The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-23-96 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Meeting: File# �aa_ Date: April 1, 1996 Res. #Q2L— b Sy-t_aw# Report#: =_.23-46 File#: Subject: APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION, REDUCTION OR REFUND OF TAXES Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report TR-23-96 be received; 2. THAT the direction be provided under Option "A" or "B" as outlined below: Option "A": To approve a reduction of $4,577.54. The municipality's share of this write-off would amount to 20% or approximately $915.51. Option "B": To not approve the reduction of $4,577.54. In doing so, the assessed owner still has an opportunity to appeal Council's decision to the Assessment Review Board. The Municipality shall notify the assessed owner of his opportunity to appeal; and 3. THAT the assessed owner and his tax agent be notified of Council's decision; FORTHWITH. BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: Pursuant to Sections 441, 442 and 443, Chapter M.45 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1990, a list of applications for cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes was presented to Committee for its review and approval in February as Report TR-7-96. It was recommended in TR-7-96 that Claim #216 be received and reviewed under a separate report at a later date. It was also noted that a "442 application was applied for July 6, 1995 and subsequently, forwarded to the Regional Assessment Office. As the application went unanswered, the application was re-issued January 22, 1996." At the time of report TR-7-96 was prepared, a recommendation from the Assessment Office was not available for Claim #216. TH6 G PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER 729 TR-23-96 Page - 2 - Claim #216 relates to the following: Roll #: 030-120-01700-0000 Assessed Owner: 1081568 Ontario Inc. Assessed Address: 386 Mill Street, Newcastle Year of Application: 1995 School Support: Public Reason Claim by Applicant: Was damaged by demolition, rendered unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage. Date of First Application: July 6, 1995 (see Attachment #1) Date of Second Application: August 15, 1995 (see Attachment #2) Date of Third Application: January 22, 1996 (see Attachment #3) The original application dated July 6, 1995 was not returned, but a separate application was prepared by the assessor. It recommended a reduction of RP 676 which equates to a $315.72 tax reduction for the period of May 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995. This application relates specifically to a partial demolition of the building and the Tax Office agrees it is justifiable. However, Mr. Aldridge, who is the property tax agent, acting on behalf of the owner, does not feel the real intent of their application has been addressed. Basically, they feel the demolition was only a small part of the application and that having been demolished, the property is substantially unusable, justifying a further tax reduction. See Mr. Aldridge's letter, Attachment #4. He also states that in his opinion "the Tax Collector or the Treasurer without questioning the integrity of the Assessment Office" should be able to process this tax application. The Treasury Department, however, relies on the expertise of the Regional Assessment Office in the area of assessment and as a result, is not comfortable with his recommendation. They perform the field inspections for 442 applications and then provide an assessment report as required on the application with appropriate comments. The assessment report provides a breakdown of the assessment between land and building. The municipality does not have direct access to this information. Ultimately, if the assessment owner does not agree with Council's decision they are entitled to appeal their assessment to the Assessment Review Board where they will be given a hearing before a Chairman and the Assessment Office. The Assessment Office has reviewed Mr. Aldridge's letter and the 442 application and recommended "No Change". They have also referred Council to read the attached Ontario Municipal Board decision (see Attachment #5). 