26-000799.pdf

Jane Peters Petitioner V City Of Port Huron Respondent · 26-000799-TT

← View full record

Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.

RECEIVED 

MAY 14 2026 

May 12, 2026 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

2% Floor MTT 

2407 N Grand River Ave. 

Lansing, MI 48906 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Enclosed please find an Attachment to the Petition for Case 26-000799 Jane Peters. 

We tried to upload said attachment during the initial filing and then also tried to upload it 

after the Petition was digitally filled. We tried several times and spoke with Erika in your 

office. We also emailed with Savannah. After receiving repeated Error messages, they said 

to FedEx the attachments which are enclosed. 

Please file them with the Petition. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. 

Yours, 

Thomas Peters 

(248) 568-3200 

Tom4906@gmail.com

lp - COTY 

| 

a 

= 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM 

VALUATION / UNCAPPING 

Do not use this form to appeal Classification, Principal Residence Exemption, Qualified Agricultural Exemption, Other 

Exemptions, Special Assessments, or Non-Property tax disputes. 

Pursuant to Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 279, you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (i.e., Board of 

Review Decision or other notice) with this petition, if applicable. 

if you do not submit this document, you may be held in 

default, 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M1 

Last Name/Company Name 

Jane 

Cc 

Peters 

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.O. Box or Rural Route) 

501 Newburne Pointe 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Bloomfield Hills 

MI 

48304 

Telephone Number (248)568-3200 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

tom4906@gmail.com 

Section 2: Petitioner’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact Information 

First Name 

M1. 

Last Name 

Thomas 

M 

Peters 

Firm Name (if any) 

Mailing Address (No., Street, P.0. Box or Rural Route) 

501 Newburne Pointe 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Bloomfield Hills 

Mi 

48304 

Telephone Number (248)568-3200 

Email Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via email) 

tom4906@gmail.com 

Section 3: Subject Property Information suse the muitiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

How many parcels are you 

if you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? 

appealing? 

[1 Yest 

[J No 

**If No, you must file separate appeals for each parcel 

Property Address {No., Street) 

4014 Gratiot Ave. 

City or Town 

County 

v 

State 

ZiP Code 

Port Huron 

St. Clair 

MI 

48060

| 

od 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Check which of the following you are appealing (check ait that apply) 

True Cash and Taxable Value 

{1 Taxabie Value Only (calculation) 

[| Uncapping of Taxable Value 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

The City of Port Huron (Zoning Department) has permitted illegal short-term rentals in 

the two adjoining properties to the south for decades. This has adversely impacted the 

value of the subject property without proper accounting by the City of Port Huron, 

Between the never-ending stream of short-term rentals and the failure of the City to 

monitor and control the adjoining public beach property, the appellant should be paying 

less in taxes as these issues have greatly impacted by the property value. The City has 

failed to take these issues into consideration and reduce the assessment accordingly. 

Please see the attached written protest of the assessment for greater detail (which was 

filed with the City of Port Huron). 

Section 6: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (BOR)? 

Yes 

[MN] No 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended: 

[M] March 

[] yuty 

[] December 

If No, please check the applicable reason(s): 

[I] Not required to attend 

[I] Appealing a purported Clerical Error or Mutual Mistake of Fact (if yes, include explanation in Section 5) 

[] Appealing within 35 days of State Tax Commission Order 

[| Appealing within 35 days of receipt of Notice of Uncapping 

[J other 

If you checked “other” above, explain:

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 7: Valuation Information *use the multiple parcel form for additional, contiguous parcels. 

Parcel Number: 06-404-0005-000 

Classification of Property: 

Real 

Personal [J (check one} 

Agricultural [J 

Commercial) 

Industrial [1 ~~ Residentiat 4 

Timber-Cutover [1 

Developmental (1 

utility 

[J (check one) 

Assessed Value (also known as State Equalized Value) established | Taxable Value established by the Board of Review: 

by the Board of Review: 276,300 

186,714 

What do you believe is the fair market value (also known as true cash value)? 

325,000 

What do you believe is the assessed value? (multiply true cash 

What do you believe is the taxable value? (cannot exceed 

value by 5) 

162,500 

assessed value) 

162 500 

Fee Information 

Does the property have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition for all tax years at 

issue? 

[} Yes 

vi No 

if you answered yes to the above question, you are not required to pay any fiting fees, 

If the property does not have a Principal Residence Exemption of at least 50% as of the date of the filing of this petition for all tax years at 

issue, the filing fee is based on the greater of the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute. 

If you are appealing more than one 

parcel, the parcel with the highest State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute will be used to determine your fiting fee, plus $25.00 

will be added for each additional parcel being appealed, not to exceed a totat filing fee of $1,000.00 

if your property is residential property {see MCL 205.762) and 

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: 

Filing Fee is: 

$100,000.00 and under 

$125.00 

$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 

$200.00 

$Over $500,000.00 

$300.00 

If the property is NOT residential property (see MCL 205.762) and 

the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in contention is: 

Filing Fee is: 

$100,600.00 and under 

$250.00 

* Plus $25.00 for each additional parcel, as indicated above. 

If the property is NOT residential property and the State Equalized Value or Taxable Value in dispute is $100,000.01 or greater the 

appeal does not qualify for Small Claims. Therefore, an Entire Tribunal petition must be filed, 

Signatu Fe *Required 

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: Thomas M Peters 

Isl

Michigan Department of Treasury 

618 (Rev. 12:28) 

. 

. 

R 

. 

— 

. 

. 

Petition to Board of Review 

oo 

: 

’ 

BE 

o> 

: 

L-4035 

This form is Issued under the autharity of P.A. 206 of 1893, as amended. Filing Is voluntary, however, 

3 

you may not appeal ta the Michigan Tax Tribunal unless you first protest tothe 

Board of Review, except when the property is classified as commercial real, industrial real, or developmental real. You 

rn 

Commission unless you first protest to the Bard of Review. 

