(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. Parcel No. Land Imprv. Total
05-24694.001-R-1 17-07-327-031-0000 $6,149 $8,427 $14,576
05-24694.002-R-1 17-07-327-032-0000 $4,544 $8,427 $12,971
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Rosewood Development, Inc.
DOCKET NO.: 05-24694.001-R-1 and 05-24694.002-R-1
PARCEL NO.: See below
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Rosewood Development, Inc., the appellant, by attorney George Michael Keane, Jr., Chicago, and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of two parcels containing a total of 6,375 square foot of land. The appellant, through counsel, appeared before the Property Tax Appeal board arguing overvaluation. The appellant's evidence disclosed that the subject was assessed as vacant land with a total combined assessment of $5,164 for both 2003 and 2004. For 2005, the appellant's evidence further disclosed that the Assessor increased the land value and assessed a new improvement at a 10% partial factor for a total combined assessment of $27,547 for the subject for 2005. The appellant's evidence indicated that by deed dated April 22, 2004 the appellant acquired the vacant subject parcels for $440,000 and proceeded with obtaining and submitting plans to construct a six-unit condominium building with construction continuing throughout 2005 and into 2006. The appellant's evidence also indicated that there was no substantial completion or occupancy of any portion of the new improvements in 2005 and that the subject was completed and sold the 1st unit in June 2006. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9-180 of the Property Tax Code, the appellant argued that the improvements should not be added to the assessment for 2005 and that the subject should continue to be assessed as vacant land. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested that the 2003 and 2004 vacant land assessment of $5,164 be carried forward for 2005 and that the increase in the land value by the assessor is not uniform.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" disclosing the subject's total combined assessment of