730 TR-23-96 Page - 3 - CONCLUSIONS: Council has the following options: Option "A": To approve a reduction of $4,577.54. The municipality's share of this write-off would amount to 20% or approximately $915.51. Option "B": To not approve the reduction of $4,577.54. In doing so, the assessed owner still has an opportunity to appeal Council's decision to the Assessment Review Board. The Municipality shall notify the assessed owner of his opportunity to appeal, FORTHWITH. In addition to either option chosen, the Municipality should approve the assessment reduction as it relates to the first application for $315.72 as outlined above. Respectful ly submitted, Reviewed by, ane A. Marano, H.BSc.,A.M.C.T., W.H. Stockwell, Treasurer. Chief Administrative Officer. MM/hjl Attachments 7 1 (pMunicipal 4Yorld'—Form 1170 "k'eg.TM:in Canada,Mw idpd WorWw. ATTACHMENT #1 MuWpf c Copies—PRESS FIRMLY—Ho Carbon Roquircd APPLICATION TO THE COUNCIL 613 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD FOR ADJUSTMENT OF TAXES FOR THE . . . . ...... .. . . . . . FOR THE YEAR . , . UNDER SECTION 442 OR 443 OF THE MUNICIPAL-ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45. Assessed Address Business Realty Roll Number Bus.Identifier r C1. Mun. Map Div. Sub-Div Parcel Prim./Sub.. E]Tax Application relates to Ass.Act ss.33/34 EFFECTIVE DATE Name of Assessed erg f Telephone No. t., •, i '-•is ':('; .r1j �/ !�,, ,.._.� � l`.J Mailing Address of Assessed Person P,r �•(mot stn�Cod(S / n i l Name of Applicant T 11?h a No.._ . Mailing Address of pill cant Postal Code REASON FOR APPLICATION: (CHECKAPPROPRIATE BOX—ONE(1)ONLY) ❑No longer doing business at this address ❑ Razed by fire,demolition or otherwise ❑ Reduced space of premises used for business Damaged by fire,demolition or otherwise(substantially unusable) ❑Commercial to residential tax rate differential ❑Became exempt ❑Mobile unit removed ❑Gross or manifest clerical error ❑ 442 ❑ 443 ❑Sickness or extreme poverty( DETAILS OF REASON t✓f.�... ...1 (( J3.r. ,y {�-n,..;� I. SHARED/EMPLOYEE zrf f ........... PARKING IS PERIOD TAX RELIEF CLAIMED: From.....tv c l'!....(..... 19.Q.i'}.... To...j.�G.C...•. �..... 19�L`af....-... APPLICABLE IN Applicants Signature. • a � `t tf/ { L_ / r. Date of Application. G C,C.... .. 19.l.L`" . <.:•j. :+ j , CLERK'S •• SCHOOL BOARD:❑English ❑French ❑Other............... TOTAL REALTY ASSESSMENT:.................... RP.......................RS....................CID.......................CS................... BUSINESS ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS: Realty Portion Business Assessment Signature...... ........... .................................. Date............................... .................. ........ ASSESSMENT REPORT EFFECTIVE DATE>..................................19....... TAXABLE REALTY ASSESSMENT REDUCTION: At residential rate P....................... S ........................ At commercial rate P........................... S....................... TAXABLE REALTY ASSESSMENT REMAINING: At residential rate P....................... S ........................ At commercial rate P........................... S....................... Commercial to residential tax rate differential based on an assessment of p,,••••• S BUSINESS ASSESSMENT REDUCTION: U8. t Realty portion P....................... S ........................ Bus.Assmnt P... S BUSINESS ASSESSMENT REMAINING: Realty portion P..............I........ S ........................ us. us.Assmnt P........................... S.................... B B PERIOD OF VACANCY From ....................... 19.............. To ....................... 19.............. ❑ 442 required next year ❑ "Bt,sine-�s Tax to be adjusted as per above"Business Assessment Particulars" Comments and/or confirmation of error s.443 ❑ New Levy-Assessment Act,ss.33 and 34 error(s. ''''''''''''''''' ❑ Vacant............. Hold for New Tenant ..................................................................... ❑ NO CHANGE IN THE ASSESSMENT Signature....................................... Date..........19..... • •-'S REPORT OF REALTY TAX Realty Assmnt Pub. Realty Assmm.Sep, Mill Rate Pub. Mill Rate Sep, O Mo. Amount of Tax Adjustment Original Tax levy At Commercial> At Residential> Mill Rate Diff.