Michigan

Aaron Shields, Petitioner V Township Of Chesterfield, Respondent

Petitioner: Aaron Shields
Respondent: Township Of Chesterfield

Case overview

Docket number: 24-003981-TT
Status: Disposed
CaseType: SC Property
Division: Small Claims Division
County: Macomb
Judge: Grinnell, Jason C.

Docket history

Line #	Subject	Filer	Line Ref	Enter Date/Post Mark	Fee	Related Item
12	Final Opinion and Judgment	Not recorded	Not recorded	01/30/2026	Not recorded	Download
11	Hearing Completed	Not recorded	Not recorded	12/02/2025	Not recorded	Not recorded
10	Evidence was received.	RESP	Not recorded	11/10/2025	Not recorded	Download
9	Documentation	PET	Not recorded	11/12/2025	Not recorded	Download
8	Documentation	PET	Not recorded	11/11/2025	Not recorded	Download
7	Notice of Hearing	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/19/2025	Not recorded	Download
6	A hearing has been scheduled	Not recorded	Not recorded	09/19/2025	Not recorded	Not recorded
5	Answer was received	RESP	Not recorded	11/07/2024	Not recorded	Download
4	Notice of Filing	Not recorded	Not recorded	12/12/2024	Not recorded	Download
3	Petition has been verified	PET	1	11/07/2024	Not recorded	Download
2	Notice of Docket Number SC	Not recorded	Not recorded	11/07/2024	Not recorded	Download
1	A petition was received.	PET	Not recorded	10/23/2024	$100.00	Download

Documents

24-003981.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Aaron Shields,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

Petitioner,

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 24-003981

Case Type: Special Assessment

Chesterfield Township,

Presiding Judge

Respondent.

Jason C. Grinnell

FINAL OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Location of Hearing:

Telephonic

Hearing Held on:

December 2, 2025

Appearances on Behalf of Petitioner:

Aaron Shields and Nicole Shields

Appearances on Behalf of Respondent: Joel Nickels, appraiser

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT

The special assessment at issue shall be as follows:

Parcel Number: 15-09-27-279-002

Type of Special Assessment

Total Amount to be Levied

Paving of Salt River Drive

$7,657.15, payable in installments of

$765.72 per year for 10 years

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner protested the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special

assessment roll. A hearing was held and the special assessment was confirmed on

September 24, 2024.

Petitioner filed a petition with the Tribunal on October 23, 2024, and Respondent filed its

answer on November 7, 2024.

ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW

The issue in this matter is:

Whether the benefit from the special assessment is proportional to the cost of the

improvement.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003981

Page 2 of 8

The Michigan Supreme Court has held:

A special assessment is a levy upon property within a specified district.

Although it resembles a tax, a special assessment is not a tax. In contrast

to a tax, a special assessment is imposed to defray the costs of specific

local improvements, rather than to raise revenue for general governmental

purposes . . . . In other words, a special assessment can be seen as

remunerative; it is a specific levy designed to recover the costs of

improvements that confer local and peculiar benefits upon property within

a defined area.1

Special assessments “are permissible only when the improvements result in an

increase in the value of the land specially assessed,”2 and to be valid “‘there must be

some proportionality between the amount of the special assessment and the benefits

derived therefrom.’”3 The Court of Appeals has held that “[t]he essential question is not

whether there was any change in market value, but rather whether the market value of

the assessed property was increased as a result of the improvement.”4 Further,

Common sense dictates that in order to determine whether the market

value of an assessed property has been increased as a result of an

improvement, the relevant comparison is not between the market value of

the assessed property after the improvement and the market value of the

assessed property before the improvement, but rather it is between the

market value of the assessed property with the improvement and the

market value of the assessed property without the improvement.5

It is well settled, however, that municipal decisions regarding special assessments are

presumed valid and should generally be upheld.6

When reviewing the validity of special assessments, it is not the task of

courts to determine whether there is ‘a rigid dollar-for-dollar balance

between the amount of the special assessment and the amount of the

benefit . . . .’ Rather, a special assessment will be declared invalid only

when the party challenging the assessment demonstrates that ‘there is a

substantial or unreasonable disproportionality between the amount

assessed and the value which accrues to the land as a result of the

improvements.’7

1Kadzban v Grandville, 442 Mich 495, 500; 502 NW2d 299 (1993) (citations omitted).

