Smith.pdf

Lena J Smith Petitioner V Township Of Marion Respondent · 26-001297-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 

APR 23 2026 

A 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

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 

t =H a 

MIL 

Last Name/Company Name 

LEN 

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

J 

J 

Shr / IH: 

$227 

PVPAL DP. 

THIELE 

{Tyr 

Email Address (do Sie 

tbe all 2 Fy 

LEWES: 

TECH Gin. Cong 

Section 2: Petitioner's Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact information 

First Name 

Last Name 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

( Fi) | 4) 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Telephone Number 

Email Address {do not enter unless you want MTT to send ail correspondence via email) 

Section 3: Subject Property information “use te mulliple 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 ves 

No* 

J 

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

Property Address (No., Street) pve Deve 

Preece #90 

State 

2ZiP Code 

City or Town 

| twee 

“Th Vi VasTON 

wl 

Gps 

Tax

=, 

Vo 

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 at that appty) 

True Cash and Taxable Value 

[J Taxable Value Only (calculation) 

[J Uncapping of Taxable Value 

Section 5: Explain the Reason for this Appeal 

I am appealing the taxable value of a parcel of vacant residential land 

| 

purchased for $12,000 in 2025. The board of review found the taxable 

value to be $9,000 after a March hearing. The negotiation with the seller 

for the purchase price took the following into account: 

1. 

The estimated wetlands boundary (Figure 1) shows the parcel 

contains emergent wetlands. 

2. 

The soils on parcel #70 are not suitable for a sub-surface sewage 

disposal system due to slow permeable soils and a high-water 

table as determined by the Livingston County Health 

Department in 1995 when the previous owner attempted to 

build a home with a septic tank on the property. (Figure 2). 

: 

The parcel was purchased for recreational uses. 

| believe the parcel 

: 

| 

is worth $12,000 and it should be taxed at a rate of $6000. 

Section 6: Jurisdictional issues 

2 

Did you protest the assessment at a Board of Review (B80R)? 5 

Ves 

O No 

2 

If Yes, check which BOR you attended: [4] March 

[Hl] July 

J December 

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

I] Not required to attend 

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

OJ Appealing within 35 days of State Tax Commission Order 

[i] Appealing within 35 days of receipt of Notice of Uncapping 

[1 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: 

47) Oo — 7 G5— JOLY 

Classification of Properly: 

Real [1 

Personal [1 (check one} 

Agricuiturat [3 

Commerciai Cl 

Industria 

[1 

residential 

Timber-Cutover [J 

Developmentai [1 Utility 

[1 {check one) 

Assessed Value {also known 

as State Equalized Value) established | Taxable Value established by the Board of Review: 

by the Board of Review: 

is 

P) Y] 

What 

do you b 

¥ 

: 

= 

i 

is 

the 

fai 

t 

val 

150 

Ki 

? 

at do you 

believe 

is the 

fair marKet 

value 

(also known as true cash value) 

¥ 

eq 

) 0 b 

Co 

‘What do you believe is 

the assessed vatue? (multiply true cash 

What do you believe Kil taxable value? (cannot exceed 

value by 

.5 

assessed value 

v5) 

b,po0 —— 

) 

LE 

Bd 

Doo. — 

we 

Fee Information 

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

issua? 

2 ves 

[J No 

If you answered yes to the above question, you are not reguired to pay any filing 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 

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

will be added for each additional parcel being appealed, not to exceed a tota! 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 $500,600.00 

$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: 

$100,000.00 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. 

Signature required 

Pelitionepbr Attorney/Authorized R. 

sentative’s Signature: 

74 

[4

el 

whe 

7 Fi 

VES 

eee" 

Figure 

£F 

| 

- 

| 

pee 

Foguwe +z — 

| 1 pages

-

. 

Jpg 

1. 

Sil 

204 5. Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan 48843 

1A 

(517) 546-9850 

SOILS EVALUATION FOR 

SUB-SURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS 

\ 

Lid 970 

Location and Directions Sv 

4 5 . off Coon ods) 

Bak Yayo 

A000 

Request 

SOIL. DESCRIPTION 

FE 

(M 

_. 

@ 

[3) 

SKETCH 

Prop. Description No. 

uoneno 

Th 

[PS 

3 

: 

T 

% 

& 

] 

8lZ]8lelolvlololaldby 

[=~ 

A 

o 

, 

Foo 

~~ 

[3 Cs 

diysumo 

” 

5 

Dalen 

=~ 

[1 Suitable Nit 

a 

|__| Bd Unsuitable 

TTS 

[J Suitable with Special Restrictions 

Gola 

0: 

[1 Further Info. Needed (Refer to Comments) 

mments 

5 

WY 

(WNUAY 

\Y 

roan) QAN no) 

QD As Aeoddo

Livingston County Health Department 

204 8. Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan 48843 

(517) 546-9850 

REQUEST FOR SOILS EVALUATION- 

SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS 

Please print or type—See reverse side for directions and explanation. 

