(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: $ 2,099
IMPR.: $ 37,900
TOTAL: $ 39,999
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: David Martinez
DOCKET NO.: 05-22650.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 12-29-405-022-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are David Martinez, the appellant, by attorney Joseph Huang with the Law Offices of Terrence Kennedy, Jr. in Chicago, and the Cook County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 29-year-old, two-story, mixed-use building of masonry construction containing 5,040 square feet of building area and located in Leyden Township, Cook County. Features of the building include three full bathrooms, three half-baths, a partial-unfinished basement and air-conditioning. The subject contains three residential units and three commercial units.
The appellant, through counsel, appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process of the improvement as the basis of the appeal. In support of this claim, the appellant submitted assessment data and descriptive information on three properties suggested as comparable to the subject. Based on the appellant's documents, the three suggested comparables consist of two-story, mixed-use buildings of masonry construction located within the subject's neighborhood. The improvements range in size from 6,486 to 8,190 square feet of building area and range in age from 31 to 42 years. The comparables contain from four to eight full bathrooms and a partial or full-unfinished basement. The improvement assessments range from $5.87 to $7.25 per square foot of building area. Based on the evidence submitted, the appellant requested a reduction in the subject's improvement assessment.
The appellant also argued overvaluation in that the income generated by the subject does not warrant its high level of taxation, and therefore its excessive assessment. The appellant further argued that the subject was entitled to a 50% occupancy factor because it was rendered 50% uninhabitable by external