25-003057.pdf

Mary Ann Lamkin, Petitioner V Township Of Hamburg, Respondent · 25-003057-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.

SECTION 5: EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR THE APPEAL. 

Issue 1: Why is there still a 100% Exemption as "Homeowners Principal Residence" factored-in 

as a P.R.E [per Notice of Assessment L-4400], when the owners of 4887 Island Shore Drive [tax 

code 200-009] have not occupied the 4887 ISD single-family dwelling since 1988? The 

assessing dept. has known for more than 33 yrs. that 4855 Island Shore Drive [tax code 200-010] 

has been the principle residence of the Petitioner [Petitioners received their Certification of 

Occupancy 11-23-1988]. All official documentation, correspondence, tax bills have been sent to 

Petitioners’ principle residence 4855 Island Shore Drive, since 1988. Clearly, since 2005 a 

county Certification of Completion was signed regarding the demolition of [the] 4887 single 

family dwelling on 9/13/2005. There has been no "inhabitable" single family dwelling on the 

property since 2005, as only an accessory building and 1960's garage remains on the property. 

The Petitioners never even requested a P.R.E. for 4887 Island Shore Drive [200-009]. In fact, the 

Petitioners never requested a P.R.E. [Homestead Credit] for 4855 Island Shore Drive [tax code 

200-010]. So why was a [100%] P.R.E. factored-in as an exemption since 1-1-2001 and 

continues today [2023] per Notice of Assessment L-4400? 

Issue 2: Per the Petitioners’ 2022 Property Tax Appeal from Valuation 

/Exemption/Classification Hearing, the Respondent/Assessor falsely claimed that both 4887 ISD 

[009] and 4855 ISD [010] are "subdivision" lots of record and the only "roadway" to and from 

all of the properties in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 21, including the Petitioner's two 

parcels, traverse a "private road" through [the] subdivision! Both assessing records cards claim 

both parcel [009] and [010] access their respective properties via a "private gravel road". The 

claim of [a] "private road" is found under Public Improvements/Topography on the 

assessor/records card and the Respondent/assessor has willfully permitted the assessors/records 

card to be "falsely" claim there is a “private road” traversing Petitioners two parcel, which 

constitutes [a] FRAUD. The Respondent/assessor doubled down on the assessor/records card 

FRAUD, as the Respondent/assessor's ANSWER Form dated 9-22-2022 prefaced [her] ironic 

claim that [a] "SAD Maintenance District" fee for Island Shore Drive/Schlenker Road [was] 

"lawfully" levied and approved by the residents for all properties in the district. And that the 

Petitioner's SEV and TAXABLE values [do not include the Road Maintenance Fee]. And the 

SAD Fee is not part of the value calculation for the [properties]. First, the Livingston County 

Circuit Court issue a final judgment [March 18, 2019] in the matter of an illegal/unlawful 

establishment, adoption and implementation of a SAD, pursuant to PA 188 of 1954, [but remains 

under abeyance order], the court ruled that the "2017 SAD Maintenance District" was not 

lawful, as the statute used to "create" the SAD could not include "real property" into a "taxing" 

authority special assessment district”. Island Shore Drive is not and has never been [a] private 

road. As for claiming the Petitioners’ SEV and TAXABLE values [do not include] "SAD 

Maintenance fees" is a profoundly ambiguous claim. Please see MCL 211 .381erroneously 

assessed! See MCL 211.531 and MCL 211.532 Illegal Taxes. Also see MCL 211.501 and MCL 

211.502. The financing mechanism for [a] SAD is [a] 

LEV Y/tax... FEES ARE NOT TAXES... 

The Respondent caused herself [a] Freudian Slip... when the Respondent/assessor claimed the 

gov't of Hamburg Twp. had been placing "fees costs for the SAD" on the Winter Tax Roll/Bill 

and "calling" them A TAX! As for the SEV and TAXABLE VALUE calculations, the LAND 

1

being called a Private Road is being calculated in the TAXABLE VALUE, because the LAND 

being called/labeled as a Private Road IS PART OF THE PARCELS .88 ACRES! 