1 

me not appeal propery classifications o the State Tax 

TO BE COMPLETED BY OWNER OR OWNER'S AGENT 

‘| 

Owner's Name (Please Print or Type) 

Petitioner's Name {if Other than ner Please Print or Te) 

" PETERS JANE C REV Lv TRUST 

: 

Township or City 

County 

Year of Appeal 

CITY OF PORT HURON 

ST. CLAIR 

The undersigned protests the assessed value andlor the tentative taxable value and/or the property 

classification and/or the 

qualified agricultural 

+ 

the following described property: 

¢ 

9 

rel property exempiton of 

Property Identifi od {Parcel code required, Properly address and legal description optional} 

.06-404-0005- 000, 

N1/2L0T 3&5 1/2LOT 4 GRATIOT BEACH 

4014 GRATIOT AVE 

Protested item 

[1] Assessed Value 

[1]. 

Tentative 

[J Taxable Status 

[1] 

Classification 

[J] 

Qualifed Agricultural 

- 

Taxable Value 

(exemption) 

Property Exemption 

Complete this 

section for a protest of assessed valve. Treluding assessed value hanes associated with exempt status and denied or late filed personal 

* 

property forms. 

- 

i 

Assessed Value 

B 

Owner's Estimate of Tre Cash Valus(Market Vie 

276,300 

2, PROTEST OF TAXABLE V. 

Complete this section fora priest of Taxable Value 

Reason: 

[J 

value of Losses 

[J 

Value of Additions 

[1 

Poverty Exemption 

[7] Uncapping % 

3. PROTEST OF CLASSIFICATION: 

Complete this section for a request to change the classification. The Board of Review must make their decision regarding classifi clon in accordance with Section 211.34¢ of the 

Michigan Compiled Laws. The Board of Review shall not be influenced by the effect that a particular classification has on that property's status as a homeowner's principal residence 

or qualified agricultural property. 

_ Classification of property on this year's assessment roil: 

401 

PEER 

Thassiorton should be: (Please check one of the following) 

. 

. 

[1 

Agricultural 

[0 Industria 

CJ Timber Cutover 

[J Utility (Personal Property Only) 

[3 Commercial’ 

i 

) 

[1 Residential 

[Developmental 

4; PROTEST OF EXEMPTION: FOR QUALIFIED AGRIGULTURAL PROPERTY 

If the assessor has denied or changed the percentage of the exemption from the 18 mills of lacal schoo! operating tax for quai ied groultural ers the 

owner may appeal this action to the March Board of Review. THE BOARD OF REVIEW HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER OR ACT UPON THE 

EXEMPTION FROM THE 18 SCHOOL OPERATING MILLS FOR HOMEOWNER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE PROPERTIES. 

Percent qualified agricultural exemption granted by assessor: (Enter ¢ If exemption Is denied) 

Percent qualified agricultural exemption requested by Owner: (Enter 100 if full 

exemption requested) 

REASON FOR PROTEST 

... 

State reason(s) for protest of assessed value and/or the tentative taxable lus andor taxable status and/or classification and/or qualified agricultural rope exemption.

“Form 618, Page 2 

FOR BOARD OF REVIEW USE ONLY 

INSTRUCTIONS: Incorporate a copy of this form and the assigned number in the Board of Review minutes. 

Petition Number 

Parcel Code 

| 

06-404-0005-000 

4-ASSESSED VALUE 

isposition by Board of Review. THe Board of Review must Tate the feason Tor ts acon below. 

CE Denied 

[J 

Assessed value Changed From: 

| 

276,300 

ro: | 

] 

- 

Cl 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee 

of board 

tf 

rd 

Chairperson: [ves 

[] 

no Th 

Member: 

id ves 

[] nO i 

Member: 

PRves 

O vo 

Initials 

: 

nitiats 

: 

Initials 

Reason for Board Action: 

if you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding tentative assessed value, you may appeal that decision by filing 2 petition with ths Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Box 30232, Lansing Mt 48908. Commercial Real, industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31. Agdcultural Real, Residential Real, Timber . Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may he appealed by July 31. The petition must he filed on 

a Michigan Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan.goviaxtrib. 

2; TENTATIVE 

TAXABLE VALUE 

. Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must State the reason nor its action below. 

P 

Denied 

O 

Tentative Taxabls Value Changed From: 

186,714 

To: 

(See attached L-4035A) 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board, 

i 

/ 

" 

Chairperson: T-ves 

‘0 

no Inn Member: WY 

ves 

J 

no\WA// 

Member: 

Ogres 

initials 

Initials” 

Initials 

Reason for Board Action: 

If you disagres with the deciston of the Board of Review regarding tentative taxable value, you may appeal that decision by filing-a petition with the Michigan Tax Tribunal at 

PO Box 30232, Lansing MI 48809, Commercial Real, Industrial Real, Developmental Real, Commercial Personal, Industrial Personal and Utility Personal Property may be 

appealed by May 31. Agricuitural Real, Residential Real, Timber - Cut Over Real, and Agricultural Personal Property may be appedled by July 31. The petition must be filed 

ona Michigan “Tax Tribunal form or a form approved by the Michigan Tax Tribunal. Michigan Tax Tribunal forms are available at www.michigan. govitaxirib. 

Disposition by Board of Review. 

The Board of Review must state the reason for m™ action below. 

[1] 

Denied 

MO "Classification Ghanged From: 

401 

To: 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

Chairperson; 

[J Yes 

[J No 

Member: 

[1 Yes 

[J] 

No 

Member: 

[] ves 

[J No 

B 

. 

initials 

- 

initials 

. Initials 

Reason for Board Action: 

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Review regarding classification, you may appeal by sending Form 2167 fo the State Tax Commission, PO Box 30471, Lansing 

Mi 48909 by June 30. 

AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION 

Disposition by Board of Review. The Board of Review must state the reason for its action below. 

[7] 

Exemption Request Denied 

[] 

Exemption percent modified from 

% To: 

% 

Record of Vote - Board or three member committee of board. 

7] 

. 

. 

0 

Oo 

. 

