Lot 19 Owners Exhibits A B C.pdf
Thomas Dailey, Krystyna Dailey Petitioners V Township Of Hastings Respondent · 26-002588-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
EXHIBIT “A” Attachment to Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal “Appeal from Hastings Charter Township Special Assessment District regarding Parcel 06-006-022-00; Lot 19, Indian Hills Drive, vacant land owned by: Thomas and Krystyna Dailey as explained below:” At the June 2, 2026, and June 23, 2026, Township meetings of the Indian Hills Subdivision Improvements Special Assessment District, the Supervisor and Trustees (hereinafter “Trustees”) of the Hastings Charter Township violated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1) and Article 1, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, which guarantees the equal protection of the laws, by discriminating against Lot 19, and landowners Thomas and Krystyna Dailey (hereinafter “Lot 19 Owners”) as follows: JUNE 2, 2026: At the June 2, 2026, meeting, the Minutes reflect a discussion regarding “Only parcels that have a house on them are included in the special assessment.” An individual (hereinafter “individual”), who was not an agent of Lot 19 Owners, misled the Trustees by declaring “[t}hat the one parcel that is currently undeveloped, but IS included, is [sic] because plans are already in the works to build there.” (See June 2, 2026, Approved Minutes, attached as Exhibit “B”). This statement is false. Lot 19 Owners DO NOT HAVE A PENDING OR APPROVED BUILDING or ZONING PERMIT. The Trustees failed to inquire whether the individual was an agent of Lot 19 Owners, and on what legal authority he was making this statement. Also, the Trustees failed to confirm with Lot 19 Owners whether this statement was accurate, despite the fact that Lot 19 Owner’s cell phone number was readily available to Trustees. As a result, the Resolution unanimously passed. Lot 19 Owners should have been exempted because eight (8) similarly situated, undeveloped, vacant parcels were exempted from the special assessment. Seven of the eight exempted lots do not have a current assigned address and only one of the exempted lots has an address “1351 N. M-43 Hwy”. (See Barry County GIS map, attached hereto as Exhibit “C”.) Hence, the Resolution to include Lot 19 Owners in the Special Assessment, while exempting eight (8) other vacant lots, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Michigan Constitution by discriminating against similarly situated properties. JUNE 23, 2026: At the June 23, 2026, meeting, Lot 19 Owners were present and objected to being included in the Special Assessment based on the fact they do not have a pending, or signed BUILDING or ZONING PERMIT, and are in the exact same position as those properties that were exempted from the Special Assessment. A Motion was made by a Trustee, and seconded, to
Page 2
REMEDIES: Lot 19 Owners are requesting the following remedies: 1) 2) 3) 4) Lot 19 Owners to be exempted from the Special Assessment District for road improvements. The Hastings Charter Township should be sanctioned and punitive damages awarded to Lot 19 Owners for: i. The Trustees failing to inquire whether the “individual” at the June 2, 2026 meeting was an agent of Lot 19 Owners, and on what legal basis the “individual” had the authority to make statements about Lot 19; ii. The Trustees failing to inquire and/or investigate whether Lot 19 Owners had a signed BUILDING/ZONING PERMIT; and iii. The Trustees forcing Lot 19 Owners into spending time, money, and effort to remove themselves from a Special Assessment they should never have been included in, but were, because of their dilatory conduct. Appeal filing fee of $100.00. Appeal preparation fee of $500.00. Punitive damages. If this process had been “fair,” each parcel with an APN number would have been included in the “Special Assessment”, irrespective of whether a house exists or not, rather than choosing “selective parcels.”