Applicant 

Property 

Owner 

Name 

Pen 

th eys 

ane 

’ Re YH 

1L cS 

Address 

AL 0 

rudd el 

Address 

! 

Shen E. 

City Howe ({ 

State_jfl 

4; 

Zip 1] oF Y3 

cy 

State 

Zip 

Telephone No. 

Telephone No. 

Location of Property 

Road 

Ruy 2K 

: 

Township 

Marz, an’ 

Sect. No.__Ao 

Directions ___ 

VG 

Seufly 

do 

Cop 

[Ae 

Bod 

Fast 

fo 

Rul 

Sey 1, 

Subdivision/Acreage 

Caen 

\ak £ 

Hols 

H 2 

Parcel No. 

Lot No. 

G G 

Nature of Intended Use 

tf singe Family 

[7 Muiti-Family Residence 

[J Commercial 

Two-Family Dwelling 

[1 Other Ra 

- 7 

- 

. 

Person or firm conducting excavation 

a— 

1 

Deus 

{ i LAG 

Telephone No. 

3 

£28 $Y) 

v 

7 

a

D. 1960 

) AN 

IPT {NNR 

mathan y Honed and 

-~ 

to me personally 

\o 

sworn did -sey \ 

sation, and 

- 

3 8 deed. 

Vingston County Le 

y 

. 

BE 

PON 

TED 

a 

LO the NaBat. OF. 

13. Livingston CQ». tioh, 

'3 ine. % RURLK PARK 

ition 25, Te2 Ne 

Red By 

We 881.0 £4; thence . 

‘29'W. 503.40 ft; thenoe 

7C04Ws 122,00 

£6; 

: 

the P.C. of a curve. of 

;hs Long Chord of said 

che PTs 

of sald curve. 

he P.C. 

of a curve of 

ha. long Chord of dald 

re Pie of sald curve, 

ie 

PCs 

Of 

a curve of 

;he long Chord of. sald 

181°: C0.C oof sald eurve, 

t Chord of 

g& ourve 

of 

' gald curve: thence 

jse28", 80.10 rt; 

moe M,22°13'W, 

216.45 

thence 38,80°43°V, 

Racoived fc: Ricoh 

la 

Tah 

SR 2 dock 

and record 

a \" Uber... 12... eige. AK

: 

i. ; 0: [0013] 

DATE: 2p 

APPEAL NO: 

h2-70 DECISION: 

APPLICATION 

FOR APPEALING PROVISIONS 

OF 

THE 

LIVINGSTON 

COUNTY 

SANITARY 

CODE 

PLICANT: 

Stephens Consulting Services, 

P.C. 

{Last) 

(First) 

(Middle Initial) 

ny 

ADDRESS: 

.P.0. 

Box 708, 

1549 Haglett 

Rd 

Haslett. 

MT 

48840 

517-339-8692 

(Street) 

(City) 

(State) 

(Zip) 

(Phone) 

OWNERS NAME:___Theys, 

Robert 

(Last) 

(First) 

(Middle Initial) 

ADDRESS: 

2680 Pardee, 

Howell, 

MI 

48843 

517-546-347¢ 

{Street) 

City) 

(State) 

(Zip) 

(Phone) 

PROPERTY IN QUESTION: 

69 .& 

10 

Coon Lake 

Hills 

#2 

(Lot or Parcel #) 

(Subdivision or amount of Acreage) 

Rurick Dr. 

Marion 

25 

(Street) 

(Township) 

(Section) 

Propose 

to _cdnstruct 

a 

3 bedroom 

° 

NATURE OF APPEAL AND WHAT YOU PROPOSE: 

home 

on combined 

lots 

70 

and part 

of 

lof 

69 

with 

a 

pressure 

dosed 

sand 

Trenches 

shall 

be 

cut 

to 

the underlying sand 

layer 

under 

the 

mound 

area 

shall . 

mound septic system. 

and 

filled 

with clean 

£i11 

sand 

be 

stripped 

and 

a 

minimum 

of 

2! 

of 

2NS 

sand 

placed 

under 

the 

stone 

bed 

The 

topsoil 

I HAVE ENCLOSED THE FOLLOWING DATA TO SUPPORT MY APPEAL:

recsprNo: 

01330: pate: 

220 

appranno: 

32-90 pecision: 

APPLICATION 

FOR 

A 

PEA LS Board 

5 

OF PRE—TTveNeSTeN- 

CONEY CANITARY copE 1) 

STEPHENS CONSULTING SERVICES, 

P.C. 