Issue 3: Calculating True Cash Value. MCL 211.27 Repairs are considered normal if they are 

not part of a structure addition or completion. See subsection (b) Repairing, or replacing siding, 

roof, porches, steps, sidewalks, or drives. [driveways] Island Shore Drive IS THE 

PETITIONERS’ DRIVEWAY 

(S). 

Issue 4: During the Property Tax Appeal Hearing, the Respondent/assessor willfully violated 

MCL 211.25(e) When 2 or more parcels of land adjoin and belong to the same owner or owners, 

they may be assessed by 

1 valuation if permission is obtained from the owner or owners. The 

assessing authority shall send a notice of intent to assess the parcels by 1 valuation to the 

owner or owners. The Petitioner’s never received any “Notice of Intent” from the 

Responder/assessor that the Respondent/assessor intended to implement MCL 211.25(e)... intent 

to assess the parcels by 

1 valuation. 

Clearly, the Petitioner is concerned that ALL OF THE ELEMENTS COMPLAINTED OF IN 

THE 2022 PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ARE PRESENT IN PETITIONER'S 2023 Property Tax 

Appeal, which is why Petitioner is filing their Property Tax Appeal. 

Our contention is that when the Administrative Law Judge Susan Maul, issued her Proposed 

Judgment and Conclusions of Law were predicated on a “fraud” and false/untrue statements 

made by the Responder/assessor finding, “the Respondent calculated the subject property’s 

assessment using the mass appraisal, cost-less-depreciation approach to value, which 

includes market adjustments through the use of a county multiplier and economic 

condition factor. Respondent submitted property cards and valuation reports for the subject 

property in support of its costs approach. The Respondent also submitted a comparable sales 

analysis of three properties sold in 2021... 

However, he Tribunal found the combined TCV of the subject property falls within the range of 

Respondent’s adjusted sales prices of $705,800 to $1,178,220. Overall, the Tribunal concludes 

that the best indicator of value on record is Respondent’s cost approach represented by the 

property cards and valuation reports, as supported by Respondents comparable sales 1, 2, and 3. 

The tribunal finds that the market evidence on record supports affirming the value established by 

the BOR.” 

Please keep in mind that the Respondent/assessor unlawfully combined the Petitioner’s two 

parcels and used the Actual Sale Price of all three comparable and then “compared” the Actual 

Sale Prices/Adjusted Sale Price... against ONE PARCEL where there was NO ACTUAL SALE 

PRICE. There are multiple “depreciation factors” that should have been taken into consideration 

before arriving at [a] TAXABLE VALUE for a “hypothetical” “highly speculative” “futuristic” 

SALE! None of the (3) comparable disclosed any depreciation factors. For example 4855 [200- 

010] has absolutely NO DIRECT ACCESS TO THE LAKEFROMT... 4855 [200-010] has a 

never-ending battle with persons from Section 22 who “have permission only” to use the 

Petitioner's LAND/DRIVEWAYS and have repeatedly refused the “pay” [the] maintenance 

costs [without the gov't illegal/unlawful SAD] attributed to [their] use of the Petitioner’s LAND! 

4887 [200-009] has the same depreciating and abusive factor regarding maintenance to their 

LAND. 4887 also has to contend with the FACT that an “on-site” sewer/septic field does not 

meet any of the requirements for constructing an on-site sewer/septic field system... 

2

topography... no level ground for a septic field. Isolating distance between on-site well and 

sewer/septic system will be next to impossible because of the topography limitations. Trying to 

“sell” lakefront property where the LAND cannot support on-site sewer/septic system is a huge 

factor to consider in trying to calculate TAXABLE VALUE. The primary reason why the 

Petitioners’ chose to demolish the single-family dwelling... the sewer/septic system had 

FAILED and the costs to “engineer” an on-site sewer/septic system was totally cost prohibited! 