> j 11 COMME hIAA!RP)10�TAXAdJustt �[Redt�tioa Csr�cellaGoft :. . 3ieiund>::>: BUSINESS TAX Bus.Assmnt Pub. Bus.Assmnt Sep. Mill Rate Pub. Mill Rate Sep �s Q Amount of Tax Adjustment Original Tax Levy At Commercial)P- Comments .............................. . .................................................................................. Signature............................ • • Date....................19. .................. ........ •• -• • • • • •• :• • ❑APPROVED ❑AMENDED AND APPROVED El NOT APPROVED• (fax to be adjusted ❑APPLICANT DID NOT accordingly) accordi 9 y)djusted APPEAR ❑APPLICATION REASON: .............................................................................. ......................................................................I............. Appeared for Applicant ...................................................... Appeared for Municipality................................................. .......................... . Date of Hearing ..................................................19....... Signature of Secretary or Board Clerk ......................................... Signature of Council Rep.or ARB Member ......................._............ Lta't'e . : : .::..;:.;;::.;: :.::;.;:.: ::::.;:. . ...:...:...:..:.:.:.::.: ::.:,:.;:<:.:::::. .: ear ;o.ta; un�ra . c :.R:S;O::.. :.:d> , :.. . :::..::.: :..::. .,..,:;.:;:..:::.:.;..4 ;:.;:. :;.::..::;:::,, �9Qr;c,ay1;45s::.!342:;and 443:and:wlll;be.:usedtor:h.., .. .....,.,.:,art thts a Ircattatt dues$ should bltdt�ahMia1 ::: a.e purposes.....)?p:.<:;::.;.;;:.>............ oordirratorofihemunlcpalrty,:::>::;::<:::; MUNICIPAL CLERK'S COPY .7 3 2 M 4w'orid'"—F r1170 ATTACHMENT#2 i Mu—PRESS MU Y—No Carbon Roquivod APPLICATION TO THE COUNCIL OR ASSESSMENT REVIEW BO R "�M.4 FOR'ADJUSTMEN T OF TAXES FOR THE.!YIl,1/.)1 • • FOR THE YEAR . ./. . .95• • •. UNDER SECTION 442 OR 443 OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT, R.S. . 1 9 , c. Assessed Address Business Realty Roll Number 0 Bus.Identifier f C M Parcel Prim,/Sub. D O 0/7 0v2t Mill U;I ❑ . D ❑Tax Application relates to Ass.Act ss.3=4 EFFECTIVE DATE > Name of Assessed Person ' Q � I Telephone No. X00 �t c3 1 NG- Mailing Address of Assessed Person rZ 066 Q . 5 U-000 a L0.6 I h ,C) Postal Code Name of Applicant C O c7 voumg(J v '"l Telephone No.96 J 2 ^ Mailing Address of Applicant Postal Code REASON FOR APPLICATION: (CHECKAPPROPRIATE BOX—ONE(1)ONLY ❑No longer doing business at this address ❑ Razed by fire,demolition or otherwise ❑ Reduced space of premises used for business amaged by fire,demolition or otherwise(substantially unusable) ❑Commercial to residential tax rate differential ❑Became exempt ❑Mobile unit removed ❑Gross or manifest clerical error ❑ 442 ❑ 443 ❑Sickness or extreme poverty Q p.� /� DETAILS OF REASON.........J.�t?!.(!!4...Y AU u,n ON........... ❑ SHARED/EMPLOYEE /�`, PARKING IS PERIOD TAX RELIEF CLAIMED: From...��7....t....... 19 5...... To...d./. (......... 19. ,� ...•• APPLICABLE Applicants Signature. Date of Application. .19. ........................................ ................... ........... REPORT SCHOOL BOARD:❑English ❑French ❑Other............... TOTAL REALTY ASSESSMENT:.................... RP....:4.. . ........RS....................CP.......................CS................... BUSINESS ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS: Realty Portion Business Assessment CP ....... CS........ ........... ....Bus.°k ............... BP.......................BS............... Signature...... ........................................................ Date.......... ...... ..19. ........ REPORT EFFECTIVE DATE>..................................19........ TAXABLE REALTY ASSESSMENT—REDUCTION: At residential rate P.........152. 4�....... S ........................ At commercial rate P....!_!... TA�CABLE REALTY ASSESSMENT RE�MALINING: At residential rate P......