- 

YES 

NO 

Member: 

YES 

NO___

3[3)zozt 

TU ~0b~Hpu 

- coos - cea 

LONGeLs 

SwoffRe 

 abeser 

Port Hore 

o 

Me, Merrpy 

 Blap 

dock 

Haven NAN 

UobDd 

Enclosdl 

¢ lease 

Pond the 

Ceotost Ag 

MRR 

Sons Pbers 

Rev 

Lay TRust ond 

Tw Lids od Qowe 

Gelord, THe 

Protest odie 

Go rnd 

Mocks aed photos Gor ne 

i wi be rede postr gold for 

Ab 

fs Pe 

Gus Tewpsey 

kJ fer 

vf a NENA 

lo. F9uY 

{ ar wm. by 

Quy 

56s - 3300

or 

Gras 

ae, 

2.03 

fps owe, 

~ ft om hast” 1 

202, 

Sorew ond, Tom 

Flin | owes of 

Hot 

Quhet 

oe 

Port Hoe 

ord 

he apdeamont gud 

Fok bass on Hin prepay, Jou He folliooy 

Nesom & 

Pe The Cely Husigl vn ory deuitirnt” 

{Ra A tL 

qm 

50g ores SPMIBPIEL 

by 

deny sate oo Aerts Sopnsorvent | witha” 

Yee, a 

fo He dws 

Adscdies 

Toned, eck §{ 

bois 

Enahiet. 

Undlon $hio eons 

dt ac secant Yh Foe 

Mendes 

Ores 

usd Reve Foon proontlil 

fo Sel He plop Ay He Wak 

awk Wuabends 

Ye oh dobd une Vie 

bt Ton 

Hor, 

ois Wi 

op Fy 

Re 

idence 2. Sod 

f don, Roe 

Moved do borge grupo such ad baal 

QeTYINy os 

fama , 

et Sug je ad by. 

The dg, 

hw 

Ny 

hae Hh agple 

lelinuAny. Cong lovats of Ho Gustivt 

ood Poa fod. 

NATEA- 

Les Ph from 

- 

“dhe 

Yau Sa ws

tg ™ 

© 

auld 

has 

BLN 

tg 

Cy 

A 

fnvieg ef 

edd 

0 fee 

7 

oN 

contd 

cho 

on eer 

SE bers 

ee Vreg darn 

“4 

+ afr 

avd. hed 

Sty 

pont a 

ona 

ne 

” 

pt Jo iled "von de 

bogey 

“ha 

5 Non 

re 

depos Foner 

Banc 

EAT 

ne 

te son” 

: 

MeN 

+ 

he y 

Lass 

Nn 

Ur 

LE 

Ce andl 

N 

trea 

SENN 

fo Roel 

7 bk (lek 

5010

“The Sori. dopothmset Hag Sefusbs © 

Stef 

He, Spore. erg VielsX isos 

of “Be Hp 

groper Seu ¢f HRI dope Gut 

Heoeled praia. Wh pet Joke Woes , 

a Red, Oyen avesl seater Jo Sapped” 

Orepeil) 

x 

citien 

Ms 

in 

oy Vv (ol ek A oy 

woh 7 wold, 

herds 

dn povnitlad « 

While & a dcedd So 

a pphaude. iy 

Speccirally 20 wobat hak dovabec 

| 

A 

OWL 

yy 

dldentaert 

ond. Set 

/ 

Thr Rey rt edn wid | 

Hy Seer ogni fla otal. 

Se, Tem ond Tove PIT 

winds Apes 

ode 

lad emer 

0nd 

Nese Xm 

BS Do 

Neduek wn ow tA 

wed, 

City 

Stopa “her Zorg 

Vis slid amb 

wade) Re Cy sels 

He Coy rin 

ots Quast on Gah ppd. (there 

oo 

&n Valnade, Posh He

ge 

Recs uct vor 

Cro fut cont'd 

Cokus and Ho frost (lect HA 

Aolloeing 

an 

Sagpoct 

Haw protot 

Py 

() 

Corrected abiiannt 

2026 

a.) 

Loller “rom JAF Wine. fo 

th Doard pforniny 

Hat Permitting. Sher a Torun Routed Cs TH. we 

/ 

Stuf fan ly 

Zoned 

arens dovaluea 

2. 

Qaw 

J 

eth fodea Blasm Ep Sma 

Aeron Miclugam Cowl a fs 

STR 

met Ponda one Deed) 

(ct ave, 

Ho 

fw 

(Qakde Som Micthgon Muriel bague 

“thet ddfases 

STR 

a Commenced detivTies 

de rich dons. J" 

5, 

nelle anbole ghontt STRs ow Prep 

tres 

bo Slot Torvn Rendall Dovdeprrach 

by Cl 

Bros 

tig 

op et Cares WOE Giz 

a 2025 

Shy Ret 

STR 

ote mec 

Usa 

on. Me Cony GORDIE uy aL prostio Th 

ord 

AE STR gs met pomilid ae 

K (Sigle fanidy) on Flpvebbwel Sonny

: Rekers host] uo 

fee det Cenk of 

I" 

Ho 

og 

3 Bom weet hoe Met, 

Ad 

. 

2 J clues uae 

Dei, 

. 

g- Ou PA 

hotogrepha thet Shaves 

ITISTSN 

og 

i 

Trad receglacha a 

Re cod 

to [eX 

Ty AMMA 

gan 

a 

Now {rugs 

br is wlio 

§ ££ oo 

A 

PAIN me Nhe Bruni 

{ 

rug 

ova, 

vole Sep 

ad C= afb & 

brig g He 

ob 

aden 

bol? on 

nk gf 

Not 

pad. efhuc hom argund 

a Camels amb 

Aceon 

bescdy 

J, 

Ho aldose ete Sovie f 

iia on Ne 

Est 

res 

Whee Seis 

Conon 

Adekafe 

Rak fro 

cla Md 

no 

A 

Re 

deoel 

on 

uel digs

{im Depart of ross: 

THIS 

IS NOT A TAX BILL 

L-4400 

otice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification 

s form is issued under the authority of P.A. 206 of 1893, Soc. 211.24 (¢) and Sec.211.34¢, as amended. This is a model assessment notice lo be used by the local assessor. 