Page 3
EXHIBIT “B” HASTINGS CHARTER TOWNSHIP Minutes of june 2, 2026 Meeting of the INDIAN HILLS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Call to Order: 6:30 pm by Supervisor Jim Partridge followed by Trustee Wetzel leading a moment of prayer and the pledge to the flag. Roll Call:: Supervisor J. Partridge (Board Chair), Clerk D. Olson, Treasurer J. Phillips, Trustees D. Eichholz, B. Scheck, B. Westveer and W. Wetzel. Also Present: 18 guests, including Jacob Welch of the Barry County Road Commission and the following members of the Subdivision: Brenda Teegardin, Randy Teegardin, Donna Brown, George Becker, Roselyn Becker, Kate Barch, Ron Barch, Kyle Pohja, Pat McKeough, Stephen Williams, Spencer Jim Scobey, Brian Tobias, Doug Dailey, Justin Peck, Debbie Jensen, Fred Jacobs and Chase Youngs. Resolution 1 of 4: Hastings Charter Township, at its regular monthly meeting held on May 12, 2026 was presented with signed petitions by residents of the Indian Hills Subdivision, including Indian Hills Drive, Country Club Drive, Hill View Drive, Lakeside Drive and Valley View Drive. The petitions collectively represented over 72% of the total road frontage of said subdivision, and was requesting that the Township establish a road paving project under authority of PA 188, MCL 41.721, et seq. At that meeting, the Township Board approved to have the necessary resolutions prepared and sent to Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes law firm for legal review and input. Thus, Supervisor Partridge presented and read through Township Resolution No. 2026-02, establishing the time, date and place for public hearing on the petition, the cost estimate, the plans for the proposed improvement and the proposed district. Trustee Wetzel moved, seconded by Trustee Westveer, that Resolution 2026-02 be approved as presented. MOTION CARRIED by roll call vote — 7 ayes, 0 nays. Road Commission Report: Jake Welch, Managing Director for the Barry County Road Commission began with a personal introduction. Jake then said the intent of the project was to remove and replace 3 inches of asphalt, adjust drains to move water properly, restore affected edges and chip seal the final product. Questions (in red) and answers included: Will the removed material be reused? Yes, it will be included. What is the history of the road? 1960s it was primed and double sealed, overlayed in 1990, 3 additional seals since. 66 years out of a road is really good! What is the total length to be affected by the project? 1.28 miles How far back will sprinklers need to be moved? 5 to 7 feet is great. Any questions on drainage related issues, reach out to the Road Commission directly. If this project wasn’t being considered right now, how many years would the road still last? In Jake’s opinion only, perhaps another 5 years. If the Road Commission feels that repairs became ineffective afer a certain time, does that mean they
Page 4
The Road Commission does grading, then asphalt. When chip seal is added it is a very good road. Others in the industry and EGLE are testing with rubber. Our Road Commission is watching to see the results of such testing before investing, leaving the experimenting to others. Will the paving include anything other than what is already paved? At this point, only what is already paved. Discussion began over the question of fairness in vote: those with greater road frontage would have a greater deciding factor in the project. Supervisor Partridge asked that the financial questions come after the presentation by the Road Commission, keeping to construction questions at this time. Does the road closure pose a safety concern? There are always safety concerns, but the Road Commission will be alerting people in a neighborhood prior to beginning, so that they may have their vehicles out first. What is the expected length of the project? Anticipated to be about 3 weeks. Public Comment : Supervisor Partridge thanked Jake for his participation, as well as that of subdivision members proactively getting the subject moving into action. The Supervisor described the current township budget, how costs are ever increasing and what the people might expect in the future of a millage to cover emergency service costs; thus, a special assessment district is needed for this project. Finally, the Supervisor opened the floor for public comment, with request to limit each comment to 3 minutes and to state one’s name for minutes recording. Comments included from named individuals as well as general comments / questions: Ron Barch — when can | make a payment? When it is due. Steve Williams — how much will a person have to pay if paid up front, rather