�d Z -i....... S ........................ t commerce ate P.... .......... A al r I S�. Commercial to residential tax rate differential based on an assessment of p••,, •t,,•, . ,, BUSINESS ASSESSMENT REDUCTION: us.% Realtyportion P....................... S ....................... Bus.Assmnt. P. - BUSINESS ASSESSMENT REMAINING: Realtyportion P....................... S ........................ Bus.Assmnt. P......................... S....................... PERIOD:)F\IACANCY From ....................... 19.............. To ....................... 19.............. ❑ 442 required next year ❑ ••Business Tax to be adjusted as per above"Business Assessment Particulars" Comments and/or confirmation of error 443 s. 7 ( ( )).. ❑ New Levy-Assessment Act,as.33 and 34 ........................... ❑ Vacant. .......... Hold for New Tenant ..... 71k4/!................ 171 NO CHANGE IN THE ASSESSMENT Slgnatur�� N" W .............. D e. REALTY TAX Realty Assmnt.Pub. Realty Assmnt.Sep. M71 Rate Pub. Mill Rate Sep. Days Mo.❑ Amount of Tax Adjustment Original Tax Levy At commercial> At Residential> Mill Rate Diff.> "•.•,N"C`.::>:::i$ifiY<s::>;;:;>::>>:<i>::;>s::<s2::;:::> s::::>,;;;,;;',:;,;>5;::«:;>:::>;:< <:::<z:;>#is ?:>:::;:::<:;;>:<:<s 's'> >::;:,:>::::::>` :>`<> >>»>> ''::>< <:>::%<>:: :<::>:::<::»::>#:::>:>:<?:>;>:>s>i?:??>.>::»> Q., fitXiMME Nt>A MAN I QH fistt?JUB tM.NT ❑1�edu�lWnsnceilathn::::::::a::::. Aelurxf.:<::» BUSINESS TAX ,- .Bus.Assmnt Pub. Bus.Assmm.Sep, Days Mo,�P ,-Mill Rate Pub. Mill Rate ❑ ❑ Amount of Tax Adjustment Original Tax Levy M�At Commercial> Comments.................................................................................... Signature. ..............................� • •• Date. .19. :•. •ri • . � •• . :• - ❑APPROVED ❑AMENDED AND APPROVED ❑NOT APPROVED AP (Tax to be adjusted (fax to be adjusted ❑ PLICANT DID NOT ❑APPLICATION APPEAR accordingly) accordingly) ABANDONED REASON:........... .......... .................................................................. Appeared for Applicant ...................................................... Appeared for Municipality.............................. . Date of Hearing ......................... 19 Signature of Secretary or Board Clerk .................... ....... ... Signature of Council Rep.or ARB Member ............. ............ ::::.,:::•:;••;:::.>::r.::;:::%;?i+::`-'"•:...`:..............::::>•:,::;2;::::::i::i::::::i+5 i:>`•''Fi'•:::::;::>••;:::::>:•;::::;::<:::%:5::«::J::'i`::SR:i•:'.'•::::;•;i:: <.:::•.;.;:;a:.t:,>:.: r:;:.::••:•:o>»>: .:: 1 ienfaimai�orr:zrrt:;thts#orr �s ..ris:::..:,•,. ...,,,;., .,.,,,eg•;,•,;:. ,,t�r�fahe;l�lu�lr�pat.�ic�;t�.�a,..C><:;1.. Q;:;c �1 Aa,s.::�442•:and 44.3:and:�rdhbe> ofthu ; stafd tnlis app![cattntt>d rtestt ::sttoutct::be::d(rcd: :...;...:.:.: ..:..:.;•::.: ::.:..:..:.::.:.:::.::.,. sed f ...:.................:....:.:::.::::::.::.�::::::::.�::::.;:<.::.;:;;:.:::;::.::.;;;;:.:<.:;;;;•:.ta.;thy:.M,unc�p�3:;�ir irk::ar::the::�reedorti::of:fnfo• . , . e COUNCIL OR ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD CEwED (Municipal World*—Form 1170 RE ATTACHMENT #3 -Reg.T.M•.iA Canada,Munl*al woruiw. r IU14D'Copies—PRESS FIRMLY—No Caxbon Required (� 2 APPLICATION TO THE COUNCIL OR ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD HAM FOR.ADJUSTMENT OF TAXES FOR THE.. ..... ... . ..... .. .. .. .. .. . .....�. #A3-A3 THE YEAR .. . . . :UNDER SECTION 442 OR 443 OF THE MUNICIPAL ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. M.4.5. Assessed Address .�f Business Realty Roll Number I Bus.Identifier 3 U t t �� 'r ee+ ❑ [� 1 (J 1 U Sub-Div 0 PrimJ�ubLy_)0 []Tax Application relates to Ass.Act;ss.33/34 EFFECTIVE DATE >.fqoy lqxf Name of Assessed N s l .r� Telephone No. Mailing Address of Person N P stal Co Name of Applicant I O e No Mailing Address of p' t Postal Code REASON FOR APPLICATION: (CHECKAPPROPRIATE BOX—ONE(1)ONLY) ❑No longer doing business at this address ❑ Razed by fire,demolition or otherwise ❑ Reduced space of premises used for business XDamaged by fire,demolition or otherwise(substantially unusable) ❑Commercial to residential tax rate differential ❑Became exempt ❑Mobile unit removed ❑Gross or manifest clerical error ❑ 442 ❑ 443 ❑Sickness or extreme poverty DETAILS OF REASON uEe.