2 Id. at 501.

3 Id. at 501-502.

4 Ahearn v Bloomfield Charter Twp, 235 Mich App 486, 496; 597 NW2d 858, 863 (1999).

5 Id.

6 Id. at 502

7 Id.

Page 3

MTT Docket No. 24-003981

Page 3 of 8

“[T]he question whether and how much the value of land has increased as the result of

certain improvements is factual, to be determined on the basis of evidence presented by

the parties. As such, it is to be resolved by the trier of fact . . . .”8

Pursuant to R 792.10133, after hearing, the Tribunal must issue a final decision in

writing. Additionally, “[a] written final decision shall include separate sections entitled

“findings of fact” and “conclusions of law.’” Findings of fact “shall include a concise

statement of the underlying supporting facts” that are “based exclusively on the

evidence.”9 Consequently, the Tribunal has not addressed every piece of evidence or

every inference that might lead to a conflicting conclusion and has rejected evidence

contrary to its findings. Furthermore, “[e]ach conclusion of law shall be supported by

authority or reasoned opinion.”10 Accordingly, the Tribunal will outline the summary of

evidence, findings of facts, and conclusions of law, before ultimately rendering

judgment.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

A. Petitioner’s Evidence

Petitioner contends that the special assessment is invalid and should be reduced as

follows:

Type of Special Assessment

Petitioner’s Contention

Paving of Salt River Drive

The exhibits offered by Petitioner may be viewed on lines 8 and 9 of the docket

maintained in this case.11

No exhibits were excluded from evidence.

Based on the pleadings, admitted exhibits, and sworn testimony, Petitioner contends

that the special assessment does not confer a special benefit to their property.

At hearing, Aaron and Nicole Shields (collectively the “Shields”), provided sworn

testimony concerning the special assessment. The Shields contend that the special

assessment for paving does not confer a special benefit or increase in value to their

property.

Page 4

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

24-003981.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

TOWNSHIP 

: 

CIE 

—— EST. 1842 — 

mL) 

p 

NOV 1 8 2025 

Assessing Department 

’ 

47275 Sugarbush Road 

| (586) 949-0400, ext. 2232 MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL 

November 7, 2025 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P O Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

RE: MTT Docket #24-003981 

Honorable Tax Tribunal, 

First and foremost, the amount of the special assessment on the subject property has been 

reduced from $10,495.08 down to $7,657.15. This reduction is a result of the total final costs 

being lowered from $286,381.11 down to $208,925.33 for the entire district. 

The issue in this appeal is whether the cost of the paving of Salt River Dr. exceeds the benefit, 

defined as an increase in value to the property, by a disproportionate amount. The Michigan 

Supreme Court in Dixon Rd. Group v. City of Novi has held that a cost which exceeds the benefit 

of 2.6 times the value increase was invalid. The MSC goes on to further state, “while decisions 

made by municipalities with respect to special assessments generally should be upheld, this 

Court will intervene where there is a substantial or unreasonable disproportionality between 

the amount assessed and the value which accrues to the land as a result of the improvements.”

Page 2

In Justice Boyle's concurring opinion, quoting Frischkorn Investment Co. v. Detroit (1932) he 

states “Where there has been no showing of fraud, mistake, discrimination or a clear absence of 

benefits claimed, Courts should hesitate to interfere with a legislative determination of the 

existence or value of the benefit. Such decisions are best made by the legislative bodies charged 

with levying the assessments.” 

Also, due to the status of Salt River Dr as a private road the property owners would be 

responsible for the entire cost of the repaving. Neither the Macomb County Road Commission 

nor the Township of Chesterfield would be contributing to the cost of the improvement. 

Respectfully submitted, 

To mAL 

Joel M. Nickels — MAACO 

Property Appraiser

Page 3

9/12/2025 

Chesterfield Townhip 

Assessing 

Department 

2025 Salt River Dr. Paving 

PAVING AND DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 

Front Foot Method Final S.A.D. # P163A 

Construction Cost Estimate 

$208,925.33 

Zoning 

R1-A 

Homesites 

37.00 

Total Frontage (AFF Feet) 

2899.03 

Ave. Homesite Frontage (Feet) 

78.35 

Number of Units 

37.00 * 

Font Foot Benefit 

72.07 

Signed 

Parcel No. 

