(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 Kendall County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
Docket No. Parcel No. Land Impr. Total
04-02340.001-C-3 02-28-104-015 1,615,204 200,000 1,815,204
05-01736.001-C-3 02-28-104-015 1,615,204 200,000 1,815,204
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 23
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Countryside Plaza – Tri-Land Properties, Inc.
DOCKET NO.: 04-02340.001-C-3 and 05-01736.001-C-3
PARCEL NO.: 02-28-104-015
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Countryside Plaza – Tri-Land Properties, Inc., the appellant, by attorneys Robert M. Sarnoff and Steven Kandelman of Sarnoff & Baccash in Chicago, Illinois, and the Kendall County Board of Review by State's Attorney Eric C. Weis.
The Property Tax Appeal Board conducted a consolidated hearing involving the 2004 and 2005 appeals under Docket Nos. 04-02340.001-C-3 and 05-01736.001-C-3. Due to the commonality of the appeals, the Property Tax Appeal Board will issue a consolidated decision for these appeals in accordance with the Official Rules of the Property Tax Appeal Board, Section 1910.78 (86 Ill.Admin. Code, Sec. 1910.78).
The subject property consists of an irregularly shaped 18.2± acre (792,792 square foot) parcel at the intersection of State Route 47 (to the east) and U.S. Route 34 (to the south) in Yorkville, Bristol Township, Kendall County, Illinois. The site has no direct access from either highway or from the outlots along those routes. The outlots also create somewhat limited visibility of the site from those highways. The subject property is accessed from parkways on the north and west; each of the parkways meet at signaled intersections to one of the surrounding highways. The property has been improved with a retail/office center built in 1972, commonly known as Countryside Shopping Center, consisting of three one-story retail buildings and a one-story cinema building. Property record cards for the subject property were not filed by the board of review, but the board of review included a reference in a letter to the center having 158,000 square feet of improvements. The improvements were demolished in mid-2006.
The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board through counsel contending overvaluation as the basis of the appeal. In support of this argument, appellant submitted a narrative appraisal of the subject property estimating a market