PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Act 188 of 1954
41.723 Written objections; petition; filing; signatures; determining record owners; determining sufficiency of petition; supplement to petition; validity of signatures.
Sec. 3.
(1) The township board may proceed to carry out an improvement as provided in this act unless written objections to the improvement are filed with the township board at or before the hearing provided in section 4 by property owners as follows:
(a) For an improvement under section 2(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), or (o) by the record owners of land constituting more than 20% of the total land area in the proposed special assessment district.
(b) For an improvement under section 2(1)(c), (g), (k), or (m), by the record owners of land constituting more than 20% of the total frontage upon the road, bicycle path, or sidewalk.
(2) A township board may require the filing of a petition meeting the requirements of subsection (3) before proceeding with an improvement under this act.
(3) If written objections are filed as provided in subsection (1), or if the township board requires a petition before proceeding, the township board shall not proceed with the improvement until there is filed with the board a petition signed as follows:
(a) For an improvement under section 2(1)(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (l), (n), or (o) by the record owners of land constituting more than 50% of the total land area in the special assessment district as finally established by the township board.
(b) For an improvement under section 2(1)(c), (g), (k), or (m), by the record owners of land constituting more than 50% of the total frontage upon the road, bicycle path, or sidewalk.
(4) Record owners shall be determined by the records in the register of deeds' office as of the day of the filing of a petition, or if written objections are filed as provided in subsection (1), then on the day of the hearing. In determining the sufficiency of the petition, lands not subject to special assessment and lands within a public highway or alley shall not be included in computing frontage or an assessment district area. A filed petition may be supplemented as to signatures by the filing of an additional signed copy or copies of the petition. The validity of the signatures on a supplemental petition shall be determined by the records as of the day of filing the supplemental petition.
History: 1954, Act 188, Imd. Eff. May 5, 1954 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 187, Imd. Eff. June 4, 1957 ;-- Am. 1961, Act 143, Eff. Sept. 8, 1961 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 113, Imd. Eff. May 14, 1976 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 148, Imd. Eff. June 16, 1976 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 332, Imd. Eff. Dec. 15, 1976 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 180, Imd. Eff. July 8, 1986 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 139, Imd. Eff. July 10, 1995
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1978–2015 · leading case:
Trussell v. Decker, 382 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
Trussell v. Decker, 382 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “MCL 41.723; MSA 5.2770(53). Section 4 of the statute requires: (1) that a notice fixing a time and place for a meeting to hear objections to the improvement and special assessment district be prepared; (2) publication of the notice of the hearing as to the proposed district two…”
Blaser v. East Bay Twp., 617 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to MCL 41.723(3)(a); MSA *251 5.2770(53)(3)(a), the township board could not proceed with the construction of the sanitary sewer system until another petition was filed with the board signed by “the record owners of land constituting more than 50% of the total land area…”
Toth v. Waterford Twp., 274 N.W.2d 7 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“2770(52), MCL 41.723; MSA 5.2770(53). The statute granting townships authority to construct storm sewers mentions nothing about the easements which must be obtained to carry out this function.”
Rusak v. Acme Twp., 336 N.W.2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 16× “The petition, on its face, does not recite the geographical area to be affected by the petition but, rather, merely sets forth a description including lineal distances along particular streets, from which description it is impossible to determine the total geographical area upon…”
Hartland Glen Dev. LLC v. Twp. of Hartland (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Following required filings, notices, hearings, and the confirmation and endorsement of an assessment roll, MCL 41.723 to MCL 41.726, a special assessment is finalized, and a township may allow assessed property owners to pay in annual installments under MCL 41.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.723(1)(b) — 1 case
Rusak v. Acme Twp., 336 N.W.2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“The petition, on its face, does not recite the geographical area to be affected by the petition but, rather, merely sets forth a description including lineal distances along particular streets, from which description it is impossible to determine the total geographical area upon…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.723(3)(a) — 1 case
Blaser v. East Bay Twp., 617 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“Pursuant to MCL 41.723(3)(a); MSA *251 5.2770(53)(3)(a), the township board could not proceed with the construction of the sanitary sewer system until another petition was filed with the board signed by “the record owners of land constituting more than 50% of the total land area…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.723(4) — 1 case
Blaser v. East Bay Twp., 617 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“Pursuant to MCL 41.723(3)(a); MSA *251 5.2770(53)(3)(a), the township board could not proceed with the construction of the sanitary sewer system until another petition was filed with the board signed by “the record owners of land constituting more than 50% of the total land area…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.723(b) — 1 case
Rusak v. Acme Twp., 336 N.W.2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“The petition, on its face, does not recite the geographical area to be affected by the petition but, rather, merely sets forth a description including lineal distances along particular streets, from which description it is impossible to determine the total geographical area upon…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 41.723(l)(b) — 2 cases
Trussell v. Decker, 382 N.W.2d 778 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“MCL 41.723; MSA 5.2770(53). Section 4 of the statute requires: (1) that a notice fixing a time and place for a meeting to hear objections to the improvement and special assessment district be prepared; (2) publication of the notice of the hearing as to the proposed district two…”
Rusak v. Acme Twp., 336 N.W.2d 771 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).
“The petition, on its face, does not recite the geographical area to be affected by the petition but, rather, merely sets forth a description including lineal distances along particular streets, from which description it is impossible to determine the total geographical area upon…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.