Name & Address 

Zone 

Frontage 

Assessment 

In Favor 

09-27-277-001 

Howard D. Harry 

R1-A 

52.56 

$ 

3,787.86 

52.56 

48735 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

09-27-277-002 

Eric D. & Ashley Tatro 

R1-A 

52.56 

$ 

3,787.86 

52.56 

48741 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

09-27-277-003 

Michael C. Forrester 

R1-A 

52.40 

$ 

3,776.33 

52.4 

48747 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

09-27-277-004 

Andrew Kerbrat 

R1-A 

52.70 

$ 

3,797.95 

52.7 

48753 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

09-27-277-005 

Frank & Barbara Hubbard-Life 

E 

 R1-A 

78.90 

$ 

5,686.11 

48759 Salt River Dr 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

09-27-277-006 

WIELINGA, DAVID & AIMEE 

R1-A 

88.60 

$ 

6,385.16 

48771 Salt River Dr. 

m/a 35431 27 MILE ROAD 

LENOX, MI 48048 

09-27-277-007 

Ryan & Catherine Kelley 

R1-A 

60.00 

$ 

4,324.04 

60 

48779 Salt River Dr. 

m/a48778 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

09-27-277-008 

Daniel Mazur Jr. 

R1-A 

80.00 

$ 

5,765.39 

80 

48787 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

09-27-277-009 

Thomas & Amy Alyssa Bunch 

R1-A 

91.60 

$ 

6,601.37 

91.6 

48795 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047

Page 4

12 

09-27-277-014 

Lardon Holdings, LLC 

Salt River Dr. 

m/a 48818 Sait River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

19.90 

1,434.14 

19.9 

13 

09-27-277-015 

Lawrence 3. & Ruth A. Mavis 

Salt River Dr. 

m/a 33562 MELDRUM 

CHESTERFIELD, MI 48047 

R1-A 

19.90 

1,434.14 

14 

09-27-277-016 

John E. Sudderth 

48833 Salt River Dr. 

mfa 33110 Silverieaf Ct. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

R1-A 

50.00 

3,603.37 

15 

09-27-277-017 

Joan Fiore 

48837 Sait River Dr. 

m/a 2411 Vinewood St. 

Detroit, MI 48216 

Ri-A 

25.00 

1,801.68 

16 

09-27-277-018 

Joseph L. Janis 

48841 Salt River Dr. 

m/a 48855 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

30.00 

2,162.02 

30 

17 

09-27-277-019 

Joseph L. Janis 

48843 Salt River Dr. 

m/a 48855 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

25.00 

1,801.68 

25 

18 

09-27-277-020 

Joseph L. Janis 

48855 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

R1-A 

100.00 

7,206.73 

100 

19 

09-27-277-021 

Harbor Man, LLC 

48859 Salt River Dr. 

m/a 44783 Morley Dr. 

Clinton Twp., MI 48036-1357 

R1-A 

25.00 

1,801.68 

20 

09-27-277-041 

Harbor Man, LLC 

48865 Salt River Dr, 

m/fa44783 Morley Dr. 

Clinton Twp., MI 48036-1357 

R1-A 

95.00 

6,846.40 

21 

09-27-277-042 

Salt Man, LLC 

48879 Salt River Dr. 

m/fa 44783 Morley Dr. 

Clinton Twp., ML 48036-1357 

Ri-A 

105.00 

7,567.07 

22 

09-27-277-043 

Sait Man, LLC 

48885 Salt River Dr. 

mfa44783 Morley Dr. 

Clinton Twp., MI 48036-1357 

80.05 

5,768.99 

23 

09-27-277-046 

Melvin L. Mathias-Trust 

48875 Salt River Dr. 

R1-A 

50.00 

3,603.37 

50

Page 5

26 

09-27-278-005 

Laurie & Nicholas Domin 

R1-A 

115.98 

$ 

8,358.37 

115.98 

48850 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

27 

09-27-278-018 

George & Salina Mavis 

R1-A 

70.70 

$ 

5,095.16 

70.7 

48832 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

28 

09-27-278-019 

Jamie L. Hugo & 

R1-A 

50.00 

$ 

3,603.37 

50 

Larry 

& Donna Szlachta 

48824 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

29 

09-27-278-020 

Lawrence & Donna Szlachta 

R1-A 

100.00 

$ 

7,206.73 

100 

48818 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

30 

09-27-278-021 

Michael T. Ohlert 

R1-A 

100.00 

$ 

7,206.73 

100 

48800 Salt River Dr. 

: 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

31 

09-27-278-022 

Patrick & Jeannie Dolan 

R1-A 

100.00 

$ 

7,206.73 

100 

48790 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

32 

09-27-278-023 

Ryan & Catherine Kelley 

R1-A 

114.30 

$ 

8,237.29 

114.3 

48778 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

33 

09-27-278-024 

Ralph Jr. & Christina Daley 

R1-A 

114.32 

$ 

8,238.74 

114.32 

48762 Salt River Dr. 

Chesterfield, MI 48047 

Nicole & Aaron Shields 

R1-A 

106.25

Page 6

Page 7

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

FINAL Special assessment appeal #2.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

