Moore Home Properties LLC v Cheshire Twshp Special Assessment Appeal.pdf

Moore Home Properties, LLC Petitioner V Township Of Cheshire Respondent · 26-002737-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.

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

MOORE HOME PROPERTIES, LLC, 

MTT Docket No. 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CHESHIRE TOWNSHIP, 

Respondent. 

PETITION FOR APPEAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

Entire Tribunal Division 

Pursuant to MCL 205.731, MCL 205.735a(3), and 1954 PA 188, MCL 41.721 et seq., including 

MCL 41.725 

1. Parties 

1.1 

Petitioner. Moore Home Properties, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company, acting 

by and through its Managing Member, James R. Moore, Jr., owner and operator of 

Richardson's RV Campground, located at 3625 Baseline Road, Gobles, Michigan 49055, 

Cheshire Township, Allegan County, Michigan. Parcel number: 03-270-003-00. Mailing 

address: 20 Cavanaugh Lake Road, Chelsea, Michigan 48118. Telephone: (734) 320- 

3679.1 

1.2 

Respondent. Cheshire Township is a Michigan general law township located in Allegan

1.3 

1.4 

Respondent confirmed the special assessment roll at issue herein through its Township 

Board. 

Petitioner's Counsel. Robert J. Baker (P57964), R.J. Baker & Associates, PLLC, 225 

Hubbard Street, Allegan, Michigan 49010, (269) 686-9448, rib@rjbaker-law.com. 

Division Election. Petitioner's property is improved and operated as a licensed, 32-site 

recreational vehicle campground and is officially designated by the Allegan County 

Treasurer/Equalization Department as Property Class 201 (Commercial-Improved) — not 

residential real property within the meaning of MCL 211.34¢(2)(e). Because a special 

assessment appeal for any property classification other than residential real property must 

be filed in the Entire Tribunal Division regardless of the amount in contention, Petitioner 

expressly elects, and this Petition is filed, in the Entire Tribunal Division of the Michigan 

Tax Tribunal. Petitioner does not consent to treatment of this matter as a Small Claims 

Division proceeding under AC R 205.10269(2). 

2. Jurisdiction and Timeliness 

2.1 

22 

This Tribunal has exclusive and original jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to MCL 

205.731, which grants the State Tax Tribunal jurisdiction over disputes relating to special 

assessments levied under 1954 PA 188, MCL 41.721 et seq. 

Petitioner appeared at the public hearings on the proposed special assessment roll held

23 

email addresses, objecting to the per-site surcharge allocation methodology applied to 

Petitioner's parcel and proposing an alternative calculation. At the June 16, 2026 hearing 

itself, Mr. Moore personally appeared and made a further, stronger oral objection on the 

record, specifically asserting that the Township had failed to follow the correct process 

and procedure in confirming the special assessment roll and that the Township's legal 

counsel was not present at the hearing. Petitioner is requesting the board minutes and/or 

recording of the June 16, 2026 hearing from the Township Clerk to document this oral 

objection for the record, and will supplement this Petition promptly upon receipt. The 

June 14, 2026 written objection and the June 16, 2026 oral objection, individually and 

together, satisfy the prerequisite protest requirement of MCL 41.724 and MCL 

205.735a(5), which provides that for a special assessment dispute, the assessment must 

be protested at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll before this Tribunal 

acquires jurisdiction of the dispute. A true and correct copy of Mr. Moore's June 14, 2026 

written objection is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

The Cheshire Township Board confirmed the special assessment roll on or about June 

16,2026. Petitioner is informed and believes that the Township Clerk has confirmed the 

roll is certified. This Petition is filed on July 21, 2026, within 35 days of the June 16, 

2026 confirmation, and is therefore timely under MCL 205 .735a(5) and (6). Petitioner 

expressly reserves the right to assert, upon obtaining documentary confirmation, that this

3.1 

32 

33 

Project. Respondent confirmed a special assessment roll for the Duck Lake 

Improvement Special Assessment District (“DLISAD”) 2026-2030 Supplemental Project, 

encompassing aquatic vegetation management and related lake improvement services for 

Duck Lake, Cheshire Township, Allegan County, Michigan. 

Assessment Against Petitioner's Parcel. 