APPLICANT: 

) 

(Last) 

(First) 

(Middle Initial) 

ADDRESS: 

P.O. 

Box 708, 

1549 Haglett 

Rd 

Haglett, 

Mi 

48840 

517-339-8692 

(Street) 

(City) 

{State} 

(Zip}, 

(Phone) 

OWNERS NAME: 

THEYS 

ROBERT 

(Last) 

(First) 

(Middle Initial) 

ADDRESS: 

2680 

Pardee, 

Howell, 

MI 

48843 

517-546-3478 

(Street) 

(City) 

(State) 

(Zip) 

{Phone) 

PROPERTY IN QUESTION:. 

69 

& 

70 

Coon Lake Hills 

#2 

(Lot or Parcel #) 

Rurick 

Dr. 

{Subdivision or amount of Acreage) 

Marion 

25 

(Street) 

NATURE OF APPEAL AND WHAT YOU PROPOSE: 

(Township) 

(Section) 

Propose 

to 

construct 

a 

2 

bedroom home 

on combined 

lots 

70 

and 

part 

of 

lot 

69 with 

an 

intermittent 

sand 

filter 

for 

wastewater 

treatment. 

The 

final 

disposal 

area will pregsure 

dose 

infiltrator chambers 

in 

sand 

f£ill 

with 

1' 

of 

isolation 

abcve existing grade. 

I HAVE ENCLOSED THE FOLLOWING DATA TO SUPPORT MY APPEAL: 

X___ 

Scaled Plot Plan of Subject Property and Affected Neighboring Property 

_X___ Soil Evaluation Reports 

_X___ Well Records

Property Owners within 100’ of Lots 69 & 70 

COON LAKE HILLS NO. 2 

nL; 

ills: 

Lot 20 

Jon & Joyce Schnieder 

4278 Rurick 

Howell, MI 48843 

Lots 19& 

Ralph Anderson 

1/2 of 18 

4258 Rurick 

Howell, MI 48843 

Lots 17& 

Donald & Marilyn McGowan 

1/2 of 18 

4248 Rurick 

Howell, MI 48843 

Lots 16 & 

David Lemons 

1/2 of 15 

4240 Rurick 

Howell, MI 48843 

Coon Lake 

Hills 

No, 

2: 

Lot 67 

Robert Theys 

2680 Pardee 

Howell, 

MI 48843 

Lot 71 

4237 Rurick 

Howell, MI 48843

MONITOR 

WELL 

: 

(SPRING 1996) 

CLIENT: 

Robert Theys 

PROJECT # 

95103 

LOCATION Lots 68, 69 & 70 of Coon Lake Hills, No. 2 

Section 25, Marion Twp., Livingston County 

INSTALLATION: 

2 Wells Installed in March 1996 by Mike Maloney, AAA Excavating 

REFRENCE ELEV.: 

101.92 (Bench Mark - Lag Bolt in Power Pole) 

WATER SURFACE: 

96.5 (Fall 1995) 

96.5 (4/5/96) 

(Gale Lake) 

MONITORING WELL #1 

~ 

Top of Casing (Elev) - 

| 

104.2 

Grade (Elev) - 

101.5 

DATE 

REETH TO WATER 

ELEV. 

BELOW GRADE 

REL WATER SUR 

* 

3/12/96 

89.3 

22 

2.8 

* 

3/15/96 

py 

99.3 

22 

28 

* 

3/19/96 

4.9 

99.3 

22 

2.8 

* 

3/22/96 

5.0 

99.2 

2.3 

27 

* 

3/26/96 

47 

99.5 

2.0 

3.0 

* 

3/29/96 

4.6 

99.6 

1.9 

3.1 

4/2/36 

4.6 

99.6 

1.9 

3.1 

4/5/96 

4.8 

89.4 

2.1 

29 

4/15/96 

4.7 

99.5 

2.0 

3.0 

4/17/96 

5.0 

99.2 

23 

27 

4/20/96 

41 

100.2 

1.3 

3.7 

4/23/96 

4.1 

100.2 

1.3 

3.7 

5/1/96 

4.2 

100.0 

1.5 

3.5 

5/20/96 

5.3 

99.0 

2.6 

2.5 

6/10/96 

5.2 

99.0 

25 

25 

* 

- 

Water surface as determined by readings made by Robert Theys 

WELL #2 

Top of Casing (Elev) - 

104.0 

Grade (Elev) - 

100.4 

DATE DEPTH 

TO WATER 

ELEV. 