OM CiTY OF PORT HURCN 

PARCEL IDENTIFICATION 

ANGELA SWOFFER, ASSESSOR 

PARCEL NUMBER: 

74-06-404-0005-000 

100 MCMORRAN BLVD 

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 

PORT HURON, Mi 48060 

’ 

4014 GRATIOT AVE 

PORT HURON, MI 48060 

JNER'S NAME & ADDRESS/PERSON NAMED ON ASSESSMENT ROLL: 

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE EXEMPTION 

ETERS JANE C REV LIV TRUST 

% Exempt 

As "Homeowners Principal Residence": 

.00% 

501 

NEWBURNE POINTE 

% Exempt As “Qualified Agricultural Property”: 

00% 

3LOOMFIELD HILLS Mi 48304 

% Exempt As "MBT Industrial Personal”: 

.00% 

9% Exeinpt As "MBT Commercial Personal”: 

00% 

Exempt 

As "Qualified Forest Property”: 

[] Yes 

No 

Exempt 

As "Development Property”: 

] Yes 

No 

‘GAL. DESCRIPTION: 

1/2 LOT 3 & S 1/2 LOT 4 GRATIOT BEACH 

CCORDING TO MCL 211.34c THIS PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS: 401 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

RIOR YEAR'S CLASSIFICATION: 401 

(RESIDENTIAL-IMPROVED) 

he ee voi will norgase/dectease your tax bill for 

PRIOR preva) 

eam 

PROT YEAT0 

. TAXABLE VALUE: 

176,340 

181,806 

5,466 

|. ASSESSED VALUE: 

265,100 

278,400 

13,300 

. TENTATIVE EQUALIZATION FACTOR: 

1.000 

: 

: 

.. STATE EQUALIZED VALUE (SEV). 

265,100 

278,400 

13,300 

i. There WAS or WAS NOT a transfer of ownership on this property in 

2024 

WAS NOT 

i. Assessor Change Reason(s): 

*CORRECTED** 

‘he 2025 Inflation Rate Multiplier is: 1.03 

\uestions regarding the Notice of Assessment, Taxable Valuation, and Property Classification may be directed to the Following: 

ame: 

Phone: 

Email Address: 

ANGELA SWOFFER 

810-984-9742 

SWOFFERA@PORTHURON.ORG 

Information. The Board of Review will meet at the following dates and times:

February 23, 2026 

City of Port Huron — Board of Review 

100 McMorran Blvd. 

Port Huron, MI 48060 

RE: Assessment Appeal at 2026 Board of Review — 4014 Gratiot Ave., Port Huron, Mi 

Short-term Rentals detrimental effect on property values of adjacent propetties. 

Dear Sirs and Madams: 

Though It is difficult to determine exactly how much short-term rentals effect values, 

| 

am convinced that the way the current ordinances are enforced, or not enforced, in the 

City of Port Huron the value of adjacent properties are negatively affected in at least two 

ways: 

1.) Current property owners in an R zoning district cannot advertise that their 

property can be used as a short-term rental due to the City’s prohibition against 

new rentals in an R zoning district. Potential income stream from renting one's 

property cannot enhance the property value of the property that is prohibited from 

becoming a rental property (short or long-term). 

2.) If the tenants of a short-term rental misbehave or disturb the peaceful enjoyment 

of neighboring properties during their tenancy word gets around and 

| believe a 

home located next to a known “party house” is going to be more difficult to seli 

and more than likely sell for a lower amount. 

If a municipality cannot adequately ensure that adjacent property owners will not be 

adversely affected by what constitutes a commercial use in a residential area then at a 

minimum 2-3 houses on either side of the short-term rental should either: 

1.) Have their assessment increases limited to half of the assessment increase 

factor for each year the short-term rental is operated as such. 

2.) Receive a reduced tax rate. 

3.) The City should collect a significant tax (fee? Something!) on the short-term 

rental that is passed on to adjacent properties.

market data used to develop the assessment increase factors used to adjust property 

tax assessment values. 

CH 

alos 

Jeff 

A wr - Estate Broker

Important Michigan Court of Appeals Decisions 

By Clifford H. Bloom, Esq. 

ANOTHER MICHIGAN COURT 

OF APPEALS ROAD END CASE 

On January 16, 2018, the Michigan 

Court of Appeals issued its unpublished 

opinion in the case of In re Joseph M. 

Drago Revocable Trust/Drago v Savage 

(Case No. 335472; 2018 WL 442219). 

The properties involved were at Eight 

Point Lake in Clare County, Michigan. 

‘The subdivision in which the properties 

are located dedicated 

a private road 

that terminated at the lake “to the use 

of The Lot Owners” 

Consistent with 

long-standing Michigan appellate case 

law, the Court of Appeals held that 

the road could be used by the backlot 

or off-lake property owners for access 

to the lake only — the road could not 

be used for overnight or seasonal boat 

mooring, 

docking 

or 

storage. 

The 

Court also confirmed that one dock 

could be installed at the road end at 

the lake for day use only, but that boats 

and watercraft could not be moored or 

docked at the common dock overnight 

or seasonally. 

The adjoining riparian 

property owners had objected to the 

Bloom Siuggett, PC 

| Grand Rapids, Michigan 

| www.bloomsluggett.com 

either the Michigan Lake & Stream 

Associations, 

Inc. 

website 

at www. 

mymlsa.org or The Michigan Riparian 

website at www.mi-riparian.org. 

* 

% 

% 

AN IMPORTANT SHORT-TERM 

RENTAL DECISION 

My 

earlier 

article 

on 

short-term 

rentals in Michigan appeared in the 

Summer, 2017 issue of The Michigan 

Riparian 

magazine. 

Recently, 

the 

Michigan Court of Appeals issued a 

published decision which could have 

significant impacts upon short-term 

rentals throughout Michigan. 

The 

phrase 

“short-term 

rental” 

typically means the renting or leasing of 

a single-family cottage or house to one 

family for relatively short periods of 

time. 

Unfortunately, neither state law 

nor most municipal zoning ordinances 

define 

when 

a 

short-term 

rental 

ends and 

a long-term rental begins. 

However, for purposes of discussing the 

topic, a short-term rental is generally 

any rental that occurs for less than a 

one family at a time. 

There has been 

legislation introduced in the Michigan 

Legislature to prohibit municipalities 

from banning or regulating short-term 

rentals, but as of the date of this article, 

none 

of 

that 

legislation 

had 

been 

enacted. 

In 

a 

few 

cases, property owners 

in 

a 

deed-restricted community 

or 

neighborhood have argued that short- 

term rentals 

violate 

a regulation 

in 

the area's deed restrictions, restrictive 

covenants 

or 

equivalent 

restrictions 

(hereinafter, 

“deed 

restrictions”) 

allowing only single-family residential 

uses or prohibiting commercial uses. 

The 

Michigan 

courts 

have reached 

mixed results 

in 

the 

past 

in those 

deed restrictions cases. 