Per the Township's June 16, 2026 Notice of 

Public Hearing, the confirmed special assessment against parcel 03-270-003-00 totals 

approximately $24,577.01 over five years, calculated as follows: Base lakefront 

assessment: 1.0 benefit unit x $2,730.77 = $2,730.77; Per-site surcharge: 32 sites x 0.25 

units x $2,730.77 = $21,846.24; Total: 9.0 benefit units = $24,577.01. Annual payments: 

$6,149.34 (2026); $4,606.92 (each of 2027-2030). Petitioner pleads these Notice-based 

figures as the primary calculation and, in the alternative, pleads that if the Board in fact 

adopted Option 1.B of the Resolution Confirming template rather than the noticed Option 

1.A figures, the assessment totals approximately $24,482.97 over five years instead 

(Base: 1.0 unit x $2,720.33 = $2,720.33; Per-site surcharge: 32 sites x 0.25 units x 

$2,720.33 = $21,762.64; Total: 9.0 units = $24,482.97). Petitioner has requested a 

certified copy of the adopted Resolution from the Township Clerk to confirm which 

figures control and will supplement this Petition upon receipt if necessary. 

Total Project Cost. The Notice of Hearing states the total project cost at approximately 

$356,365, with annual levies of approximately $89,165 in 2026 and $66,800 per year in

MCL 41.725(1)(d) itself codifies the proportionality requirement: the amount assessed against 

each parcel must be “the relative portion of the whole sum to be levied against all parcels of land 

in the special assessment district as the benefit to the parcel of land bears to the total benefit to 

all parcels of land in the special assessment district.” The Michigan Supreme Court has likewise 

held that a special assessment will be found invalid on a showing of a “substantial or 

unreasonable disproportionality” between the amount assessed and the value accruing to the 

land. Kadzban v City of Grandville, 442 Mich 495, 502-503 (1993); see also Axtell v Portage, 32 

Mich App 491, 497 (1971); Bolt v City of Lansing, 459 Mich 152 (1998) (special assessments 

must bear a reasonable relationship to benefit conferred). The 9.0 benefit unit assessment against 

Petitioner's parcel dramatically exceeds the actual special benefit conferred, in violation of both 

the statutory formula and this judicial standard. 

Petitioner's documented usage data for the 2025 season establishes that the 32 RV sites generated 

an aggregate total of approximately 995 days of use across all sites. Divided by 365, this equals 

approximately 2.73 family-equivalent days of benefit per year — the aggregate benefit of the 

entire campground is barely more than two and one-half times that of a single lakefront 

residence. Three lots recorded zero days of use during the season; one lot was vacant. The 

Township's methodology, which assesses 8.0 additional benefit units for the 32 sites on top of 

the base 1.0 unit (9.0 total), overstates actual benefit by a factor of more than three. The 

assessment is disproportionate and must be reduced to an amount proportionate to actual special

at the additional 8.0 benefit units (0.25 unit per site x 32 sites) assessed solely against Petitioner's 

parcel as a per-site surcharge. In his June 14, 2026 written objection, Mr. Moore proposed an 

alternative calculation based on average seasonal occupancy — 5 average occupied units x 0.5 

(reflecting the approximately half-year operating season) x $2,730.77 = $6,826.92 over five 

years for the per-site surcharge component — as a reasonable, conservative floor. Petitioner's 

usage-day analysis set forth above (2.73 benefit-unit-equivalent) is presented as an alternative, 

more granular calculation of the same disproportionality; both approaches independently 

demonstrate that the current 8.0-unit surcharge substantially and unreasonably exceeds the 

special benefit conferred, and Petitioner requests that the Tribunal determine the proportionate 

surcharge amount, in addition to the undisputed 1.0 base unit, based on the evidence presented. 

B. Misclassification — RV Park Treated as Mobile Home Park 

The Township's own June 16, 2026 Notice of Public Hearing and Resolution Confirming the 

special assessment roll both repeatedly and expressly describe parcel 03-270-003-00 as a 

“mobile home park abutting Duck Lake, with 32 mobile home sites,” and apply the per-site 

surcharge on that express basis. Petitioner's property is in fact a recreational vehicle park 

licensed by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services as such — not a mobile 

home park under the Michigan Mobile Home Commission Act, MCL 125.2301 et seq. Mobile 

home parks house permanent or semi-permanent residents. Richardson's RV Campground 

houses seasonal, transient recreational visitors. The application of a per-unit surcharge

established for temporary living quarters; the Mobile Home Commission Act, MCL 125.2301 et 

seq., does not apply to the latter. Sandy Pines Wilderness Trails, Inc v Salem Twp, 232 Mich 

App 1, 10-11 (1998). 