BELOW GRADE 

REL WATER SUR 

* 

3/12/96 

57 

98.3 

2.1 

1.8 

* 

3/15/96 

~ 

56 

98.4 

2.0 

1.9 

* 

3/19/96 

5.7 

98.3 

2.41 

1.8 

* 

3/22/96 

5.9 

98.1 

2.3 

1.6 

* 

3/26/96 

5.6 

98.4 

2.0 

1.9 

* 

3/29/96 

5.5 

98.5 

1.9 

2.0 

4/2/96 

5.1 

98.9 

1.5

PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION LATERAL DESIGN 

PROTECT: 

THRYS Wi SYSTEM - SAND PILTER LATRRALS 

Hypanucic 

Cates 

— 

Lo7s Jord 

7 

JOR WO. : 

951031AT 

Lo 

DESIGN BY: 

pis 

DATE: 2-1-96 

Beginning pressure head at end of laterals- 

5.0000 

Ft. 

Lateral hole spacing -==---mnexmeenmmenans 

20000 

Rt. 

Huaber of holes per lateral ~~ 

bY 

(unless individually changed) ~~ 

eee 

EER 

lode diasater (unless Indlvidually changed) - 

* 

0.1250 

Inches {deoinal) 

Lateral dismater (unless Individually changed) = 

1.2500 

Inches (dentsal) 

lateral actual ineide diameter = 

1.38 Inches|deci 

{nosial) 

es 

(schedule 40, p.v.c.) 

— 

1 

2 

h= 

5.00000 

FT. 

= 

2.00000 

PL. 

h= 

0008 

FT. 

L- 

2.00000 

Pr. 

Orifice dia. = 

0.12500 

IN, 

Pipe dia, 

= 

1.38000 

IN, 

orifice dia, = 

0.12500 

IN, 

Pipe dia, 

= 

1.38000 

Iv, 

Orifice area = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT. 

Head Loss = 

0.00008 

FY, 

Orifice area = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT. 

Head loss = 

0.0003 

FT. 

[RCN 

STIE 

[RTT a 

[RT 

D.UUGYE 

CF 

yg {cry 

- 

0.00092 

Cry 

Cums, 

§ - 

0,004 

CFO 

Q (GPK) = 

0.41179 

GPR 

Cun, 

{ 

= 

0.41179 

GP 

[1 (cB) 

= 

0,41180 

GPX 

Cupp, 

= 

0.82359 

GPH 

¥-Sectional 

’ 

¥-Sectional 

area = 

0,01039 

SQ.FT. 

) 

area = 

0.01039 

SQ.F1, 

V= 

0.08834 

FPS 

v= 

0.17667 

FPS 

15 

: 

16 

h= 

5.05691 

BI, 

L= 

© 

2.00000 

FO 

h= 

5.06885 

FM. 

L= 

2.00000 

PT, 

Orifice dia, 

= 

0.12500 

I. 

Pipe dia, 

= 

1.38000 

IN. 

Orifice dia, 

= 

0.12500 

IN, 

Pipe dia, 

= 

1.38000 

IN, 

Orifice area = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT. 

Mead Loss = 

0.01194 

FY. 

Orifice area = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT. 

Mead loss = 

0.01346 

PO 

Q (CR3) = 

0.00092 

CFS 

Cum, 

§ = 

0.01379 

CFS 

0 {crs} = 

0.00092 

CFs 

cum, {= 

0.01471 

CFS 

0 (GRY) = 

0.41413 

GPR 

Cupm, 

Q = 

6.18690 

GRY 

Q (GH) = 

0.41462 

GPW 

Cum, Q = 

6.60152 

GY 

¥-ectional 

YoSectional 

area = 

0.01039 

SQ.FT. 

area = 

0.01039 

S0.F2, 

v=

PRESSURE DISTRIBETION BUMP DRSIGH 

PAGE 1 OF 2 

PROJECT: 

THEYS, TOT 70 - WASTEWATER SYSTEM SAND PILTER 

JOB X0.: 

 951037PKP 

DBSTGH BY: Jw 

DATE: 

2-3-96 

HUMBER OF LATERALS: 

1 

G.P.H. PER LATERAL: 

13.50 

TOTAL REQUIRED G,P.H.: 

13.50 

G.0.H, 

DOSING TAIK 

EQUIVALENT 

DIMMERER PIPE: 

1.25 IN. VEL.= 

3.5% FT/SEC. 

LENGTH 

LENGTH OF PIPE: 

10 

BA, 

= 

10.00 

BL, 

meme 

LARGER 

cman 

0. REDUCERS: 

LEA 

SHED. 