However, on 

November 

30, 

2017, the Michigan 

Court o of f Appeals ir 

in Eager v_Peasley, 

Mich App _____ (2017) (2017 

WL 

WEL 5907310) held that a short-term 

rental did violate thie deed restrictions 

applicable i in _an_ Alcona County 

deed-restricted 

community. 

~The 

HE at issue only allow

Important Michigan Court 

of Appeals Decisions 

(Continued from page 27) 

‘commercial 

use” There was, however, a vigorous dissent in 

the case decision by Judge William B. Murphy. 

Several months earlier, the Michigan Court of Appeals 

held 

in 

a similar case that short-term rentals violated 

the 

“residential 

use 

only” 

and “non-comme 

requirements in deed restrictions in a neighborhood, 

case was Baukham Trust v Petter 

(unpublishied decision by 

the Michigan Court of Appeals dated September 19, 2017; 

Case No. 332643; 2017 WL 4158025). 

That decision 

is 

technically not binding precedent since it was “unpublished.” 

It 

is not clear whether the Michigan courts hereafter 

will extend the decision in Eager v Peasley and hold that 

conventional municipal zoning ordinances allowing only 

single-family residential use or prohibiting the commercial 

use of dwellings will prohibit short-term rentals. However, 

the language of the deed restrictions in Eager v Peasley 

likely varies significantly from the wording in most single- 

family zoning districts and municipal zoning ordinances 

throughout Michigan. ©

1675 Green Road 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2530 

@ michigan municipal lc 

Aden 

etter 

nn Opposition jo SH 446 an 

734.662.3246 

800.653.2483 

734.662.8083 

Tuesday, May 25, 2021 

Hon. Senator Aric Nesbitt 

201 Townsend Street 

Suite #6100 

Lansing, MI 48933 

Sen. Nesbitt and members of the Senate Regulatory Reform Committee: 

We write to you today to express our united opposition to Senate Bill 446. An identical bili, 

House Bill 4722, is also moving through the House. These bills as currently drafted leave 

communities unable to regulate non-residential property uses in residential neighborhoods 

across the state. 

Short-term rentals have become a thriving part of Michigan's tourism economy, and we wish for 

them to remain so long into the future. This bill before your committee also attempts to support 

short-term rentals — but it does so by imposing a top-down, one-size-fits-all policy that ignores 

the unique needs of our individual communities. We urge you to vote this legislation down. 

Backers of these bills claim short-term rentals are a personal property rights issue and appear 

to be reacting out of fear that some communities may ban the practice of short-term renting. 

This fear is unfounded. We are not aware of a single community in Michigan that has or is 

seeking to ban short-term rentals. In fact, exclusionary zoning is already against the law. 

What some communities have found necessary is to place reasonable regulations on short-term 

rentals to ensure they are balancing the needs of long-term residents and those of vacationers. 

There are many places in Michigan facing an affordable housing crisis where residents struggle 

with housing that is too expensive for their budgets—or they spend more money and time on 

long commutes to and from work and services. When short-term rentals are allowed to 

proliferate without overview, 

it can further deplete available housing supply and drive up costs 

for residents. Communities should decide for themselves how to balance their housing needs, 

not Big Government.

) salons, so too should they be able to decide what level of short-term rental activity is 

appropriate to maintain the residential character of a neighborhood. 

Short-term rental regulation 

rental regulation 

is also an issue of public saf fety. Local fire marshals have found 

sl short-term rental properties lacking. smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, gasoline and liquid 

propane gas stored in the basement, as well as other serious hazards. As currently written, 

House Bill 4722 and Senate Bill 446 would limit a local government's ability to inspect these 

mini-hotels to ensure they are being operated safely. 

Again, we strongly believe that short-term rentals are a vital part of Michigan's tourism 

economy. We do not want {o see them banned. 

Instead of House Bill 4722 and Senate Bill 446, we urge you to seek compromise legislation that 

balances the basic rights of homeowners to rent their properties on a short-term basis with the 

individual needs of our local communities. Such a compromise should also create a more level 

playing field between these predominantly commercial short-term rentals with the hotels and 

resorts that invest and operate in our communities. 

Please vote Senate Bill 446 down so that such a deal can be constructed. 

Thank you for your consideration of this important local matter. 

Co-Signed: 

Community Economic Development Association of Michigan 

Conference of Western Wayne 

Frankenmuth Bavarian Inn, Inc. 

Michigan Bed & Breakfast Association 

Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs 

Michigan Association of Planning 

Michigan Historic Preservation Network 

Michigan Lakes & Streams Association 

Michigan Municipal League 

Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association 

Michigan Townships Association 

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

CC: 

Senate Regulatory Reform Committee

SHORT-TERM RENTALS A 

D 

PROPERTY TAXES 

TOBY KOENING, ESQ. 

| BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

located 

in residential or agricultural areas which 

are zoned for single-family residential, 

rural, 

or 

agricultural uses. And, in general, STRs are commercial 

or business uses (i.e. for profit). How are STRs taxed 

for property tax purposes 

in Michigan, both 

as to 

classification and also for millage rates for purposes 

of the primary residential dwelling exemption ("PRE")? 

I: Michigan, many short-term rentals ("STRs") are 

PROPOSAL A: THE FOUNDATION OF 

MICHIGAN PROPERTY TAX RULES 

To analyze STR taxation, it is helpful to understand 

Proposal A. Adopted in 1994, Proposal A limits annual 

increases in taxable value to the lesser of 5% or the 

inflation rate, unless there is a transfer of ownership. 

When 

a transfer 

of ownership occurs, the taxable 

value uncaps, or pops up, 

in the following year to 

match the state equalized value (SEV)—roughly 50% 

of the property's market or “true cash” value. This “cap” 

and “uncap” system is central to how STR properties 

can affect both an owner's annual tax bill and the focal 

tax base. 

RESIDENTIAL ZONING VERSUS 

COMMERCIAL USE 

Zoning and taxation do not always match. Even 

if 

a property is located in a single-family residential or 

agricultural zone, a municipal assessor may classify it 

differently if its primary use changes. Under Michigan's 

General Property Tax Act, classification 

is based on 

use, not zoning. Many assessors keep STRs 

in the 

residential class—especially if rentals of a dwelling are 

only occasional. In some cases, however, an STR can 

be classified as commercial, which may affect both a 

DOES RENTING SHORT-TERM TRIGGER AN 

“UNCAPPING"? 