�5�. C'�✓l0 a TI O��." � � _ d� `('f�� ❑ SHARED/EMPLOYEE PERIOD 1--ry U �' �Vb RrtIO►�tSMP7--� 1 ' PARKING IS TAX RELIEF CLAIMED: rom..... �j�(•...(..... 19..4 . .... To...J��-�,... )..... 19 9, .. APPLICABLE Applicants Signature. ` Date of Application.0&.4�..,. ,199.0.ISX.T ;ral V k t (p J S REPORT SCHOOL BOARD:❑English ❑French ❑Other............... TOTAL REALTY ASSESSMENT:.................... RP.......................RS....................CP.......................CS................... BUSINESS ASSESSMENT PARTICULARS: Realty Portion Business Assessment CP .................. CS............... ......Bus.% ............... BP.......................BS............... Signature...... ...........................................I. . Date .19. ............. .................. ASSESSMENT ........ REPORT EFFECTIVE DATE) ..................................19....... TAXABLE REALTY ASSESSMENT REDUCTION: Atresidential rate P........................ S ........................ At commercial rate P........................... S...................... TAXABLE REALTY ASSESSMENT REMAINING: Atresidential rate P....................... S ........................ At commercial rate P............................ S....................... Commercial to residential tax rate differential based on an assessment of p,••,, S BUSINESS ASSESSMENT REDUCTION: .. . Bus.°h Realtyportion P..............•........ S ........................ Bus.Assmnt. P........................... S..........:.. . .......... BUSINESS ASSESSMENT REMAINING: ••••••••.••••• •••••••.'......••••••.• Realtyportion P....................... S ....................•••• ••••.••.••••• Bus.Assmnt. P S PERIOD OF VACANCY From ....................... 19...............To ....................... 19......... ❑ 442 required next year ❑ '•Business Tax to be adjusted as per above*Business Assessment Particulars" Comments and/or confirmation of error(s.443(7)).............................. ❑ New Levy-Assessment Act,ss.33 and 34 ❑ Vacant............. Hold for New Tenant ...!� '¢'77' NO CHANGE IN THE ASSESSMENT Signature. ...,,(''. -."••,••• p 3% 19 y6 • • Mal •- ••- • REALTY TAX Realty Assmnt.Pub. Reeky AssmnL Sep. Mill Rate Pub. Mill Rate Sep. a Mo. Amount of Tax Adjustment . Original Tax Levy At Commercial> At Residential)0- Mill RattyeDiffy.a> '• ..,•'+t{1l:�I:�tC;::; ;:; : s'::::::::::::::::' f5 # ::>::::::r::`� # `>.: :::;::::::3Y '55 `::i::>;:� :5 ;: :: Y::::::::::::::<:::: :::' :::;�,:;; �N1M�tvbA IdN�r�A�`A1tAtr.►�fM�Mt` RB.ditCfiOR:•>:»»»::r ;Cafwel e BUSINESS TAX Bus.Assmnt Pub. Bus.Assmnt Sep. Mill Rate Pub. Mill Rate Sep. a Mo. Amount of Tax Adjustment Original Tax Levy El At Commercial> Comments....................................................................................................................................... Signature............................................................. Date. ❑APPROVED ❑AMENDED AND APPROVED ❑NOT APPROVED (Tax to be adjusted (Tax to be adjusted ❑APPLICANT DID NOT ❑APPLICATION accordingly) accordingly) APPEAR ABANDONED REASON: Appeared for Applicant ............................. ...................................................... ••••••••.••••............. Appeared for Municipality... ... ............................. Date of Hearing .............................. Signature of Secretary or Board Clerk ....... •••••••••••••••••••••••••.••...... Signature of Council Rep.orARBMember ...... :. .:::.:,,rrt'arm>�iJ C�.�n;this:��z[�t..ts:�olleotad.a�r .; :. . •: . . .. :. :...:: ::::.::.::, .;:::::::.:<:::.::.;:.;..>::.:..:.::::.:::,•;.;:.:•:::.:.:.:..::.:::::::.............. ...... :: l2.:and:.443: . :. . .. :... .::.::.::,::.:::and:xuril be;uw-_..or...tha• u.......,.:., ici..p(::C�arlt..ar.::t�a>�reed ,:.. ;.. > <::.;:.: :..,:p:::rR:osas. orraofInformatlnn rntl::prtyac :<.C.nnr�lnator:of.;t e: :»:<:<>:::»:<: munlclpiity.::::< COUNCIL OR ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 Assessment Region.No. 13 t Regional Municipality of Durham � Ontario Oshawa Centre Office Galleria,Suite 170 419 King Street West Oshawa,ON L1J 2K5 Telephone Number (905)432-8444 1-800-268-2224 Facsimile Number (905)432-1071 January 31, 1996. Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3A6 Attention: Ms. Ruth Swan Revenue Supervisor/ Tax Collector Dear Ms. Swan: RE: Section 442 Application 386 Mill Street 18-17-030-120-017-004000 A demolition permit was issued to the owner to demolish a portion of the structures at this address. The value of the portion of the building that was demolished was reduced under Section 422 (1)(c)(i) dated August 15, 1995 by the Assessment Office. The applicants letter dated September 26, 1995 requests a further reduction in assessment from May 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995 under Section 442 (1)(c)(ii) of the Municipal Act ..was damaged by fire,demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage. With specific response to paragraphs (3) and (8) in the applicants letter these conditions existed as of January 1, 1995 and the Assessment Review Board dealt with these issues for the 1995 Tax Year (decision August 28, 1995). This decision was not appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board This property was vacant prior to the demolition and is still vacant,therefore there has been no change in use for Section 442 (1)(c)(ii) to be applicable. ../2 735 1713D(95-03) - 2- This issue has been addressed by the Ontario Municipal Board, City of Toronto vs. Plymbridge Investments Ltd et. al. March 14, 1985 (enclosed). Therefore, the request for a further reduction is denied Yours truly, J. Wayne Aasen, M.I.M.A., Valuation Manager. JWA/dn Encl. LETTERJWA 736 ATTACHMENT#4 ED ALDRIDGE M.I.M.A. Municipal Tax Consulting 316 Aspen Court,Oshawa,Ontario LI G 6H8 905-728-8924 s,r, ,mss September 26th '99'S; �+'- `"•4,= raw Town of Clarington „ .. 40 Temperance St. Bowmanville, Ontario = L1C 3A6 Attention: Ms. Swawn, Tax Collector Re: Roll No. 18-17-030-120-017-00 1081568 Ontario Inc. Section 442 Tax Application Dear Ms. Swawn: On July 6th 1995, at my request, you filed an application under section 442 of the Municipal Act for the above property. The reason for the request was that the structure on this property was "DAMAGED BY FIRE, DEMOLITION OR OTHERWISE (SUBSTANTIALLY UNUSABLE) " as stipulated by the act. As you know this is the old nursing home property formerly owned by the Memorial Hospital Foundation. After closing as a home, it was vacant, with no heat for three years, and the already functionally obsolete building suffered further physical damage from the elements. The present owners purchased the property in 1994, after it was exposed on the open market for three years. They are attempting to create two properties and renovate them into respectable looking commerial enterprises as compared to the run down property purchased in 1994. The zoning change required has been approved , however, an appeal was made to an application for a minor variance. Our request was to reduce the taxes to a reasonable amount until such time as the renovations are sufficiently complete so as to make the structure habitable. At the present time there is no heat, hydro or plumbing, and the debris from the renovations is everywhere. These circumstances clearly bring the property within the qualifications of .section 442 . -737 The Assessment Office apparently misplaced your application and only addressed the demolition portion of it, which only deals with a very small part of the overall building. Once the renovations are complete and two viable commercial properties are created, the taxation will be considerably and justifyably increased . If anyone wishes to verify the information that we have provided you, we will be pleased to arrange an inspection at their convenience. An application under Section 442 of the Municipal Act is an application for an adjustment in taxes and in my restfull opinion may be processed by the tax collector or treasurer without questioning the integrity of the Assessment Office. This is a tax application only. We are not asking that all the taxes be removed from the structure, however, we would request that they be reduced to $2413 .39 which equates to twice as much as the vacant land taxes subsequent to demolition and renovation which commenced May 1st 1995. Taxes: January 1st till April 30th $2 , 530 . 