2 

= 

0.00 

Br 

40. 90 DEG. ELBOS: 

2m, 

= 

800 

Pm 

HO. CATE VALVES: 

1 

40. CHECK VALVES: 

IR 

0TAL EQUIVALENT LENGE: 

-HEAD LOSS IN DOSING TANK = (E. LBAGTH) X (FRICTION 0S PER LENGTH) 

-HEAD LOSS IN DOSING TANK = 

28.00 

FP, 

£0 

0.0009 FI/FT 

= 

1.15 

BY, 

FORCE HATH 

EQUIVALENT 

FORCE WAIN DIMETER: 

1.25 IN. VEL.= 

3.83 FLJSKC. 

 LBAGEH 

LENGTH FORCE WAN: 

30.00 

PY, 

C= 

nam 

Ee 

LARGER 

wermenann 

10. REDUCERS: 

1 

BA. 

SIZE DIA 

2 

= 

0.00 

BM

RLRVATION HEAD 

. 

PAGE 2 OF 2 

THVERT ELEV, OF LATRRALS: 

101.50 

LOR WATER BLEV.: 

96.00 

ELRVATION HEAD DIFFERRNCE = 

5.50 

PF 

HEAD REQUIRED AT LATERAL 

AD MANIFOLD INTERSECT: 

5.60 

-BLEVATION HEAD REQUIRRD: 

1110 

B, 

OTHER HEAD LOSSES 

HYDROTEK VALVE ~ 4404 

& 20 GPY 

~TOTAL OTHER LOSSES = 

10.00 

FT. 

TOTAL DYNAKIC HRAD 

DOSING TANK LOSSES: 

1,15 

#1, 

FORCE HAIN LOSSES: 

1.39 

FT. 

ELEVATION HEAD: 

 1L.10 

FP. 

OTHER LOSSES: 

10.00 

FA.

PROJECT: 

THEYS WH SYSTEM - PINAL DISPOSAL LATERALS 

PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION LATBRAL DESIGN 

DATE: 2-1-06 

Beginning pressure head at end of laterals- 

5.0000 

Bt, 

Tateral hola spaglig s=smsusnssumsssinansss 

3.0000 

Bt. 

Kuaber of holes per labaral +- 

pl 

(unless individually changed) 

~~ eee 

TC 

EERSTE 

Hole dianeter (unless individually changed) 

- 

0.1250 

Inches {decinal) 

Lateral diameter (unless individually changed) - 

1.0000 

Inches (decinal) 

Lateral actual inside diameter - 

1.049 Inches(dect 

(romial) 

7 

{schedule 40, p.v.c.) 

2 

SC 

— 

- 

h= 

5.00000 

FT. 

L= 

3.00000 

F. 

h= 

5.00045 

PT. 

L= 

3.00000 

FT. 

Orifice dia. 

= 

0.12500 

I. 

Pipe dia. 

= 

1.04900 

IN. 

orifice dia, 

= 

0,12500 

IN. 

Pipe dia. 

= 

1.04500 

IN. 

Orifice area = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT, 

Head Loss = 

0.00045 

PL. 

Orifice area = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT. 

Head Loss = 

0.00163 

BY. 

0 {crs) = 

0.00092 

CFS 

Cuma, 

§ = 

0.00092 

CFS 

0 (CFS) = 

0.00092 

CF§ 

Cuzn, 

§ = 

0.00184 

CPS 

0 (GPK) = 

0.41179 

GRY 

Camm, Q= 

0.41179 

GPK 

0 (GPM) = 

0.41181 

GPM 

Cun, 

= 

0.82361 

GP 

¥-Sectional 

K-Sectional 

area = 

0,00600 

SQ.FT 

. 

. 

area = 

0.00600 

SQ.FT. 

V= 

© 

0.15288 

FPS 

V= 

0.30577 

BBS 

19 

20 

h= 

5.65930 

FT. 

L= 

1.00000 

FT. 

h= 

5.76797 

FO. 

L= 

3.00000. 

FT. 

Orifice dia. = 

0.12500 

IN, 

Pipe dia, = 

1.04900 

IN, 

Orifice dia. = 

0.12500 

IN, 

Pipe dia. = 

1.04900 

IN, 

Orifice area = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT. 

Head Logs = 

0.10867 

FT, 

Orifice avea = 

0.00009 

SQ.FT. 