To: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

 

From: 

Aaron and Nicole Shields 

48884 Salt River Drive 

Chesterfield, Michigan, 48047 

shieldsjaaron@gmail.com / nmadamic@gmail.com 

(586) 381 – 0752 / (586) 556 – 5215 

 

Date: November 10, 2025 

Re: Appeal of Special Assessment – 48884 Salt River Drive 

Dear Members of the Michigan Tax Tribunal, 

I am writing to formally appeal the special assessment imposed on my property located at 48884 Salt 

River Drive in Chesterfield Township. Document A attached shows the total amount of this special 

assessment is $7,689.05. This is payable upfront by 11/01/2025, or over 10 years with a 5% interest rate. 

I respectfully request that this assessment be reviewed and reconsidered, as I believe it fails to provide a 

sufficient "special benefit" to my property, as required under MCL 41.721–41.738 governing special 

assessments. Under Michigan law, a special assessment must be reasonably proportional to the increase 

in market value or benefit conferred to the property. In this case, that proportionality standard has not 

been met. 

1. Lack of a Sufficient Special Benefit to My Property 

Our road was already paved prior to the repavement project, albeit with some potholes typical of 

Michigan roads. It was entirely passable and safe to drive on (See Photos 1 and 2). Despite my wife’s and 

my objections, the repaving project proceeded due to a majority petition, though I fail to see how this 

improvement provides a benefit commensurate with the $7,689.05 assessment. 

I formally protested the special assessment in person at the hearing held on September 24, 2024, to 

confirm the special assessment roll. Since the road was already paved and functional, repavement has 

not provided any meaningful improvement that would increase the market value of my property. I have 

found no measurable evidence that the repaving has increased my home’s market value or utility in any 

way. Any alleged benefit, if present, is minimal at best and does not justify such a high financial burden.

Page 2

Photo 2 

Photo 1 

Photo 1 

48896 Salt River Drive 

J 554 Sait River Drive

Page 3

2. Misrepresentation of Road Status and Improper Signage 

When I purchased the property in 2021, the Salt River Drive street signs were green, which according to 

Chesterfield Township’s own website, denotes a public road maintained by Macomb County Department 

of Roads. Please refer to Document B attached. Two of the roads that intersect with Salt River Drive did 

indeed have blue street signs indicating a private road, but the signs for Salt River Drive were green at 

each of these crossroads. 

In fact, per attached Document C, the appraiser at the time of our purchase recorded our property as 

being on a public road made of asphalt. The appraiser also noted that the utilities and off-site 

improvements were typical for the market area, hence, not affecting the evaluation. 

It was only during the discussions surrounding this project that I learned we live on a private road. I 

raised this concern with the Chesterfield Township Engineer, who stated that only the portion of Salt 

River Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Lakeview Drive is a public road, and that the remainder of Salt River 

Drive from Lakeview Drive to Point Lakeview Drive did not meet the MCDR standards for a public road 

and was therefore considered private. 

Shortly thereafter, the Salt River Drive street signs were replaced with blue signs, indicating a private 

road. I later received a letter from a neighbor explaining that another resident on our street had 

personally paid for the sign replacement and would accept donations to cover the cost, which seems 

improper for an issue affecting the township. If the signage was incorrect, the responsibility for 

correcting it lies with the township, not a private resident. This indicates a lack of clarity from the 

township about road designations and confusion around road ownership, further complicating the 

justification of the special assessment. 

3. Partial Repaving of the Road Limits Any Benefit 

The repaving project only covered the portion of the Salt River Drive starting just before my neighbor’s 

house and continuing down the road for 37 properties. However, the section of Salt River Drive 

beginning at Jefferson Avenue—which all vehicles must use to enter and exit the area—remains public 

and was not repaved, leaving it in notably worse condition than the newly paved segment. Currently, this 

area is in far worse condition than what the newly paved segment was prior to the repaving. As a result, 

anyone driving to my property will still have to traverse a public road that is uneven and with significant 

potholes, passing only one property’s length of repaved road before reaching my driveway (See Photos 

3-9). 

