Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2003-23510-C-1 Chow

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change 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:
DOCKET NO. PROPERTY NO. LAND IMPR. TOTAL
03-23510.001-C-1 15-11-116-005 $12,423 $57,512 $69,935
03-23510.002-C-1 15-11-116-006 $12,423 $46,831 $59,254
03-23510.003-C-1 15-11-116-007 $ 7,603 $ 5,201 $12,804
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/TMcG.
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Shui L. Chow
DOCKET NO.: 03-23510.001-C-1 thru 03-23510.003-C-1
PARCEL NO.: 15-11-116-005-0000 thru 15-11-116-007-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Shui L. Chow, the appellant, by attorney Howard W. Melton of
Howard W. Melton and Associates of Chicago and the Cook County
Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a commercial property classified
by Cook County as a class 5-97 improvement that is described as a
"Special Commercial Structure". The subject appears to be a
service station located in the Village of Maywood in Proviso
Township, Cook County.
The appellant, through counsel, submitted evidence claiming that
the subject's market value is not accurately reflected in its
assessment. This evidence was timely filed by the appellant
pursuant to the Official Rules of the Property Tax Appeal Board.
In support of this argument the appellant submitted a portion of
an appraisal dated January 1, 2002 containing the sales
comparison and income approaches to value and estimating a market
value for a property other than the subject 5-97. The subject of
the borrowed appraisal is a gas station. No description of the
subject was provided.
In the sales approach the borrowed appraisal used four service
station sales to estimate the improvement value to be $82,000.
There is no indication of a land value or a cost approach to
value.
Based on income data found in the appraisal and the appellant's
estimate of expenses, the appellant used the appraisal's rental
data to estimate the subject's market value at $247,963.