Head Loss = 

0.12010 FT. 

¢ (CFs) = 

0.60098 

CPS 

Cuma, 

§ = 

0.01775 

CFS 

0 (CFS) = 

0.00099 

CFS 

Cun, Q = 

0.01873 

CFS 

sen) 

CPE STII 

CULT RTE 

7.96404 

uy 

4 (UH) 

~ 

UV. 44380 

uh 

Cua, 

§ - 

8, 4070) 

UH 

¥-Sectional 

X-Sectional 

area = 

0.00600 

SQ.FT, 

" 

area = 

0.00600 

SQ.FT. 

Vs 

2.95683 

pg 

Va 

312113 

FP§

PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION PUMP DRSIGH 

PAGE 1 OF 

PROJECT: 

THEYS, LOT 70 - WASTEWATER SYSTEN - PINAL DISPOSAL 

JOB H0.: 

 951037pMP 

DESTGH BY: Ji 

DATR: 

2-13-96 

HUNBER OF LATERALS: 

2 

G.P.H, PER LATERAL: 

8.50 

TOTAL REQUIRED G.P.M.: 

17.00 

GRY, 

DOSING ANK 

EQUIVALENT 

DIMFTER PIPE: 

150 IN VEL 

3.00 PRJSEC. 

 LRNCTH 

LRUGEH OF PIPB: 

10 

FL. 

C= 

1mm 

macnn 

LARGER 

BE 

¥0. REDUCERS: 

LB 

SHED 

2= 

Loo 

BT 

H0. 90 DEG. BLOWS: 

2B 

= 

0B 

HO. GATR VALVES: 

1B 

= 

Lm 

10. CHECK VALVES: 

1B 

= 

0H 

TOTAL EQUIVALEN? LENGTH: 

2.00 

FL. 

-HEAD LOSS IN DOSHIG TANK = (E. LENGTH) 

X (FRICTION LOSS PER LENGTH) 

-HEAD LOSS IN DOSING TANK = 

29.00 

Ff. 

GOB FIT 

= 

0,75 

FORCE, HAIN 

EQUIVALENT 

PORCE MAIN DIAKETER: 

1.50 IN. VEL.= 

3.09 

FT, /SEC, 

LENGTH 

LENGTH FORCE MAIN: 

30.00 

Ff 

C= 

300 mL 

Ee 

LARGER 

Ea 

To. REDUCERS: 

1 

BA, 

SHED. 

2 

= 

0.00 

FR. 

2 

FL,

BLEVATION HEAD 

PAGE 2 OF 2 

INVERT BLEV. OF LATERALS: 

102.70 

LOR WATER BLRV.: 

96.00 

ELEVATION HEAD DIFFERENCE = 

6.70 

FI. 

HEAD REQUIRED AT LATERAL 

AND HANTFOLD INTERSECT: 

5.90 

~ELEVATION HEAD REQUIRED: 

12,60 

FI. 

OTHER HEAD 10SSES 

~TOTAL OTHER LOSSES = 

0.00 

FD. 

TOTAL DYRAHIC HEAD 

DOSING TANK LOSSES: 

0.75 

BY. 

FORCE MAIN LOSSES: 

0.88 

PD. 

ELEVATION HBAD: 

12.60 

FT, 

OTHER LOSSES: 

0.00 

PP,

i &) 

Livingston County Health Department 

| 

204 South Highlander Way 

Howell, MI 48843-1992 

Phone (517) 546-9850 

Fax (517) 546-6995 

NOTICE OF HEARING 

DATE: 

July 9, 1996 

TO: 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 

FROM: 

David Lucik, RS Du J ND A 

Environmental Health Supervising Sanitarian 

RE: 

Notification of a Board of Appeals Hearing before the Livingston County 

Sanitary Code Board of Appeals for Lots 69 and 70 located on Rurik Drive 

of “Coon Lake Hills #2" Subdivision, Section 25, Marion Township 

You are hereby given written notice that STEPHENS CONSULTING SERVICES. Agent 

for Robert Theys as applied for a Board of Appeals hearing before the Livingston County 

Sanitary Code Board of Appeals with regards to the construction of an onsite sewage disposal 

system. The Appellant wishes to receive a variance of Sections 301.13 (E, F, G & I) of the 

Livingston County Sanitary Code which states: 

Section 301.13 Rejection of Applications 

The Health Officer shall reject an application for permit to construct a sewage disposal system 

when one or more of the following conditions are found to exist: 

E. 

Where the highest zone of groundwater saturation is less than two and one-half (2 4) 

feet below the original ground surface. 

F. 

Where the stabilized percolation rate is in excess of forty-five (45) minutes per inch 

of fall. 

Soil such as silt loam, clay loam, clays and silts are considered to have a 

stabilized percolation rate in excess of 45 minutes per inch. 