Because the section of Salt River Drive that remains public is the primary access route to all homes—

including mine—the practical and aesthetic benefit of the private road paving is effectively nullified. 

Given this, the limited scope of this project fails to provide any noticeable benefit to my property’s value. 

Prospective buyers would still have to drive over the deteriorating public portion of the road before 

reaching my driveway, which negates any supposed improvement from the private road project. The 

partial nature of this project only underscores the lack of meaningful enhancement to my property’s 

value.

Page 4

Photo 3. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when entering from Jefferson Ave 

Photo 3. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when entering from Jefferson Ave

Page 5

Photo 4. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson Ave 

Photo 4. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson Ave

Page 6

Photo 5. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson Ave 

Photo 5. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson Ave

Page 7

Photo 6. View of

Page 8

Photo

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

FINAL Special assessment appeal.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

To: 

Michigan Tax Tribunal 

P.O. Box 30232 

Lansing, MI 48909 

 

From: 

Aaron and Nicole Shields 

48884 Salt River Drive 

Chesterfield, Michigan, 48047 

shieldsjaaron@gmail.com / nmadamic@gmail.com 

(586) 381 – 0752 / (586) 556 – 5215 

 

Date: November 10, 2025 

Re: Appeal of Special Assessment – 48884 Salt River Drive 

Dear Members of the Michigan Tax Tribunal, 

I am writing to formally appeal the special assessment imposed on my property located at 48884 Salt 

River Drive in Chesterfield Township. Document A attached shows the total amount of this special 

assessment is $7,689.05. This is payable upfront by 11/01/2025, or over 10 years with a 5% interest rate. 

I respectfully request that this assessment be reviewed and reconsidered, as I believe it fails to provide a 

sufficient "special benefit" to my property, as required under MCL 41.721–41.738 governing special 

assessments. Under Michigan law, a special assessment must be reasonably proportional to the increase 

in market value or benefit conferred to the property. In this case, that proportionality standard has not 

been met. 

1. Lack of a Sufficient Special Benefit to My Property 

Our road was already paved prior to the repavement project, albeit with some potholes typical of 

Michigan roads. It was entirely passable and safe to drive on (See Photos 1 and 2). Despite my wife’s and 

my objections, the repaving project proceeded due to a majority petition, though I fail to see how this 

improvement provides a benefit commensurate with the $7,689.05 assessment. 

I formally protested the special assessment in person at the hearing held on September 24, 2024, to 

confirm the special assessment roll. Since the road was already paved and functional, repavement has 

not provided any meaningful improvement that would increase the market value of my property. I have 

found no measurable evidence that the repaving has increased my home’s market value or utility in any 

way. Any alleged benefit, if present, is minimal at best and does not justify such a high financial burden.

Page 2

Photo 2 

Photo 1 

48884 Salt River Drive 

Photo 1 

48896 Salt River Drive 

J 554 Sait River Drive

Page 3

2. Misrepresentation of Road Status and Improper Signage 

When I purchased the property in 2021, the Salt River Drive street signs were green, which according to 

Chesterfield Township’s own website, denotes a public road maintained by Macomb County Department 

of Roads. Please refer to Document B attached. Two of the roads that intersect with Salt River Drive did 

indeed have blue street signs indicating a private road, but the signs for Salt River Drive were green at 

each of these crossroads. 

In fact, per attached Document C, the appraiser at the time of our purchase recorded our property as 

being on a public road made of asphalt. The appraiser also noted that the utilities and off-site 

improvements were typical for the market area, hence, not affecting the evaluation. 

It was only during the discussions surrounding this project that I learned we live on a private road. I 

raised this concern with the Chesterfield Township Engineer, who stated that only the portion of Salt 

River Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Lakeview Drive is a public road, and that the remainder of Salt River 

Drive from Lakeview Drive to Point Lakeview Drive did not meet the MCDR standards for a public road 

and was therefore considered private. 

Shortly thereafter, the Salt River Drive street signs were replaced with blue signs, indicating a private 

road. I later received a letter from a neighbor explaining that another resident on our street had 

personally paid for the sign replacement and would accept donations to cover the cost, which seems 

improper for an issue affecting the township. If the signage was incorrect, the responsibility for 

correcting it lies with the township, not a private resident. This indicates a lack of clarity from the 

township about road designations and confusion around road ownership, further complicating the 

justification of the special assessment. 

