be an “under improvement” to the land, he applies an overall discount of minus $65,000 to each sales comparable. The adjusted sale prices for these three comparables range from $1,295,000 to $1,450,000.
[9] Ms. Lloyd is critical of Mr. Hart’s sales comparables and the adjustments that he has applied. She argues that they all have large family homes, as compared to hers and the adjustments are misleading to actual value.
[10] Mr. Hart provides, as supporting market evidence, three additional comparable sales. The first sale is located next door to the Property at 691 Riverside Drive, and sold on December 15, 2009 for $1,150,000. He explains that, because it sold well beyond the July 1, 2009 valuation date, he did not use it as a primary comparable. Its site is very similar in location and size (0.75 acres) with a similar amount of river frontage. Sewage disposal is also by septic system. At the time of sale, the dwelling was in inferior condition, as compared to the subject. Mr. Hart states that this property was bought by a builder and has been gutted on the inside and partially on the outside. He points out that the $1,276,000 assessment of the Property is within 11% of the $1,150,000 sale price of this comparable. He contends that this range is reasonable give the nature and issues affecting the two properties.
[11] Ms. Lloyd comments that this neighbouring property was listed in July 2009 at $1,250,000 which was less than the assessed value of her property.
[12] Mr. Hart’s second comparable sale is located approximately 6 blocks north of the Property at 1251 Riverside Drive and sold June 19, 2009 for $1,260,000. He states that the 8,712 sq. ft. site has extensive river frontage, but the lot is shallow and sloping. He considers this comparable to be similar in value to the subject.
[13] His third sale is located approximately 5 kilometres east of the Property at 706 Roslyn Boulevard and sold June 14, 2009 for $1,007,000. Mr. Hart submits that it is basically land value with a 1958, 2 storey home needing work. The lot is 15,000 sq. ft. as compared to the subject’s 32,670 sq. ft. In his opinion, the subject is superior in land and home value. He contends that this sale supports a value closer to the $1,300,000 range for the subject.
[14] Mr. Hart contends that, due to the nature and uniqueness of the Property, there can be a larger range in value as compared to most other typical properties. He states that most of the comparable sales indicate a value close to $1,300,000 or higher for the Property. He says the selection of final value could be tempered somewhat if considering the older sale of the property next door. Therefore, he considers that a selection of value at the low end of the adjusted range ($1,295,000 to $1,450,000) is reasonable. Mr. Hart concludes a value for the Property as of July 1, 2009 at $1,300,000.
[15] Ms. Lloyd contends that the Property is assessed too high when taking into consideration the many negative factors and restrictions affecting it. She includes in her submission maps showing the size and shape of the lot, the area affected by the flood plain, and the right of ways running along the side and across the middle of the lot. She provides photographs to show the overhead wires.
[16] Ms. Lloyd includes a letter from the Planning Department of the District of North Vancouver dated June 10, 2010 relating to the subdivision potential of the Property. It states that the lot does not meet the minimum 24 meter width requirement for subdivision. She also provides photographs of the access road and entry driveway to the Property. Ms. Lloyd notes that the Property is not serviced with natural gas and, as a result, she has to use propane for the kitchen stove.
[17] Ms. Lloyd states that, due to the limitations that the setbacks, easements and riparian corridor requirements place on the Property, she was unable construct a new house. In order to remodel the existing house, she was required to use the original footprint and was restricted to one bathroom. She was not allowed to increase the number of drains into the septic tank.
[18] Mr. Hart responds to Ms. Lloyd’s contention that the market value of the Property is below its current assessed value because of the inability to renovate or rebuild existing structures. He points out that this issue was addressed and discussed in his brief and appropriate adjustments were made.
[19] I observe that Mr. Hart, in his direct comparison approach applies an adjustment of minus $100,000 to recognize various negative factors affecting the land and minus $65,000 to recognize negative issues associated with the dwelling. I find that, although Ms. Lloyd contends that the Property’s market value is negatively affected due to the issues previously outlined, she does not provide me with any specific market evidence to convince me that the adjustments applied by Mr. Hart should be a different amount.
[20] Ms. Lloyd, in her submission, includes a comparative market analysis of the Property provided to her by a local realtor. There is no date of valuation provided. The market analysis includes sales graphs and an average price graph, January 1977 to January 2010. It also includes four comparable sales ranging in price from $655,000 to $1,150,000. The sale dates range from March 2009 to April 2010. Only one of the comparables has river frontage; the sale of the neighbouring property at 691 Riverside Drive for $1,150,000 on December 15, 2009. The report concludes a selling price of $920,000 to $990,000.
[21] Mr. Hart is critical of the comparative market analysis that was provided by the realtor to Ms. Lloyd. He points out that the sale at 691 Riverside Drive was considered in his own brief. However, in his opinion, the other three comparables are inferior in nature and value. They are not located on the “riverfront” and one of the sales occurred in April 2010 which is not remotely close to the valuation date of July 1, 2009. Further, he notes that the realtor did not provide a date of valuation, nor did he provide any analysis or reconciliation of value with the comparables.
[22] I find that I can place very little weight on the market evaluation that was included with Ms. Lloyd’s submission. There is no valuation date specified and there are no adjustments applied to the sales comparables to reflect differences between them and the Property. Further, I find that a time of sale adjustment is required to reflect the difference between the sale dates and the valuation date of July 1, 2009. Therefore, I cannot accept the realtor’s conclusion of a value range for the Property of between $920,000 and $990,000.
[23] The most convincing market evidence before me is that provided by Mr. Hart. He analyzes three sales, all located in the same neighbourhood, and adjusts them for differences. He explains the rationale for his adjustments to recognize the negative factors affecting both the land and the dwelling. I am satisfied that his adjustments are reasonable and based on market data and appraisal experience.
[24] Based on the market evidence, I find the current assessment of $1,276,000 is within an acceptable range of value.
ORDER
[25] The Board confirms the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 08-44-316-100-0508-4500-4:
|
Land: |
$ |
||
|
Improvements: |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
$ |