Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2005-00913-R-1 Robin

              (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 Lake County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 40,962
IMPR.: $ 247,256
TOTAL: $ 288,218
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/EEB/08-07/2005-00913
1 of 6
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Rick Robin
DOCKET NO.: 05-00913.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 14-03-305-011
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Rick Robin, the appellant; and the Lake County Board of Review.
The subject property is situated on a 40,597 square foot parcel
improved with of a two-story brick and frame dwelling containing
6,642 square feet of living area constructed in 2004. Features
of the home include four full baths and two half-baths, a
finished attic area, central air conditioning, two fireplaces, a
full unfinished basement and an attached garage.
The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board
claiming the fair market value of the subject was not accurately
reflected in its assessed value because of the subject's recent
construction. In support of that argument the appellant
submitted a light and vent schedule, an architectural letter of
square footage, a certificate of occupancy, contractor's
statements, a mortgage payment statement and photographs.
The appellant's exhibit "A" (light and vent schedule) listed the
square footage of each room in the home depicting 4,592 total
square feet. Exhibit "B" depicts the building's footprint square
footage. The certificate of occupancy is dated September 16,
2004. Exhibit "D" is the contractor's statement prepared for
financing the construction. Exhibit "E" depicts the total
current balance of the construction loan as of September 15, 2004
in the amount of $551,056. Based on this evidence, the appellant
requested a reduction in the assessment for the subject property.
During cross-examination the appellant testified the light and
vent schedule which depicted square footage included all closets
and hallways and was determined from architectural drawings and
or building code requirements. The appellant was unable to
testify if the foyer area was included. The appellant is a