3. Partial Repaving of the Road Limits Any Benefit 

The repaving project only covered the portion of the Salt River Drive starting just before my neighbor’s 

house and continuing down the road for 37 properties. However, the section of Salt River Drive 

beginning at Jefferson Avenue—which all vehicles must use to enter and exit the area—remains public 

and was not repaved, leaving it in notably worse condition than the newly paved segment. Currently, this 

area is in far worse condition than what the newly paved segment was prior to the repaving. As a result, 

anyone driving to my property will still have to traverse a public road that is uneven and with significant 

potholes, passing only one property’s length of repaved road before reaching my driveway {See Photos 

3-9}. 

Because the section of Salt River Drive that remains public is the primary access route to all homes—

including mine—the practical and aesthetic benefit of the private road paving is effectively nullified. 

Given this, the limited scope of this project fails to provide any noticeable benefit to my property’s value. 

Prospective buyers would still have to drive over the deteriorating public portion of the road before 

reaching my driveway, which negates any supposed improvement from the private road project. The 

partial nature of this project only underscores the lack of meaningful enhancement to my property’s 

value.

Page 4

Photo 3. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when entering from Jefferson Ave 

Photo 3. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when entering from Jefferson Ave

Page 5

Photo 4. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson Ave 

Photo 4. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson Ave

Page 6

Photo 5. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson Ave 

Photo 5. View of Salt River Drive (public portion of road) when approaching Jefferson

Page 7

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SC_Notice_of_Telephonic_Hearing.2025-09-19_11-20-41.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Aaron Shields,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No.: 24-003981

Township Of Chesterfield,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING

The Tribunal has scheduled a telephone hearing to be conducted as follows. Hearings are

generally 30 minutes in length.

HEARING DATE:

December 2, 2025

HEARING TIME:

2:30 PM EST

JOIN BY PHONE:

1-248-509-0316

ACCESS CODE:

68978867

This hearing will be held by telephone conference call with the Judge as the host. In order to join

the hearing, call the phone number listed above at least 5 minutes prior to the hearing time. You

will then be required to input the access code, followed by # to connect. The Tribunal judge will call

in and join by phone at the hearing time. Failure to timely call in may result in the placement of a

party or parties in default.

This is an important legal document. Please have someone translate the document.

Este es un documento legal importante. Por favor, haga traducir este documento.

এটি একটি গুরুত্বপূর্ণ আইনি দলিল, অনুগ্রহ করে কেউ দলিলটিকে অনুবাদ করুন।

.ةقيثولا مجرتت صخش كيدل ىجري ةماه ةينوناق ةقيثو وه اذه

Ito ay isang mahalagang legal na dokumento. Mangyari lamang na magkaroon ng isang tao isalin ang

dokumento.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003981

Page 2 of 12

HEARING INFORMATION – PLEASE READ IMMEDIATELY

GENERAL INFORMATION: An impartial hearing will be conducted in accordance with the Michigan Tax

Tribunal Rules (R 792.10201-R 792.10297) and the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et

seq. The Michigan Rules of Evidence and the Michigan Court Rules may be applicable. Parties are expected

to exercise proper respect and courtesy toward other parties, witnesses, and administrative law judges, which

includes attending the hearing on time, silencing cell phones, and choosing a quiet, private location to

participate in the hearing to limit distractions and ensure minimal background noise. The hearing may be

recorded for notetaking purposes, but the recording is not a formal record, unless otherwise provided for by the

Tribunal.

REPRESENTATION: You may have an attorney or anyone else of your choice represent you at the hearing.

The Tribunal does not recommend or appoint representatives for you and will not pay for your representative.

WITNESSES: You may have anyone join you at the hearing to speak in support of your case. However, the

time to present your case is limited and additional time may not be provided to accommodate witness

testimony.

DOCUMENTATION: Parties are required to submit all documents in support of their contentions to both the

Tribunal and the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents were

previously submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of Treasury. If the

documents are not timely submitted to both the Tribunal and the opposing party, the documents may be

excluded. Documents may be submitted to the Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s electronic filing (e-

filing) system. Documents may be sent to the opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to

submission by e-mail. If sent by mail, the documents must be sent to the opposing party or their authorized

representative at the address identified in the petition or answer for that party or authorized representative,

unless the party or authorized representative filed an appearance or other documentation identifying a different

mailing address. The documents do not need to be resubmitted after the Notice of Hearing if they were

previously submitted to the Tribunal and the opposing party in this case.

