Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-21648-R-1 Uhen

              (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:
LAND: $ 15,539
IMPR.: $ 72,683
TOTAL: $ 88,222
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/BRW/May 09/06-21648
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Dan Uhen
DOCKET NO.: 06-21648.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 14-20-319-025-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Dan Uhen, the appellant, by attorney Julie Realmuto of McCarthy & Duffy, Chicago, Illinois; and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of two dwellings situated on one parcel. Building #1 is a 104-year old, two-story style multi-family dwelling of frame construction containing 2,471 square feet of living area with a full, finished basement with an apartment. Building #2 is a 104-year old, two-story style multi-family dwelling of frame construction containing 1,280 square feet of living area with a full, unfinished basement.
The appellant submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process as the basis of the appeal on building #1. Equity data was not submitted on building #2. The appellant submitted information on four comparable properties described as two-story frame dwellings that range in age from 112 to 118 years old. The comparable dwellings range in size from 2,441 to 3,068 square feet of living area. These properties have improvement assessments ranging from $16.89 to $18.24 per square foot of living area. The appellant claims that the subject’s improvement assessment is $72,683 or $29.41 per square foot of living area, but that figure is based on the combined improvement assessment for both buildings. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested a reduction in the subject's improvement assessment. The appellant presented no evidence to demonstrate that building #2 was inequitably assessed.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's final assessment was disclosed. The board of review presented descriptions and assessment information on three comparable properties for building #1. The comparables consist of two-story frame dwellings that range in age from 109 to 130 years old. The dwellings range in size from 2,196 to 2,425 square feet of living area. These properties have