G. 

Where the soil classification as determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

hi 

REPLY 10: 

DRINKING WATER & RADIOLOGICAL! 

! 

- 

. 

JOHN ENGLER, Gavermor 

. 

PROTECTION DIVISION 

NE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

:Riwamicismoio 

. 

| 

HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANGING I 46000-7973 

LANGING, HI 48908.8130 

Sq 

RUBBELL J. HARDING, Director 

i 

July 17, 1996 

Mr. David Lucik, R.S. 

: 

Livingston County Health Department 

To 

204 South Highlander Way 

: 

Howell, Michigan 48843 

i 

Dear Mr. Lucik: 

SUBJECT: 

Theys Property - Section 25, Marion Township, Livingston County 

- 

During our meeting in your office on July 11, 1996, we discussed a proposal to develop 

the subject property for single-family use, dependent on utilization of sand filter sewage 

disposal systems. 

This letter will serve to confirm our discussion. 

We reviewed an engineering report for the property. The consulting engineer reports 

the soils to be compact silt loam and silt. The site is flat. The area has been mappedby 

: 

| 

the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), SCS reports the seasonal high water table as fess 

| 

than one foot below the surface, 

’ 

You indicated that the consultant for the site has proposed a sand filter on-site sewage 

disposal system for the site and asked for this office’s comments on the proposal. This 

office has issued a set of recommendations concerning the use of sand filter sewage 

systems for single family use. Concerning site conditions, our recommendations are as 

follows: 

1 

The soil on the site be well drained with seasonal high water table at a 

ce 

depth of at least 24 inches below the ground surface. 

; 

2, 

The permeability rates for the soil be at least 200 minutes per inch or faster. 

3. 

The site bave a minimum slope of at least 4% or greater. 

, 

, 

The soil conditions reported by the cansulting engineer concerning the soil permeability 

- 

+ 

; 

and the slope and the depth to groundwater table, reported by the Soil Conservation 

Cy 

Service, are not in conformance with the recommendations of this office for utilization of 

| 

|

MINUTES 

Livingston County Sanitary Code Board of Appeals 

July 17, 1996 

Board Members Present: 

Fred Buckner 

Judy Nash 

Jim Dennis 

Don Tinson 

Ron Wellman 

Staff Present: 

Dianne McCormick 

Mike Bernhardt 

Appellant: 

Mr. & Mrs. Robert Theys 

Bh 

Engineer: 

Larry Stephens, Stephens Consulting Services 

Audience: 

Don McGowan 

John Morrison 

Joe Valedida 

Brian Lavin, Attorney 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Jim Dennis at 7:05 p.m. 

Mr. Dennis began by explaining the appeals procedures and introductions were then given. 

Minutes of the June 10, 1996 appeal hearing stand approved. Motion made by Judy Nash, seconded 

by Don Tinson with amendments. 

The minutes stand approved. 

Appeal #B1 & B2-96, Appellant Robert Thevs. Lots 68, 69, and 70 located on Rurik Drive, 

“Coon Lake Hills No. 2" Subdivision. Section 25, Marion Townshi 

—=mn 

eRe AA 

1X0. 2 

OoubavIsion. nection 25. Marion Township 

Dianne McCormick began by explaining the site conditions encountered and reasons for Livingston 

County Health Department denials. The Appellant is requesting variances to Section 301.13 (E, F, 

G, & H) of the Livingston County Sanitary Code. 

Dianne indicated that the consulting engineers, Larry Stephens & Consultants is proposing an 

intermittent sand filter system to overcome the marginal site conditions. Dianne further indicated

2 

<3- 

Motion by Judy Nash that on July 17, 1996, the Livingston County Sanitary Code Board of Appeals 

heard a variance request of Mr. Robert Theys, for Lots 68, 69, and 70 located on Rurik Drive, “Coon 

Lake Hills No. 2" Subdivision, Section 25, Marion Township being represented by Larry Stephens 

of Stephens Consulting Services. The Appellant is seeking a variance of Section 301.13 (E, F, G, 

& H) of the Livingston County Sanitary Code. After hearing the testimony presented by Staff of the 

Livingston County Health Department, the Appellants and the Appellants consultant, the Livingston 

County Sanitary Code Board of Appeals hereby denies the Appellants request because it cannot be 

determined that no substantial health hazard or nuisance is likely to occur. 

That the proposed 

variance would not provide essentially equivalent protection of the public health and would not be 

in the publics interest and that the variance request is in significant conflict with the intent and 

purpose of the Livingston County Sanitary Code. Motion was seconded by Fred Buckner. 