If a hearing had previously been scheduled in this case and adjourned, and the adjournment order indicates

that the parties are precluded from submitting any further documentary evidence, no further documentary

evidence will be accepted even if filed and exchanged as indicated above.

INCLUSION OF SUBSEQUENT TAX YEARS: Subsequent tax year assessments are automatically included

in valuation appeals once the assessment has been established for that tax year. For purposes of

administrative efficiency, the Tribunal considers this date April 1st. As such, the parties should submit

documentation and be prepared to discuss subsequent tax year assessments at hearings to be conducted on

or after April 1st in a subsequent year. If the hearing is to be conducted prior to April 1st in a subsequent year,

taxpayers are required to file a new petition and, if necessary, protest the subsequent tax year assessment at

the March Board of Review for that year.

MOTIONS/REQUESTS: A motion is a written request filed by a party asking the Tribunal to take certain action.

The following motions and requests may be filed by either party regarding the scheduled hearing. Motions and

requests may be submitted to the Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Motions and

requests may be sent to the opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to submission by e-mail. If

sent by mail, motions and requests must be sent to the opposing party or their authorized representative at the

address identified in the petition or answer for that party or authorized representative, unless the party or

authorized representative filed an appearance or other documentation identifying a different mailing address.

1. Motion to Adjourn: Parties may request the hearing be rescheduled (i.e. adjourned). The motion must be

submitted to both the Tribunal and the opposing party at least 28 days before the hearing unless there are

emergency circumstances. The emergency circumstances must be detailed to justify the granting of what

Page 3

MTT Docket

Page 4

MT

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

24-003981.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

RECEIVED 

NOV 12 2024 

MICHIG~w TAX TRIBUNAL 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON |. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL ANSWER FORM 

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 

MTT DOCKET NO. 24-003981 

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule {TTR) 278(4), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. the special 

assessment confirmation roll) with this Small Claims Answer if applicable. If you do not submit this document, you may be held in 

default. 

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information 

Unit of Government: 

Township of Chesterfield 

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

First Name 

Ml. 

Last Name 

Kerry 

L 

Beauvais 

Firm Name (if any) 

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

47275 Sugarbush Rd 

City or Town 

State 

ZIP Code 

Chesterfield 

MI 

48047 

Telephone Number 

Fax Number 

(586) 649-6452 

E-mail Address (do not enter unless you want MTT to send all correspondence via e-mail) 

kbeauvais@chesterfieldtwp.org 

Section 3: Subject Property Information 

Parcel identification Number(s): 

15-09-27-279-002 

If muitipie parcels are being appealed are they contiguous or adjoining? 

Yes 

[INo 

[na 

Taxing Authority (Clty or Township) 

County 

Chesterfield Twp 

Macomb

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal 

The special assessment is a properly approved and confirmed paving SAD as allowed 

by Act 188 of 1954. The cost of the SAD was also spread to each of the parcels 

according to the benefit received. The benefit is defined as an increase in value to the 

parcel in proportion to the increase in value of the entire special assessment district. 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues 

Did Petitioner protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? [wi] Yes 

O No 

What was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

9/24/24 

How many years is the special assessment being levied? 

What is the total amount of the special assessment being levied 

(per parcel)? 

10 years 

$10,495.08 ($98.78/FF per parcel) 

What is the basis for the special assessment? Identify the applicable statutory provision. 

Resident initiated application MCL 41.721 thru 41.738 

Signature required 

Respondent or Attorney/Authorized 

Representative’s Signature: 

2. 

1 

act. Kerry L. Beauvais 

SF

Page 3

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

GOVERNOR

TL ANGING

DIRECTOR

PAPER FILING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWER TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL

Follow these instructions for filing the small claims answer. For any questions that are

not answered in these instructions, see the Tribunal's website at

www.michigan.gov/taxtrib or contact the Tribunal at 517-335-9760.

Mail the completed form to:

= Michigan

Tax Tribunal

611 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48933

U.S. Postal Mailing Address:

PO BOX 30232, Lansing, MI 48909

Other Carriers (UPS, FedEx, DHL):

2nd Floor MTT, 2407 N. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906

Section 1: Respondent’s Contact Information: The “Respondent” is not the

assessor, Respondent is the unit of government filing the answer to the petition (i.e. city

or township).

Section 2: Respondent’s Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Contact

Information: Respondent must be represented by an attorney or authorized

representative (i.e., assessor) to file an answer to the petition. Respondent's attorney or

authorized representative must provide all information requested in Section 2 of the

Answer Form. Only the attorney or authorized representative will receive notices and

documents from the Tribunal.