Transitioning 

a home to an STR use does not, 

in 

and of itself, trigger an uncapping. The taxable value 

remains capped unless there is an actual transfer of 

ownership under Michigan law—such 

as 

a 

sale or 

certain ownership changes. For example, transferring 

the property from a single owner to a limited liability 

company (an LLC) with multiple owners will generally 

trigger 

an 

uncapping. 

See 

Resort 

Properties 

Co- 

Operative v Twp of Waterloo {SC Docket No. 166642) 

(2025); Scott v City of South Haven (COA Docket No. 

339007) (2018), and also Signature Villas, LLC v City 

of Ann Arbor, 269 Mich App (2006). 

PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION: 

WHO QUALIFIES? 

The 

PRE 

exempts 

a 

property 

from 

the 

18-mill 

school operating tax if it is the landowner’s principal 

residence. A person's principal residence is statutorily 

defined in relevant part as the one “place where an 

owner of the property has his or her true, fixed, and 

permanent home 

to which, whenever absent, 

he 

or she intends to return 

. 

. 

. until another principal 

residence is established.” Moreover, a person cannot 

claim the exemption if he or she has already claimed 

a similar exemption elsewhere or in another state. In 

addition, STR owners face limits. For example, apart 

from a limited number of unique and very uncommon 

exceptions 

for 

cooperative 

housing 

corporations 

and registered living care facilities, properties owned 

by 

a corporate entity 

(ie. 

an 

LLC, corporation, 

or 

partnership) generally do not qualify for the PRE. This 

is because, in general, only natural persons can claim

(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 30) 

CAN SPOUSES CLAIM SEPARATE PRES? 

In Michigan, a married couple filing a joint Michigan 

income tax return is limited to one PRE only, even if 

they own separate properties. Married couples filing 

separately may be able to each claim a PRE 

if they 

both maintain separate principal residences. 

LLCS AND THE UNCAPPING QUESTION 

Transferring a property to or from an LLC generally 

triggers an uncapping. Michigan law provides a few 

exemptions for certain entity transfers (i.e. to an LLC 

or a corporation), but they are narrow and must be 

carefully documented to avoid an unplanned tax hike. 

Sometimes, placing relatives ona deed or transferring 

a property to a trust may not cause an uncapping 

if 

the ownership does 

not significantly change. See 

Kalanquin v Township of Richfield (COA Docket No. 

297342) (2011); Helinski v Alpena Twp (MTT Docket No. 

23-002928) (2024) and Klooster v City of Charlevoix, 

488 Mich 289 (2011). However, in some cases, even 

those transfers can result in an uncapping or “pop up.” 

SIINYdWOD 

3NSSIUDOEd 

Once 

a transfer of ownership occurs, there 

is no 

option for a redo, and the property's taxable value will 

reset to 50% of the full market value. 

LOCAL REGULATION OF STRS 

Anyone investigating whether 

or not to operate 

an STR should check the local city, village, township, 

or county zoning ordinance to determine where and 

if STRs are allowed. 

Many jurisdictions still prohibit 

STRs outside of the commercial zoning districts and 

do not allow STR uses within the residential, rural, or 

agricultural zoning districts. In most cases, if the zoning 

ordinance 

is silent regarding STRs as to a particular 

zoning district, they are generally prohibited. Please 

see the various articles on STRs that have appeared 

in this magazine, both this year and in the recent past. 

THE BOTTOM LINE 

Short-term rentals may look like simple side income, 

but the property tax consequences can be complex— 

and 

costly—if 

not 

carefully 

considered. 

Owners 

should consult with 

a professional and understand 

the transfer of ownership, classification, and PRE rules 

before embarking on an STR venture. 2_. 

Services: 

+ Aquatic plant management 

oversight 

* Drone surveys 

* Geographic information systems 

analyses 

« Hydro-acoustic mapping 

+ Lake and watershed 

management plans 

+ Limnological evaluations and 

diagnosti 

ibility studies 

+» Natural shoreline design 

* Online information and outreach 

«Project organizalion and

RENTAL 

DEVELOPMENTS 

CLIFFORD H. BLOOM, ESQ. 

| BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

ver the past decade, 

| have authored several articles 

O for The Michigan Riparian magazine regarding so- 

called short-term rentals (“STRs"). Recently, there 

have been four court decisions pertaining to 

STRs that may 

be of interest to Michigan lake communities. On July 

9, 

2025, the M 

Michigan $ Supreme Cc 

held in Melvin R. Berlin 

Revocable Trust v Rubin (Supreme Court Case No. 166228) 

that for Purposes 

¢ of deed restrictions/| restrictive covenants, 

wording 

owing “property 

use 

only for “single-family 

residential purposes” “would 

Id typically 

| preclude 

¢ commercial 

uses such 

as STF 

‘régarding tt fis decision, however. First, the decision applies to 

specific language in deed restrictions/restrictive covenants 

. for 

a particular neighborhood and does not necessarily 

apply to all deed restrictions/restrictive covenants cases. 

Nevertheless, this decision has widespread fmpact as the 

Sacond, ¢ one can 

can analogize “from this decision 

on to zoning 

B requlations 

with si 

similar wording, Thi 

Third 

and 

finally, the 

decision was 3-to-3, a tie, with one Supreme Court Justice 

"abstaining. Therefore, the decision of the Michigan Court 

of Appeals below (ie. that_a residential 

use restriction 

precluded 

STR use) stands. Accordingly, this decision by 

the Supreme Court has less precedential weight. 

In Melvin R. Berlin Revocable Trust, the Michigan Supreme 

Court grappled with whether or not an STR is a residential 

use. Other courts have also struggled with the concept as 

well, although they generally reach the conclusion that in

(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 28) 

practice, STRs are commercial and for profit, and hence, 

_not residential. Likewise, given that commercial motels, 

inns, tourist homes, etc. are not allowed 

in residential or 

agricultural zoning districts because they are commercial in 

nature, STRs should not be allowed in such non-commercial 

zoning districts either. Finally, in 

Michigan, 

if a use 

is not 

expressly listed as allowed within a particular zoning district, 

it is_generally_ prohibited. See Dezman v Charter Twp of 

Bloomfield, 513 Mich 898 (2023) (Order of November 

22, 2023 in Case No. 165878); Pittsfield v Malcolm, 375 

Mich 135; 134 NW2d 166 (1965) and Independence Twp v 

Skibowski, 136 Mich App 178; 355 NW2d 903 (1984). 