16 Taxes: May 1st till Dec. 31st $2 ,413 .39 $4,943 .55 If you should require further clarification please feel free to contact me at any time. Yours Truly, %i , Ted Aldridge M.I. .A. 738 JWA 26'96 11:58 FR PROPERTY ASSESSMENT U 05 433 5162 TO 13 P_02 n�, ATTACHMENT#S WV-14A �n MAR 1'5 1965 awtl'�. 9r Property '41 Ont� �PSament Pcoi� 8403276 Ontario Municipal Board IN THE MATTER OE Section 496 of The Municaipal Act (R.S.O, 1980. c. 302) s amen ea - and - IN THE MATTER OF appeals by the Corporation of the City of Toronto for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes concerning:- Roll Number Municipal Address Taxation Year 19 04 112 020 018 00 0000 100 Oriole Parkway 1983 City of Toronto 19 D4 112 020 016 00 0000 120 Oriole Parkway 1983 City of Toronto 19 04 112 020 617 00 0000 110 Oriole Parkway 1983 City of Toronto COUNSEL : Dolores H. Morrell - for the Corporation of the City of Toronto D. G. Hatch - for Plymbridge Investments Ltd. and S C Studio Holdings Ltd. DECISION OF THE BOARD delivered by R_ 0. OWEN This appeal was launched by the Corporation of the City of Toronto under Section 496 of The Municipal Act. The appeal is from the decision of the Assessment.Review Board which, under Section 496(2), has been given the functions of City council in.the matter of applications for cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes pursuant to Section 496(1) of that Act. An agreed statement of facts was filed with the Board (Exhibit 1). The properties in question are three residential apartment buildings located at 100, 110 and 120 Oriole Parkway_ They were purchased by Plymbridge Investments Ltd. and S• C Studio Holdings Ltd. in June of 1982. In .Iuly T982, notices to vacate were given to the tenants and a building permit for renovation work applied for on July 29, 1982. The permits were issued on September 29 and October 1, 1982. All the tenants had vacated by November 739 JAN 26'96 11:59 FR PROPERTY ASSESSMENT D 05 433 5162 TO 13 P.03 2 ' A 8403276. 30, 1982. The renovation work commencgd on March 1, 1983 and was completed on December 31, 1983. Particulars of the renovation work are set out in the agreed statement of facts and the Board finds the work was substantial in nature. The taxation year in question is 1983_ The main issue before the Board was whether renovations constitute damage within the meaning of Section 496(1)(c)(ii):- "496(1) An application to the council for the cancellation, reduction'or refund of taxes levied in the year in respect of which the application is.made may be made by any person, (c) in respect of a building that during the year or during the preceeding year after the return of the assessment roll, (ii) was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage;" Counsel for the City argued that Section 496(1)(c)(ii), being inserted in the Act in 1979, was intended only to broaden the relief already available to the taxpayer. Previously the taxpayer was limited only to relief if the building was "razed by fire, demolition or otherwise" (Section 496 0)(c)(i)), Now a damaged building, which is substantially unusable by reason of fire, demolition or otherwise, is granted relief, Counsel for the City submitted there were four tests to be met before section 496(l)(c)(ii) could be applicable. 1) Damage must occur to the building. 2) The cause must be from fire, demolition or otherwise. 3) The building be rendered substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used. 4) It must be rendered substantially unusable for the purposes #or which it was used immediately prior to the damage. 