IMPORTANT:

If the contact information for Respondent or the attorney or authorized

representative,

if listed, includes an email address, the Tribunal will use that email

address to electronically serve all future documents issued by the Tribunal. A request by

Respondent or Respondent's attorney or authorized representative to opt out of

electronic service once an email address is provided must be made in writing.

Section 3: Subject Property Information: Use the Multiple Parcel Form for additional

parcels,

if necessary.

Parcel Identification Number(s): The parcel number(s) being appealed must be

listed.

Are they contiguous or adjoining:

If multiple parcels are being appealed,

Page 4

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

GRETCHEN WHITMER 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

GOVERNOR 

LANSING 

DIRECTOR 

Section 4: Explain Your Answer to this Appeal: Provide the basis of Respondent's 

answer to the appeal and any necessary explanation (i.e., “set forth the facts upon 

which you rely in defense of this matter”). 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues: 

+ 

Did Petitioner protest the assessment at the hearing held to confirm the 

special assessment roll: Indicate whether Petitioner protested (either in person 

or in writing) at the hearing to confirm the special assessment roll. 

* 

What was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment 

roll: Indicate the date the hearing was held. 

* 

How many years is the special assessment being levied: List the number of 

years for which the special assessment is to be levied. 

* 

What is the total amount of the special assessment being levied: Indicate 

the total value of the special assessment levied. 

* 

What is the basis for the special assessment: Indicate under what authority 

the special assessment was levied and cite the applicable statutory provision. 

Signature: A signature by Respondent's attorney or authorized representative is 

required. 

REMINDERS: 

Pursuant to TTR 279, Respondent shall provide the Tribunal a copy of the 

resolution confirming the special assessment roll with the answer. 

You must submit the original, signed completed

Page 5

Page 6

9/

These are text excerpts, not the complete document. Text recognition and reading order can contain errors. Check the PDF for complete wording, formatting, and context.

SC-Notice_of_Filing_of_Answer.2024-12-12_10-17-04.0000.pdfRead complete document text →

Read document text excerpt

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760

PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906

Aaron Shields,

Petitioner,

MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

MTT Docket No. 24-003981

Township Of Chesterfield,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TAKE NOTICE that a Small Claims answer has been filed and the electronic copy of the

answer can be reviewed by utilizing the Docket Lookup on the Tribunal’s website.

Unless Respondent was defaulted, this case is ready to be scheduled for a Small

Claims hearing and will be scheduled in the normal course of scheduling. You will

receive a Notice of Hearing from the Tribunal by e-mail if you have identified an email

address in the petition or other documentation. The Notice of Hearing will inform you of

the date, time, and location of your hearing (note that your hearing will likely be

conducted by telephone). Please read the Notice of Hearing as it includes important

information.

EVIDENCE: Parties are required to submit all evidence to the Tribunal and send a copy

to the opposing party at least 21 days before the hearing date even if the documents

had been submitted to the local Board of Review or the Michigan Department of

Treasury. If the documents are not timely submitted to the Tribunal and served on the

opposing party, the documents may be excluded. Documents may be filed with the

Tribunal by mail or through the Tribunal’s e-filing system. Documents may be sent to the

opposing party by mail or by e-mail, if the parties agree to service by e-mail.

Alternate Dispute Resolution Options

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Parties have the option of handling this

case through an informal settlement conference. An informal settlement conference

is a meeting between the parties and/or their representatives to discuss the issues in a

case in an effort to settle the case. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with

a judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

MEDIATION: Parties have the option of handling this case through mediation.

Mediation is a voluntary process where a mediator facilitates communication between

the parties, assists in identifying issues, and helps explore solutions to promote a

mutually acceptable settlement. This process may be an alternative to a hearing with a

judge and may result in the parties’ filing a Joint Stipulation for Entry of Consent

Judgment. Visit the Tribunal’s ADR webpage for more information.

Page 2

MTT Docket No. 24-003981

Page 2 of 6

If you have any questions, please contact the Tribunal by phone at (517) 335-9760 or 

email taxtrib@michigan.gov.

By: Tribunal Clerk

Entered: December 12, 2024

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent on the entry date indicated above to the 

parties or their attorneys or authorized representatives, if any, utilizing either the mailing 

or email addresses on file, as provide by those parties, attorneys, or authorized 

representatives.

By: Tribunal Clerk