Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2004-28583-R-1 Shea

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessment of the
property as established by the Cook County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 7,103
IMPR.: $ 68,835
TOTAL: $ 75,938
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/rfd5313
1 of 3
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Patrick Shea
DOCKET NO.: 04-28583.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 14-17-303-004-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Patrick Shea, the appellant, by attorney Michael Griffin of
Chicago, and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 91-year-old, three-story,
multi-family dwelling of masonry construction containing 5,295
square feet of living area. Features of the building include
three full bathrooms, an unfinished basement, air-conditioning
and a fireplace. The subject is located in Lake View Township,
Cook County and was the subject of an appeal before the Property
Tax Appeal Board for the prior year under Docket No. 03-
26247.001-R-1. In that appeal, the Property Tax Appeal Board
reached a decision based upon equity and the weight of the
evidence in the record as presented by the parties to the appeal.
Pursuant to the Official Rules of the Property Tax Appeal Board,
evidence from both parties in support of their respective
opinions of the subject's market value as of the assessment date
or equity of the assessment was requested.
After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the
Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the
parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Property Tax
Appeal Board finds from its analysis of the record that the
evidence in this appeal is substantially the same as that of the
prior year. Since no new evidence was presented to warrant a
change from the previous year's decision, the Board finds that
the assessment as established in the prior year's appeal is
appropriate.