By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
LANSING — An annexation request that was remanded to the State Boundary Commission via court order last month is now officially on the agency’s agenda.
On Feb. 11 at 10 a.m., Michigan’s State Boundary Commission will take up a remand of a petition from former Three Rivers Mayor Tom Lowry to annex 38 acres of land he owns on Buckhorn Road in Lockport Township into the City of Three Rivers. The hearing will take place at 611 W. Ottawa St. in Lansing.
The move comes following an order from St. Joseph County 45th Circuit Court Judge Paul Stutesman on Dec. 4 that remanded the Boundary Commission’s February 2025 decision to deny Lowry’s petition back to the state agency. In his order, Stutesman said he wanted to see more detail on the commission’s reasons for denial before making a ruling on an appeal filed by Lowry following the denial.
As previously reported, in their February decision, the Boundary Commission cited “previous properties transferred to the city that have not been utilized to their capacity, available water on all four sides of the property, issues with a 425 order and that the land can be developed in concurrence with the township and the city together” as the reasoning behind their decision. However, the Boundary Commission did not elaborate on these points in their decision.
Lowry’s lawyers contended in court the Boundary Commission “focused on irrelevant considerations” with “no bearing” on the statutory criteria for an annexation, cited factors that “directly contradict” the evidence in the record, and “ignored critical evidence regarding development capacity and public health” in its decision. Meanwhile, the Boundary Commission argued in court its decisions were legislative judgments, not evidentiary contests,” and that their decision in the proposed annexation “reflects a careful, deliberate application of the criteria” in state law, and is “both authorized by law and supported by the record.” They also argued that proper procedure was followed, as it came following “notice, hearing, and deliberation.”
Stutesman, however, remanded the case back to the Boundary Commission, stating there “has to be substantial evidence to support their decision, as required in [MCL] 24.306,” which states that a judge can hold a decision unlawful if the decision is, according to the law, “not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record.”
“If they detailed it, maybe we wouldn’t be here, because they would’ve looked at it and said, no, there’s support for it, we can’t argue it. I don’t know,” Stutesman said during the December hearing. “I could go through the whole thing and say, well, here’s what they relied on, but I’m not the Boundary Commission. I’m just here to review whether they followed the statute, followed the rules, and considered all the evidence, and then made a reasonable decision. They very well could’ve, and it very well may be that way, I just need more information.”
The remand continues a saga that started in March 2023, when he first proposed a Public Act 425 agreement between the township and the city to bring the property into the city so it can receive city water and sewer for a housing development he wanted to undertake. Lockport and Park Township attempted to block the transfer with two separate 425 agreements that would transfer the land to Park Township, however in October 2024, Stutesman ruled that both agreements were invalid.
In August 2024, the State Boundary Commission took up Lowry’s annexation petition for the first time, setting a public hearing which occurred in October 2024 at the Riviera Theatre, and in February 2025, denied Lowry’s petition. Lowry filed the appeal against both the Boundary Commission and Lockport Township in April 2025.
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
What “PA 425” stands for
It comes from Public Act 425 of 1984, a Michigan law that allows conditional transfers of property between municipalities.
How it works in practice
Think of it like a long-term lease with rules:
The city and township agree to share control of a property
The agreement lasts up to 50 years
During that time:
The land is governed by the city
The city usually gets the tax revenue
The township may still receive a negotiated share
When the agreement ends:
The land either returns to the township
Or becomes fully annexed (depending on the deal)
Why cities and developers like PA 425s
Cities like them because:
They gain tax base
They avoid messy annexation fights
They can extend utilities strategically
Developers like them because:
They get infrastructure now
Without waiting years for annexation
And without the political risk of a Boundary Commission fight
Townships sometimes like them because:
They get revenue without infrastructure costs
They keep long-term leverage over the land
Why they’re controversial
PA 425s can:
Feel like annexation through the back door
Cut townships out of long-term planning
Spark fights between neighboring governments
That’s why they often end up:
Politically explosive
In court
Or both
Summarized: A judge has sent former Three Rivers Mayor Tom Lowry’s denied annexation request back to the Michigan State Boundary Commission, not because the denial was wrong, but because the Commission failed to clearly explain and support its reasoning as required by law. The court ruled that the Commission must show substantial evidence for its decision, so it has been ordered to reconsider the petition and provide detailed justification. The Commission will revisit the case at a Feb. 11 hearing in Lansing, where it may still deny the annexation—but must clearly demonstrate why.