Inasecond decision, on September 18, 2025, the Michigan 

involving deed 

| restrictions in Timber Lake Drive Property 

Owners Assn v Gribi (Case No. 369520; 2025 WL 2682064). 

The Court of Appeals held that not only is STR use violative 

of 

t the residential -only deed restriction, but that jong-term 

rent ls w would also violate 

the deed restrictions. The Cc 

Court 

residential use. 

S3IINYIWOD 

JAISS3YDOYd 

@uestion: 

We've been finding solutions to 

lake and watershed challenges for 30 years. 

Services: 

» Aquatic ptant management 

oversight 

Drone surveys 

Geographic information systems 

analyses 

Hydro-acoustic mapping 

Lake and watershed 

management plans 

Limnological evaluations and 

diagnostic feasibility studies 

Natural shoreline design 

Online informalion and oulreach 

Project organization and 

financing assistance

SHORT-TERM RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS 

(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 29) 

The third court decision 

of interest occurred 

in the 

Newaygo County Circuit Court in an opinion rendered on 

May 28, 2025 in Grant Township v Mattice and Vanderstelt 

“Newaygo County Circuit CoUt C 556 No, 24-31021-C2Z). 

Fa 

The Court 

Sourt held thal STRs.are commercial uses 

ot allowed 

the 

G 

e Grant Tc 

onetin 

Zor 

Zoning Ordinance. 

Finally, perhaps the most important county circuit court 

case 

involving 

zoning 

regulations 

and 

STRs 

over 

the 

past decade or more was the recent written Opinion and 

Order of the Ottawa County Circuit Court, In that case, 

allowed in the residential or agricultural zoning districts for 

many decades, any STRs that commenced during that time 

period are unlawful. The plaintiff represented a significant 

number 

of 

STR 

property 

owners. 

Initially, 

the 

Court 

dismissed the property owners’ lawsuit given that they did 

not exhaust their administrative remedies by appealing to 

the Park Township Zoning Board of Appeals before the 

lawsuit was filed. Thereafter, the property owners appealed 

the 

interpretation 

that STRs were 

not allowed 

to 

the 

Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals 

upheld 

the Township's zoning 

interpretation 

that STRs 

were not lawful. The property owners then appesled that 

"determination to the Ottawa County Circuit Court, which 

via a written Opinion and Order dated November 4, 2025 

upheld th 

the decision by the Zoning Board of / Appeals in fa 

in favor 

of the 

of the Township's interpretation t that STRs were not allowed 

in the non-commercial zoning dist 

JEU 

as 

ts. 

Cansistent with 

above, t the overwhelming majority of 

court decisiol 

out’ 

¢ Michigan: over 

the past decade 

that S STRS. are generally comme 

ot 

NEW LAKE BOTTOMLANDS 

APPORTIONMENT DECISION 

CLIFFORD H. BLOOM, ESQ. 

| BLOOM SLUGGETT, PC 

(decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals; Case No. 371747; 2025 WL. 2611183), which deals with the 

apportionment of inland lake bottomiands in relationship to the riparian lots on dry land. Although the written 

opinion by the Court does not break any new ground, 

it is a good summary of the appellate case law in Michigan 

regarding inland lake bottomlands ownership. 

OO: September 9, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision in Finch v Gennari

ATTORNEY WRITES 

Do All Riparians Hate 

Public Lake Access Sites? 

There seems 

to 

be 

a common misperception that 

all 

riparians dislike public access sites on their lake. While it is 

always hazardous to generalize about any group (including 

riparian property owners), the belief by some that most 

riparians 

oppose 

public 

lake 

access 

sites 

is 

generally 

erroneous. 

Of course, some riparians do oppose public access sites 

on their own lake as a matter of self-interest or as a “matter 

of principle” However, the feelings of most riparians about 

public access sites are more complex and oftentimes subtle. 

And, in many instances, concern about public access sites on 

relatively small inland lakes in Michigan is both rational and 

justified. 

Public access sites for boats and watercraft on the Great 

Lakes and on large Michigan inland lakes 

often have 

minimal negative impacts upon lakefront property owners 

on those lakes. On larger bodies of water, boat overcrowding 

is generally not the significant problem it can be on smaller 

inland lakes and conflicts among lake users 

are simply 

generally less frequent on larger bodies of water. On smaller 

bodies of water, public access sites can cause overcrowding 

of the lake involved or exacerbate existing overcrowding 

problems. 

Riparians on inland lakes often confront what has been 

referred to as the “rental car” problem. 

As most people 

know from experience, the users of rental cars tend to treat 

the rented vehicles with less care than their own automobile 

or truck. 

Likewise, boaters who use public access sites on 

lakes where they do not own property are typically not as 

considerate as they might be in their own lake neighborhood. 

Issues with reckless boating behavior, littering, loud partying, 

abusing 

alcoholic 

beverages 

and 

similar 

problematic 

behavior can increase when a boater is using a lake in which 

they have no vested or personal interest. 

Although the 

By Clifford H. Bloom, Esq. 

Bloom Stuggett, PC 

Grand Rapids, Michigan 

www.BloomSiuggett.com 

65 

inland lake involved.! 

While fully improved public access 

sites with parking for dozens of vehicles may be appropriate 

for the Great Lakes and large lakes such as Houghton Lake or 

Higgins Lake, the same would not be safe or reasonable for a 

small 40-acre inland lake. ‘The DNR and local governmental 

units should be required to carefully monitor and police their 

public access sites, even to the point of having an attendant 

physically present for larger sites. 

Public access sites on 

smaller lakes should limit the size, type and horsepower of 

boats that can be launched. On a 60-acre inland lake, kayaks, 

row boats and small fishing boats might be appropriate while 

speed boats, ski boats and larger motor boats should not be 

allowed. 

Just as certain public trails limit use to foot traffic 

and bicycles (and prohibit snowmobiles, trucks, ATVs and 

side-by-sides), so too should public access sites on small 

lakes limit types of usage. 

Unfortunately, our state government appears to have an 

unwritten rule or philosophy that has been followed for the 

past half-century or more — the more boats and watercraft 

that can be jammed onto an inland lake in Michigan, the 

better for purposes of tourism, commerce, business, etc. That 

unwritten policy is not only unreasonable, but it makes for 

unsafe boating, negatively impacts property values and likely 

actually hurts tourism by overcrowding lakes and degrading 

the quality of our beautiful natural resources. 