740 JAN 26196 12=00 FR PROPERTY ASSESSMENT U 05 433 5162 TO 13 P_04 3 - A 8403276 It was argued that renovations are not damage although the old must be "damaged" to replace it with the new. Renovating a building improves the value of it. There was no argument that these buildings had substantially increased in value as a result of the renovations. Counsel submitted that the word "otherwise" includes acts similar to fire and demolition that are negative in result while renovation has a positive result. Counsel further argued that, on the facts here, the taxpayers failed to meet the third and fourth tests as well. The 3 month delay between the time the last tenant left and the commencement of the renovations was beyond any reasonable interpretation of "immediately" so that the use of the building immediately prior to the damage, if any, was that of a vacant building. The vacant building could not be said to have been rendered substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage as a vacant building has, in effect, no use or the "use" was not changed during renovations. Counsel for the taxpayers submitted "damaged" means just that, howsoever caused. The fact that renovations necessitate damage, for example. the removal of a partition wall to replace it with a new one, is damage, nonetheless, and so the section is applicable. He argued that the increase in value of the properties resulting from renovations would result in an increase in assessment on the properties and therefore increased taxes. The taxpayer, therefore, should get a reduction in his taxes during the period of renovations. It is of interest to note that the assessment roll for the City for the 1982 assessment year for 1983 taxation was not returned until March 25, 1983 and the appeal period for assessment purposes was not up until April 15, 1983. If the concern over loss of value due to renovations existed, the owners could have appealed their assessment since renovations had already commenced. They did not. If successful, a reduction in taxes for 1983 would have followed. This appeal, of course, J would have been based on the effect of the renovations on the market value of the property during the period of renovations. That is a different issue and a different statute than was before the Board at this wring. 741 JHN Cb'yb 1C=UU F 1'kUPt:XIY HbbCbb11tN1 u eJJ vJJ J101: IV 1J - 4 - A 8403276 The Board has carefully reviewed the agreed statement of facts, the other exhibits and Section 496 of The Municipal Act, as well as considering the able arguments of counsel_ The Board is satisfied on the evidence that the subject properties which underwent extensive renovations resulting in remodelled and substantially more valuable properties are not "damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise" within the meaning of Section 496(1)(c)(ii). While renovations may, of necessity, involve "damage" to the original structure, the reconstruction and improvement factors far outweigh any damage factor. The provisions of Section 496(1)(c)(ii) were intended to provide relief for the taxpayer whose building was "damaged". Damage has been defined as harm or injury that lessens the value or usefulness of the object. Renovations are quite the reverse. Fire and demolition are specific words followed by the general word "otherwise". The ejusdem gtneris rule of statutory interpretation requires that the word "otherwise" be construed not in its widest extent, but restricted to things of the same general kind as the specific words. Fire and demolition have the opposite connotation to renovation. Renovation is the renewal, reconstruction or restoration of an object. The Board further finds on the evidence that the delay of 3 months between the removal of the tenants and the commencement of renovations prevents_ the aoners Prom;.,successfully arguing that, the_,buildings were rendered substantially,unusable for the purposes for.which they were used immediately prior to the damage as they were .vacant buildings at that.timec The appeal of the Corporation of the City of Toronto is therefore allowed and the application by the owners for a reduction,;_ cancellation on refund of taxes-for._the. 1963 taxation year 1s hereby denied: DATED at TORONTO this 14th day of mar" 1983. 1 R. D. O'�IEH MEMBER ** TOTAL PAGE.005 *W 742