Peter Castner Petitioner V

Page 1

9/7126, 2:14 PM 

Septic Sewage System 

Septic Sewage System 

From: 

Peter Castner <castnerpeter@gmail.com> 

Sent: 

Mon, Sep 7, 2026 at 12:49 pm 

To: 

CLERK@PORTERTWPVBCO.GOV 

My name is Peter Castner, I live at Bankson lake. My address is 25971 Shore Dr, Lawton, MI 49065. I am writing to 

inform you that my property is up off the lake. 

I do not have access to the lake. My home sits back from the lake about 

https://webmail.emailsrvr.com/versions/webmail/1 9.0.28-RC/popup.php?wsid=1d37119b4b454f9859982a65dabf1 98-24425279b5154cbab0ad51676c... 

1/1

Page 2

SECTION 4 – REASON FOR THE APPEAL

1. Unreasonable disproportionality between the amount of the assessment and the value that

accrues to MY PROPERTY.



Michigan law provides that a special assessment is only valid if the property specially

assessed receives a special benefit that is proportional to the cost of the assessment. The

general rule is that the benefits derived from a special assessment to a property should be

determined by the difference in the market value of the property before and after the

making of the improvement. See Dixon Road Group v City of Novi, 426 Mich. 390 (1986);

Kadzban v City of Grandville, 442 Mich 495 (1993); Michigan’s Adventure, Inc v Dalton

Twp, 290 Mich App 328 (2010).

o

The Township has not at any point in the special assessment district process stated

that the sewer project will increase the property values of affected parcels. In-fact,

the Township’s own engineer stated in a public hearing that he was surprised there

was interest in this project after determining that the cost would be more than

$12,500 per parcel.

o

I have a working septic system in good shape and repair. A sewer connection adds

no quantifiable benefit to my property. The added monthly expense of $75/mo. for

flat fee sewer service (subject to increase at the whim of LASA) negatively impacts

my property by at least $900/year. There is no direct measurable economic benefit

to my property; instead, the sewer creates a direct economic liability to my property.

o

In a rural setting with many of the homes on Bankson Lake being summer cottages

only, a home buyer does not care if a house is on sewer or septic; all they care about

is whether the toilet flushes. Sewer does not add value.

o

I intend to offer some or all of the following as evidence to show the unreasonable

disproportionality between the assessment against my property and the value (or

lack thereof) that accrues to my property by virtue of the sewer project:

assessments, quotes for a replacement system (if needed in the future), assessor

reports, financial data from other sewer projects, LASA financials, property record

cards, sales comparisons, and appraisal(s).

o

The total cost of $27,500 to my property ($24,500 benefit fee/REU + $3,000 parcel

fee) does not result in a proportional increase in the value of my property. Even if

my current sewer system were to fail, a brand-new system would cost around

$10,000 – about 1/3 of the cost of the assessment.

o

The Township will not be able to show any market value increase to my property

as a result of the sewer project, let alone a proportional increase to the exorbitant

cost of this project. If the Township and LASA wish to pursue the sewer project,

it must be paid for from a general levy and not from a special assessment against

my property.

2. The special assessment district was not properly or fairly determined.



Porter Township has cited Michigan Act 368 of 1978 (the Michigan Public Health Code)

as one of the key reasons in guiding this project, asserting that the sewer installation is a

Page 3

public health necessity required to protect the water quality and environmental integrity of

Bankson Lake. Despite the stated environmental and public health purpose of protecting

the lake’s ecosystem, the Township’s infrastructure plan excludes certain properties

surrounding the lake. Consequently, not all properties around the lake will be connected to

the public sewer system.

o

You can’t tell people that the main reason you are requiring properties around a

lake to hookup to a sewer is for the health and wellbeing of the lake but then allow

large sections of the surrounding lake properties to be excluded from the special

assessment district because “it would increase everyone’s cost” to include those

properties (Alan Smaka, engineer for LASA and Porter Township). It’s telling that

the properties surrounding Bankson lake owned by Porter Township board

members and their families were conveniently excluded from the special

assessment district.



Under Michigan law, a valid special assessment must confer a specific, proportional

economic benefit to the assessed property above and beyond the benefit conferred to the

general public. Because the Township is including Act 368 of 1978 as one of the reasons

to justify a comprehensive environmental protection measure for Bankson Lake, the entire

lake community residents of Porter Township benefit (public lake with public launch).

However, by failing to connect all properties surrounding the lake, the financial burden is

distributed unequally. The petitioner is being forced to subsidize a lake-wide and greater

public environmental remediation effort, whereas excluded properties remain exempt from

both the infrastructure connection and the equivalent financial burden.



If one of the project's objectives under Act 368 of 1978 is the mitigation of public health

risks and the protection of the lake, leaving un-sewered gaps and disconnected properties

directly undermines that purpose. Contamination from excluded properties will continue

to impact the lake, thereby failing to deliver the full environmental benefit that supposedly

justifies the high cost levied against the Petitioner's property.



The disparate layout of the sewer project creates an arbitrary distinction between

properties, rendering the assessment an unconstitutional tax rather than a true special

assessment.

3. Unequal and Inequitable Cost

Page 4



Total

Page 5



$6

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.

Page 1

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

PROPERTY TAX APPEAL PETITION FORM

SPECIAL ASSESSMENT

MTT DOCKET NO. 

 

Section 1: Petitioner’s Contact Information

Filer Type:

Individual 

Local Unit of Government:

First Name

Peter

M.I.

Last Name/Company Name

Castner

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

25971 Shore Dr.

25971 Shore Dr.

City or Town

Lawton

State

 Michigan

ZIP Code

49065

Telephone Number

2543712294

E-mail Address

castnerpeter@gmail.com

 

 

Section 3: Subject Property Information

How many parcels are you appealing?

1

If you are appealing more than one parcel, are they contiguous or adjoining? *If no, you must file separate 

appeals for each non-contiguous or non-adjoining parcel.

 Yes

Property Address (No., Street, City, ST, ZIP) (If multiple, list first property’s address)

25971 Shore Dr.

25971 Shore Dr.

Lawton

Michigan

49065

Parcel Identification Number(s):

80-16-045-019-00

Taxing Authority (City or Township)

Township Of Porter (VAN BUREN)

County 

Van Buren

 

Section 4: Explain the Reason for this Appeal

Pursuant to Michigan Tax Tribunal Rule (TTR) 277(3), you MUST submit a copy of the notice giving rise to the appeal (e.g. a copy of the resolution confirming the 

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

Page 2

STATE OF MICHIGAN

GRETCHEN WHITMER

GOVERNOR

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

LANSING

MARLON I. BROWN, DPA 

DIRECTOR

Please see attatched letter of explination

 

Section 5: Jurisdictional Issues

Did you protest the special assessment at the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll? 

Yes

If Yes, what was the date of the hearing held to confirm the special assessment roll?

2026-09-09

If No, explain:

 

Fee Information

A fee of $100.00 is required for the filing of a Special Assessment Appeal.

Electronic Signature *Typing your name below will serve as your signature

Petitioner or Attorney/Authorized Representative’s Signature: 

/s/ Peter Castner

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.