Most riparians are amenable to reasonable public access 

for lakes. Very few riparians oppose public access sites for 

swimming, sunbathing, lounging, 

fishing, kayaking and 

similar low-impact activities. 

And, in fact, most riparians 

do not have a problem with the use of public access sites 

for rowboats, sailboats, and small fishing boats. 

It is the 

sometimes negative, high-impact uses 

(i.e. large power 

boats, ski boats and wake boats) that are problematic. 

Lake 

public 

access 

sites 

also 

contribute 

to 

the

Do All Riparians Hate 

Toe 

| 

| 

Public Lake Access Sites? 

BEP 

| 

Continued from page 15 

Articles from the Magazine 

A 

IR 

Lo, 

) 

. 

Frequently, lake associations, the press, educational institutions and 

So is opposition by riparians to public access sites selfishand 

| others request permission to reprint an article from The Michigan Riparian 

unreasonable as goes the common misperception? Perhaps 

| magazine ina newsletter, newspaper, or other publication. In general, The 

in a small minority of cases, yes. 

However, in many other 

Michigan Riparian magazine is relatively fiberal in granting permission 

cases, the concern by riparians is both rational and warranted 

for such reprints. However, no such reprint can be done without the 

. 

oo 

expressed prior written permission of the magazine. 

given the host of challenges and real negative impacts that can 

oo 

; 

. 

} 

alt £ 

(or 

absent) 

use 

polici 

d 

enforcement. 

If 

you 

or 

your 

organization 

wishes 

to 

reprint 

an 

article 

result 

irom poor 

(or absent) 

use policies and 

entor 

en 

from The Michigan Riparian magazine, please contact us at (989) 831-5100 

To summarize, 

the following are_some of the typical 

{or info@mi-ripatian.org, Ifapproved, we will notify you by email or letter. 

probféits associated with public access sites on smaller lakes 

| When permission is granted, the following language must appear just 

| 

before or after the reprint: 

in Michigan: 

« 

» 

“Reprinted with permission of The Michigan Riparian magazine 

1. 

The 

“rental car” syndrome, 

from the (indicate the season & year) issue, 

2. 

Littering. 

author's name: 

3. 

The carrying in of harmful aquatic invasive species 

Copywritten by the Michigan Lake & Stream Associations, Inc” 

when boats or watercraft from other areasare launched. 

4, 

Speeding, careless or reckless boating, 

5. 

Causing overcrowding (or further crowding) on lakes 

with boat traffic, 

< _. Negative impacts 0 on 1 property val 

values. 

alcohol, etc.” 

The following are some of the policies that the DNR and 

local governmental units that own or control public access 

= 

Seas 

== 

sites should undertake: 

Concerned About the Future of Your Water Resources? 

A. 

Tailor the particular public lake access site to the lake 

[EAMES ELRILEN] 

involved, both in terms of the amount of parking and 

Membership dues of $45 entitles you to a year's membership and 

the uses allowed. 

subscription to The Michigan Riparian magazine as well as other 

Actively police and regulate the public access sites, 

| 

benefits. 

Mail check payable to MLESA to: 

) 

ie POT 

avers oF 

inclu 

ng towing “of vehicles where appropriate. 

Michigan Lake and Stream Associations, Inc., 

Use gatés or othér appropriate bafficades to “close” 

| 300 N. State St, Ste A, Stanton, Mi 48888 

public access sites during night hours. 

Or renew your membership online at www.mymisa.org 

D. .Have real human beings 

present as attendants for the 

busier public access 

em site Tr 

One year $45 

E. 

Require the washing of boats and watercraft when they 

| Special multi-year discounts 

are removed from the water and provide facilities for 

| 0 

2 years is $80 

such washing. 

3 years is $110 

[=] 

F. 

Impose a permit fee system and use the funds only for 

Im] 

5 years is $150 

H 

improving, policing and regulating the public access 

0 

Lifetime is $500 = 

site. 

G. Use increased police patrols to. minimize, catch and 

/

vo 

ae A 

4G 

TY 

4 

La 

it 

ave 

wi 

29 

e ) 

oY 

[a] 

oi 

ee 

CRE 

& 

oh 

al 

Fy 

a 

ir 

“54 

[2 

[i 

po 

gan, 

1d 

adios 

PN 

sds 

RS 

fr 

sv 

Eh. 

Poy ire 

cain 

red 

wed 

a 

pee 

tabs 

uty 

~ 

he 

be 

ry 

iv 

a 

ay 

Capyiok 

pp 

Tia 

4 

% 

5 

[odd 

i 

Te 

& 

wt 

we” 

[i 

Hi 

5h 

E - 

™ 

as 

Fury oy =e, wb 

5 

bh 

= 

LL.B 

_— 

he 

oi 

pore 

sod 

Spas 

ov 

Ser 

i 

—# 

A) 

dat 

Slo 

wo

oa 

cfm 

di 

Re 

i 

= 

is 

a 

oi 

yo 

ts 

> 

“ 

Lot 

gc 

LN 

2% 

5 

A 

rt 

Zz 

~ 

5 

IN 

Si 

= 

f/ 

i 

lo 

Re 

» 

& 

Lio 

eh ie

‘#, 

1 

a 

a 

= 

(yl) 

pes Sa 

f= 

ok] 

78 

¥ 

pom 

% 

7 

ra) 

Bie, 

_ 

PU 

|) 

- i 

Ss 

1 

Etna 

fe 

pn i 

i 

& 

al 

td 

—— 

SA 

JESS 

RE 

PIED CME 

|

10:18 

= a.) 

< Messages 

= 

ChatGPT 

(Log in) 

® 

2. The rule that applies specifically to 

“R" zoning 

This is the critical clause: 

“Any non-owner-occupied residential 

dwelling or unit rented for less than 30 days 

shall not be allowed in the R Zone." 

eCode360 

What that means legally 

e 

Applies to R zoning districts (single-family 

residential) 

o 

Applies when the property is: 

+ 

Non-owner occupied, and 

+ 

Rented < 30 days 

This is not a gray area—this is a direct 

prohibition 

0

Nn 

elo

Recycle

← View full record