Discussion then took place from Board member Don Tinson who indicated that this was vacant 

property. There had been no previous approvals on the property, that the State is indicating that the 

site is unsuitable and we are not creating a hardship. Mr. Tinson did comment that he had concerns 

over the definition of the “intent and purpose” of the Livingston County Sanitary Code which was 

being presented in Judy Nash’s motion. The vote for the motion being presented failed three to two 

with Don Tinson, Ron Wellman, Fred Buckner voting against the motion on the floor. 

Don Tinson offered a new motion for the floor to deny the appeal for the variances being requested 

on the subject property because it cannot be shown that no substantial health hazard-or nuisance is 

likely to occur. That strict compliance with the regulations 

and requirements would not result in 

unnecessary or unreasonable hardship and that the variance would not provide essentially equivalent 

protection for the public health and would not be in the public's interest. 

The motion was seconded by Judy Nash. Motion passed unanimously. 

Discussion followed by the consultant, Larry Stephens. Mr. Stephens asked the Board to reconsider 

the variance request because it can be demonstrated that the design of the system would not impact 

or contaminate surface or ground waters and would not create a public health concern. 

Mr. Lavin, Attorney representing the Appellant asked the Board to reconsider the motion and table 

the decision and allow the engineer to provide technical information to get reconsideration. Dianne 

McCormick indicated that the technical information on the site provided by the Livingston County

Law OrFicus 

Brian Lavan & AgsociaTes, BO 

BRIAN Lavan 

8550 WesT BraND RivER 

MARTIN d. Lavan 

Sraven M. Gonce 

BRIGHTON, MICHIGAN 48116-2393 

1932-1970) 

Lee C. GousH 

(810) 220-4LAW 

(810) 227-isn 

Fax (810) 227-1176 

September 17, 1996 

Dianne McCormick 

Livingston County Health Department 

204 South Highlander Way 

Howell, Michigan 

48843-1992 

RE: 

 Theys Property - Section 25, Marion Township, Livingston County 

Dear Ms. McCormick: 

This letter confirms our telephone conversation of today’s date wherein it was 

agreed that you will contact Mr. Caterino regarding the suitability of development and 

the possible utilization of a sand filtration system on the above referenced property. 

Please contact me with information as to the date and time Mr. Caterino will visit the 

site. 

Thank you for your courtesy in this regard. 

Sincerely, 

& 

oh M. Spackey 

TMS/ap 

enclosure 

cc: 

Jon E. Caterino

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

¢ 

ERY 

pA 

REPLY TO: 

. 

, 

Co 

DRINKING WATER & RADIOLOGICAL 

PROTECTION DMISION 

JOHN ENGLER, Govemor 

3423 N MARTIN |. KING JR BLVD 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Ahram 

HOLLISTER BUILDING, PO BOX 30473, LANSING M! 48509-7973 

LANSING Mi 48903-8130 

RUSSELL J. HARDING, Director 

October 8, 1996 

Mr. David Lucik, R.S. 

Livingston County Health Department 

204 S. Highlander Way 

Howell, Michigan 48843 

Dear Mr, Lucik: 

SUBJECT: 

Theys Property - Section 25 » Marion Township, Livingston County _ 

It was a pleasure to meet with you and conduct a site evaluation of the subject property on 

October 1, 1996. Also present were Ms. Holly Mercer, of this office; Mr. Robert Theys, owner 

of the property; Mr. John Morrison, of Stephens Consulting Services, Mr. Theys’ engineering 

representatives, and Messrs. Brian Lavan and Thomas Spackey, lawyers representing Mr. Theys. 

This letter will confirm our meeting and advise you of our recommendation on the site. 

Earlier this year, at the request of Dianne McCormick, I reviewed an engineering report on this 

site and made a recommendation concerning the site. The engineering report submitted by 

Mr. Stephens indicated that the soil conditions at the site are compact silt loam and silt. The site 

is basically flat and the report indicated that the seasonal high water table at the site is less than 

two feet below the surface. The proposal for the site was installation of a sand filter sewage 

system with final effluent disposal via an elevated tile field. 

: 

At the time of my earlier review, the question at issue concerned whether the site conditions were 

consistent with the recommendations of this office for use of sand filter sewage disposal systems. 

Consideration of the site conditions for utilization of sand filter sewage systems are as follows: 

1. 

The soil on the site must be well drained with seasonal high water table at a depth of at least 

24 inches below the ground surface. 

2. 

The permeability rates for the soil must be at least 200 minutes per inch or faster.

4 

J 

{ 

2 

J 

= 

| 

I 

a 

/ 

LDC 

USPS TRACK

I 

9500 1120 0823 61

← View full record