DOCKET NO.: 05-00574.001-R-1
7 of 15
Under questioning, Kljaich provided testimony regarding the
methodology used in determining living area sizes for split-level
or bi-level dwellings in Plainfield Township. She testified all
lower-levels are considered finished and included in the overall
amount square footage unless otherwise informed by a homeowner.
Kljaich next provided a list of sales that occurred within the
subject's subdivision. Limited descriptive information was
provided. They consist of three, split-level style; two, one-story
style; a one and one-half story style; and two, two-story
style dwellings. The dwelling were built from 1975 to 1990 and
range in size from 1,750 to 3,270 square feet of living area.
The suggested comparables sold from March 2002 to May 2005 for
prices ranging from $452,000 to $650,000 or from $143.61 to
$271.43 per square foot of living area including land. Based on
this evidence, the board of review requested confirmation of the
subject property's assessment.
Under cross-examination, it was discovered comparable 1 (parcel
number 03-03-201-022-0000) had an incorrect description and
assessment. In 2005 comparable 1 was described as a split-level
style dwelling containing 2,492 square feet. In 2006, it was
corrected and described as a one-story style dwelling containing
1,671 square feet of living area with a finished basement. As a
result, its 2005 improvement assessment of $97,786 was reduced to
$84,575 in 2006.
In rebuttal, the appellant re-submitted information on three
suggested comparables, two of which had been submitted by the
board of review. The appellant argued the assessments of these
comparables, which are located within the subject's subdivision,
reflect market values higher than their most recent sales prices.
These properties consist of two, one and one-half story dwellings
and a split-level style dwelling that were built from 1977 to
1979 and range in size from 2,008 to 3,875 square feet of living
area. They sold from June 2005 to July 2006 for prices ranging
from $459,900 to $529,000. The appellant argued these properties
had 2006 total assessments, prior to board of review action,
ranging from $163,775 to $183,246, which reflects estimated
market values ranging from $491,325 to $549,738. Based on this
analysis, the appellant argued these properties are over-assessed
by 7% to 31% in comparison to their sale prices. The appellant
also indicated example comparable 1, which sold for $529,000, had
its assessment decreased in 2006 from $180,734 to $138,466 or an
estimated market value of $415,398 due to its poor condition that
was not disclosed at the time of its sale. In addition, the
appellant indicated example comparable 3 is a quad-level style
dwelling.
