(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:
SEE PAGES 4 AND 5
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 7
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Hidden Cove Condominium Association
DOCKET NO.: 04-23414.001-R-3 through 04-23414.052-R-3
PARCEL NO.: See pages 4 and 5.
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Hidden Cove Condominium Association, the appellant, by attorney Gregory J. Lisinski of Evanston, and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a two-story, eight-year-old, 52 unit, frame and masonry constructed residential condominium building sited on a 206,988 square foot parcel located in Palatine Township, Cook County.
The appellant, through counsel, submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming the assessment of the subject is excessive and violates the constitutionally guaranteed principle of uniformity of assessments. In support of the inequity argument, the appellant submitted copies of property search details from the Cook County Assessor's Office and photographs of ten suggested comparable condominium developments located within Palatine Township. In addition, the appellant submitted a brief as well as an analysis reflecting the unit numbers, number of units, addresses, property index numbers, assessment data, total assessed value and an average assessed value per unit for the ten suggested comparables. The data, descriptions and photographs provided by the appellant disclosed that the ten comparables consist of two-story or three-story, frame and masonry constructed residential condominium buildings located on parcels that range in size from 75,538 to 188,439 square feet of land; range in age from 12 to 23 years old; and contain from 28 to 48 units. The appellant's evidence indicated that the appellant's comparables like the subject have on-site parking. The size of each unit, type of unit, amenities per unit, features and total building size was not provided for either the subject or the suggested comparables. The appellant argued that the subject is most similar in age, unit size, development layout, and location to comparables one through five.