Also... after “eating-up” most of LAND for a sewer/septic system... very little “developable” 

land is left without “multiple” variance! The Respondent/assessor’s cost approach was a very 

poor approach. As far as the sales comparison approach, the Respondent/assessor’s comparable 

was ridiculous because the Petitioners’ never gave consent to assess the Petitioner's two parcels 

by 

1 valuation. No matter “what” the Respondent/assess would do or could do would not “adjust 

for differences and a market value for an “estimate”. There was “nothing similar between the 

subject property and the Respondent/assessor’ three comparable(s). The choice to use the “cost 

approach” too was because the Respondent/assessor could not find sufficient [similar] sales to 

compare! The Petitioner believes that the Respondent/assessor will conduct the exact same “cost 

approach” and “sale comparison approach” has was presented in the 2022 Respondent's 

calculated subject property’s assessment... using mass appraisal, cost-less-depreciation approach 

to value and market adjustments... use a county multiplier and an economic condition factor, 

because absolutely nothing has changed, with the exception of $90. So, the Petitioner’s 

contention(s)... issues (1-4) remain the same in their 2023 Property Tax Appeal. Unfortunately, 

because the informal hearing process does not cause a “transcription”, Petitioners Appeal is 

exactly what they claimed in 2022. 

The Petitioner realizes that [she] has the burden of proof in establishing the true case value of 

“both” parcels, but the Petitioner believes that arriving at a true cash value ... ego the use of 

usual selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied and is at the time 

of assessment, being the price that could be obtained for the property at private sale, and not at 

auction sale except as otherwise provide for, or at forced sale. The properties that have sold 

during 2021 thru 2022, at least those used by the Respondent/assessor in the 2022 Appeal, were 

not, in anyway similar to the Petitioner’s two parcels, and especially since the 

Respondent/assessor wrongly calculated [a] 

1 valuation. 

According to MCL 211.27(1) the statute provides the Respondent/assessor with a “list” of factors 

to consider, both advantages and disadvantages including, but not limited to: “location; quality of 

soil; zoning, existing use; present economic income of structures, including farm structures; 

present economic income of land if the land is being farmed or otherwise put to income 

producing use; quantity and value of standing timber, water power and privileges; minerals, 

quarries, or other valuable deposits not otherwise exempt under the act known to be available in 

the land and their value.” The most important factor that is not included in the list above. Legal 

Access Route to the Main Roadway [M-36]. 

Comparable 

1 is a “double” lot situation in a subdivision that has NO LEGAL ACCESS TO 

THE LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. The subdivision is Land-Locked and can only travel to the 

main roadway thru the Petitioners two parcels. 

Comparable 2 and 3 are located on a public road. The Petitioners two parcels acquired 

ingress/egress route from their parcels to the main roadway via a Restrictive Covenant. There is 

no law enforcement for traffic violations or damage caused by “users”. Depreciation to the strip 

3

of land used for ingress/egress is always a nightmare, because “users” refuse to “pay” for their 

respective use of the Petitioners property. The law suits will be never endings. How can a true 

cash value be calculated when the “factors” referenced above cannot be “calculated”? 

At the time of [a] sale of the Petitioner’s two parcels, there is no way of “predicting” the never- 

ending depreciation of the “roadbed”... there is no way of knowing if a perspective buyer would 

“pay” a “fair” value for a “lakefront” parcel when there is no access to the lake! 4855 Island 

Shore Drive DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE LAKE... the nearly % acre portion of the 

parcel is swamp/wetland. 

The “cost approach” is used to estimate the cost of constructing improvement to the land. 

Just 

exactly how would “improvements” to land be accomplish when there is NO ROAD... to 

improve? The Land is the Petitioner’s driveway... should the Petitioner’s charge a toll to 

finance the ongoing depreciation?

← View full record