than over 10 years? Refer to Payment Schedule Brian Tobias — when will we know if it is more or less than the cost sheet? Anticipated, prior to November bill. Doug Dailey / Chase Youngs — if paid off early does that end the interest? Yes, see Payment Schedule. Partridge explained interest process. Pat McKeough — what is the legal fee and what about the holdings that have multiple lots? Response offered by Fred Jacobs, quoting previous Supervisor Jim Brown ‘Do it by the door.” What about vacant lots? Supervisor Partridge advised that the Township Board reserves the right to assess any lot that later builds a house on it, during the life of the special assessment. Debbie Jensen — If in the future, other lots are added / more tax payer base, what happens to those who have already paid in full? A refund would be issued. What about there being multiple parcels but under one name? Only parcels that have a house on them are included in the special assessment. George Becker explained that the one parcel that is currently undeveloped, but IS included, is because. plans are already in the works to build there. Steve Haney — the wording of a Special Assessment Roll — have 30 days to make a complaint to the Tax Tribunal? Yes, but must register complaint at this meeting. Even if complaining tonight, it has no effect since 72% have alrcady decided in favor of the project, unless going to the state tribunal. I'm concerned of’ the usage of wording. But in order to appeal to the state. one must protest at this meeting. Confirmed as
Page 5
Further comments by public: George Becker — Better to refer to assessments as “property owners’ than by ‘front doors’. If a property is sold before the end of the special assessment, whose responsibility is it to inform the buyer? It will be in the zoning information. The financial institution involved in the process will look for any assessment in their standard checklist. What is the city doing (regarding their portion of that same road / subdivision)? They are not as far along in the process, but they are working on it. Steve Williams — | believe there might be options of approaching the state for financial assistance. It might involve a lien on the property. but payment would be dcfurred. Treasurer Phillips mentioned Poverty Exemption form available. Resolution 3 of 4: Supervisor Partridge presented and read through Township Resolution No. 2026-04, setting the date, time and place for a public hearing on the assessment, on June 23, 2026, 6:30 PM at Hastings Charter Township Hall. Clerk Olson moved, seconded by Trustee Westveer, to approve the Resolution as presented. MOTION CARRIED by roll call vote — 7 ayes, 0 nays. Further comments by public and Board members: lustin Peck — appreciated the dialogue process of the meeting, Trustee Westveer — the board appreciates all input and will investigate what financial programs exist. Supervisor Partridge — reference MI Department of Treasury Form 2748 Senior Citizen or Totally & Permanently Disabled application. Public comment If, years down the road, the Road Commission again comes to a point of decision that no more chip sealing will be done, please let the residents know. Noted. Adjourn: Motion by Trustee Wetzel, seconded by Trustee Scheck. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David J. Olson — Clerk more 4) (pn Clerk Date 0.55 L02 .
Page 6
| ¥Q 3QISHIVT AHH SAW N ISS] ¥Q 3QISIHIVT ¥a STIH NVIGNI ¥Q STIH NVIGNI ¥0 STIH NVIGNI 4G STIH NVIONI ¥Q 8N71D AYLNNOD YQ STH NVIONI Oty YQ STH NVIONI 08% YA MIIATIH 8YTT ¥A 30ISPIVT TY YA IAISINVT T8Y 0T-€v0-STE-30 0Z-210-300-90 00-0v0-SZ€-90 00-TT0-$89-90 00-600-583-30 00-L00-$89-90 00-200-5Z€-90 0S-v20-900-30 00-910-900-30 dwaxs dwaxa 1dwaxa dwaxs 1dwsaxe 1dwaxa 1dwaxa dwaxe 0s [14 Ya STHH NVIANI 90S YQ MIIATIIH 6VTT YA MIIATTIH T9TT Ya 3AISINVT 02S Ya 3AISPAVT £25 YA MIAAITIVA ZETT YQ MIINAITIVA 8LTT YQ IAISHIVT 625 YA IAISHIV 8ES YQ 3QISIIVI T09 YA MIIANITIVA TSTT HA MIINAITIVA L2TT YA STH NVIONI LTS YG 8ND AYUNNOD 2ZTT ¥Q 8NT AYINNOD 9ETT SSIYAAV ALNIJONd 00-v€0-STE-30 00-€£€0-SZ€-90 00-T€0-52€-90 00-S¥0-ST€-90 00-0€0-SZ€-30 0020-52-90 00-920-5Z£-90 00-820-57€-90 00-Lv0-STE-30 00-810-52¢-90 00-610-S2€-90 00-1T20-S2€-90 00-£20-52€-90 00-Z10-52€-90 00-ST0-SZE-90 YIGNNN TDYVE YQ IQISIAVT TT9 a 3QISINVT 0SS ¥A 3AISDIVT 029 YA 907 AYINNOD STZT A 8M AYINNOD TTT Ya STIH NVIGNI 809 Yd STH NVIONI ¥T9 Ha STHH NVIONI 9T9 Ya STH NVIGNI 029 Ya STH NVIGNI OVS Ya STIH NVIONI 099 ~¥Q STHH NVIONI YQ STH NVIGNI 018 YQ STUH NVIANI £08 Ya STIH NVIONI SE9 SSIUAGY ALHIdO¥d 00-9T0- 0T-6T0- 09-v20- 00-v20- 00-920- 00-910- 00-ST0- 00-+10- 00-£10- 00-210- 0T-1Z0- 00-220 00-£20- 00-0T0- 00-800- YITWNN