C. Lack of Uniformity and Equal Protection 

The per-unit surcharge methodology was applied solely to Petitioner's parcel. All other lakefront 

parcels in the District are assessed at 1.0 benefit unit regardless of whether they contain multiple 

dwelling units, multiple structures, or multiple occupants. This disparate treatment has no 

rational basis and, to the extent it presents an as-applied question tied to the amount of the 

assessment, is raised herein for the Tribunal's consideration under Michigan Const 1963, Art 9, 

Section 3; a related, broader facial and procedural challenge is also being pursued in a 

concurrently filed circuit court action, discussed in the accompanying cover memorandum, in 

light of the Tribunal's limited authority to decide freestanding constitutional questions. In re 

Petition of Wayne Co Treasurer for Foreclosure, 286 Mich App 108, 112 (2009). Petitioner 

requests full disclosure of the assessment methodology as applied to all parcels within the 

District. 

D. Procedural Defects — Denial of Fair Hearing 

The public hearings of May 19, 2026 and June 16, 2026 were defective in multiple respects, as 

more fully set out in the concurrently filed circuit court complaint referenced in the 

accompanying cover memorandum: (i) no hearing amplification, microphone system, or

property owners; and (iv) the Board certified the roll despite substantial public opposition. 

Petitioner's Managing Member personally and specifically objected to defects (ii) on the record 

at the June 16, 2026 hearing, stating that the Township had failed to follow correct process and 

procedure and that Township counsel was not present. These defects denied Petitioner the full 

and fair hearing required by MCL 41.724 and the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et 

seq., and are pled herein to the extent they bear on the validity of the confirmed assessment 

amount, without waiver of the independently filed constitutional, ADA/PWDCRA, and Open 

Meetings Act claims. 

E. Pre-Certification Cost Accumulation and Unauthorized Expenditures 

Petitioner is informed and believes that costs were incurred and paid by the Township in 

connection with this project prior to formal certification of the special assessment roll. Pre- 

certification expenditures raise questions about the accuracy of the assessment roll's cost basis 

and whether such payments were properly authorized under 1954 PA 188. 

F. Assessment Period / Service Contract Mismatch 

The confirmed assessment purports to cover years 2026-2030. Petitioner is informed and 

believes the underlying service contract may cover a different or shorter period or may reflect 

dates carried forward from a prior 2025 proposal, resulting in an assessment that does not 

accurately correspond to the contracted services. Petitioner reserves this ground pending FOIA 

production of the executed contracts.

artificially inflates the per-unit cost to private property owners including Petitioner. Petitioner 

requests FOIA production of all correspondence with EGLE regarding the project and any 

determination regarding State property in the assessment. 

H. Technical Inadequacy of Proposed Improvement Program 

The proposed aquatic vegetation management program fails to address the root cause of Duck 

Lake's water quality impairment. Petitioner is informed and believes that agricultural 

phosphorus runoff from surrounding farmland is the primary or a substantial contributing cause 

of Duck Lake's EGLE-designated impaired condition. A program that treats symptoms rather 

than causes does not confer a cognizable special benefit sufficient to justify a special assessment 

of this magnitude against Petitioner's parcel. 

5. Relief Requested 

WHEREFORE, Petitioner Moore Home Properties, LLC respectfully requests that this Tribunal: 

(a) 

Conduct a de novo review of the confirmed special assessment against parcel 03-270- 

003-00; 

(b) 

Retain the undisputed 1.0 base benefit unit and reduce the additional 8.0-unit per-site 

surcharge component to an amount proportionate to the actual special benefit conferred, 

consistent with Petitioner's June 14, 2026 written objection and documented actual usage, 

or such other amount as the evidence establishes; 

(c) 

Correct the classification of Petitioner's property from “mobile home park” to 

“recreational vehicle park (seasonal)” in the assessment methodology; 

(d) 

Compel Respondent to produce all underlying records including assessment

6. Verification by Petitioner 

I, James R. Moore, Jr., Managing Member of Moore Home Properties, LLC, being first duly 

sworn, state that I have reviewed this Petition and that the factual allegations herein are true and 

correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 

JamegR. Modre, Jr., 

Managing 

Member 

Mooi 

Home Properties, LLC 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24 st day of 

ny J iY 

, 2026. 

Covad 

o MS 

N 

. 

. 

srt. 

. 

Notary Public, Eero 

\ County, Michigan 

oo pAunes ss, 

My commission expires’ {4 25127 

WvoIT 

0 Anos 

| 

NYSIHOIN 

40 3UVLS - 178Ng Ax, ON 

! 

HLINS W 301aNvD 

7. Certificate of Service 

Because this Petition contests a special assessment, Petitioner is required by R 792.10227(8) to 

serve the Petition, noting the docket number assigned by the Tribunal, by certified mail or 

personal service on the Clerk of Cheshire Township — the unit of government levying the 

Robot J. Baker (P57964) 

Respectfully submitted, 

ya N 

ones 

1h 

i 

to 

Robert 

Bdker (P57964) 

R.J. Baker & Associates, PLLC 

225 Hubbard Street, Allegan, Michigan 49010 

(269) 686-9448 

| rib@rjbaker-law.com

Brive, 11:1 PM 

Yahoo Mail - Duck Lake 3625 Baseline Rd., Gobels MI 49055, Richardson's RY Campground, 

Duck Lake 3625 Baseline Rd., Gobels MI 49055, Richardson's RV Campground. 

From: 

Jim Moore (moorehomeslic@yahoo.com) 

To: 

supervisor@cheshirctownshipmi. gov; clerk@cheshirctownshipmi.gov, breasurer@cheshirctownshipmi. gov; 

trustee2@cheshiretownshipmi BV; trustee @cheshiretownshipmi.gov 

Ce: 

moorchomeslle@yahoo.com 

Dawe: 

Sunday, June 14, 2026 at 04:49 PM EDT 

Dear board members. 

As Owner of the Richardson's RV Campground 

3625 Baseline Rd., 

I 

have a problem with the new allocation proposal on the campground only, 

not the additional special assessment I am also responsible for. 

I agreed 

with the original proposal by assessing lake front parcel 

1 benefit and 1/2 

benefit for off lake. 

Please keep in mind this is a seasonal 

RV campground 

rented 

mostly by retirees and only one unit stays occupied for the season 

with very few occupants during the week and practically nobody during the 

cooler months of May and October. 

Many are only here over the summer 

weekend holidays. On average over the season there are five occupied 

units. 

The duck lake assessment should 

be 

5 (average occupied units) X 

1/2 

(open season) X 2730.77= 6826.92 (5 yr. total of special assessment 

for the 32 lot park) which is still considerably higher than originally, 

As a 

rule 

I don't like water chemicals, nor do my tenants, for a fishing and 

swimming lake. 

However 

I would agree to my reasonable proposed 

assessment. 

I appreciate everyones desires but have to also look at my 

own interests. With acceptance of my proposed assessment, we can get 

beyond the hearings efficiently. 

Please let me know.

6/18/26, 11:11 PM 

Yahao Mail - Duck Lake 3625 Baseline Rd., Gobels Mi 49055, Richardson's RV Campground. 

the water quality and most neighbors would feel ashamed to violate their 

agreements. Sure we would make allowances for the reasonable 

mistakes. 

And just imagine if only this made a 50% improvement on these actions. 

Please see below my suggestions. 

1. 

Ban wave boats going forward, with a existing boat allow for another 

year? 

2. 

"No Wake" on all boats within 200" of shoreline. 

3. 

Ban use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers within 100' to shoreline. 

4. 

Ban raking in the lake waters to remove vegetation. 

5. 

Require errosion barriers on all bare grounds on all lake fronts and other 

tributary lands reaching into the lake. 

(This is covered under the building 

codes but a reminder to all) 

6. 

Chemical ban on all lake applications unless proved, on balance, 

beneficial to increase the oxygen and water quality with immediate results. 

7. 

Ban all grass clippings, weeds and leaves in the lake water. 

These 

remains must be raked up and carried away from the shoreline and not 

burned near the shoreline. 

8. 

Encourage native plantings and riprock at the shoreline. 

9. 

Any failed drainfields or those with an odor must be repaired 

immediately when discovered. This requires followup with complaints 

notified to the County Health Department already (but a good reminder). 

I'm sorry getting a last minute response, with the conditions, on the 

last proposal, 

I had difficulty hearing probably others. 

Thankyou for your 

consideration on everything.

6/18/28, 11:11 PM 

Yahoo Mail 

- Duck Lake 3625 Baseline Rd., Gobels Mt 48055, Richardson's RV Campground. 

moorehomeslic@yahoo.com 

734-320-3679

ry, 

2, 

SE 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN. DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Wane None ENGI ISTE 

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

Petitioner(s) 

v 

MTT Docket No. 

Cheshice TOurHNO 

Respondent(s) 

APPEARANCE 

Please type or neatly print the name and contact information for the attorney or authorized 

representative: 

1. Full name (first, middle initial, last) 

2. Bar License # (if applicable) 

Vober 

Bory 

r 519004: 

3. Firm Name (if applicable) 

0 Baler hsociedes, PLLC 

3. Address 

21S Yu oar d Shree Allegan 199010 

4. Telephone No. 

5. E-mail Address 

U4 - so THE 

| eye (0 RY pacer 

aw om 

1 

appear on beat or TVID0YP Hype RCo Of STEN LLC 

as 

attorney or [| authorized represeritative 

A 

Attorney/Répresentative signature 

Yovery NN. Boye 

[Print/type name of person signing] 

| certify that on thi

← View full record