BZA Docket - February 20, 2023

Join online, by phone, or in person at the Erma L. Henderson Auditorium (2 Woodward Avenue, Floor 13, Suite 212)
https://detroitmi.gov/government/boards/board-zoning-appeals

Today’s agenda 📎 with more info on how to join virtually and make a public comment.
https://detroitmi.gov/sites/detroitmi.localhost/files/events/2023-01/February%2020%2C%202023.pdf https://t.co/AoPjk3XxtQ

Notes, recordings, and archived documents from this meeting will be available from the Detroit Documenters website: https://detroit.documenters.org/assignments/bza-docket-february-20-2023-5719/

Here’s the schedule with two public hearings at 9:15am and 9:45am. https://t.co/DIguNajG8W

The Board of Zoning Appeals reviews building permits that have been approved or denied by @DetroitBSEED and city officials enforcing the city’s zoning ordinance. The city council appoints board members, who meet weekly. https://detroitmi.gov/government/boards/board-zoning-appeals https://t.co/jnC2mewuyg

The first public hearing listed on the agenda at 9:15 is for the Cam-Am International Trade Crossing concrete crushing facility that was denied by BSEED (Buildings, Safety Engineering, and Environmental Department) https://t.co/WEfxSvsRoD

Here’s some recent reporting via @DanaAfana

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2022/12/15/no-concrete-crusher-advocates-say/69729136007/

Yesterday, I got a text from Concerned Residents Of Core City, the neighborhood group organizing against the concrete crusher, saying that today’s hearing date has been postponed until April because Murray Wikol requested a 60-day adjournment.
https://actionnetwork.org/events/rsvp-hearing

*correction: there are a total of 3 public hearings on the agenda. The 2nd and 3rd are both from the cannabis industry. The 9:15 hearing is for Full Green Fields LLC appealing the denial of their proposal to establish a Marijuana Grower and Processor Facility. https://t.co/enQHKJ3oJj

The 10:15 hearing is for Veteran’s Cannabis Group LLC and their appeal of BSEED’s denial of their proposed Marijuana Retail/Provisioning Facility, Marijuana Processor Facility, and a Marijuana Designated Consumption Establishment in the City of Detroit https://t.co/kABtZQz6dM

The hearing is called to order at 9:01 am. They are calling board members, I’m hoping the audio gets better. https://t.co/zDZuydU4ic

Andrew Adams, the court stenographer pointed out that we couldn’t hear anything in the zoom and they realized their mics weren’t on. The sound got much better.

The board adjourned because they don’t have a quorum yet, which is “the minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid.”
Here’s everyone waiting virtually. https://t.co/d1v74rVD9e

For more on the community efforts to stop the Core City concrete crusher follow @corecitystrong
https://twitter.com/corecitystrong/status/1627377688162799616?s=20

Here’s more info from the developer:
https://provisionsllc.com/4445-lawton-in-detroit/

The meeting is called back to order at 9:15. They need to turn their mics back on again.

They still do not have a quorum. They adjourned again at 9:17 until more board members arrive. https://t.co/guDtOKelEw

The court stenographer (on zoom) is trying to confirm which board members are present, but they are still having sound/mic issues. There are some members not sworn in yet. Now the hearing is called back to order at 9:25 am.

They now have a quorum. They have 3 cases for dismissal. They are dismissed and will not be heard by the board.
BZA Case 47-22 1830 Church Street.
BZA Case 17263 Mount Ellliot
BZA case 35-22 17234 Mount Elliot

Roll call one more time for the record. Sherman, Roberts, Thomas, Watson, and Knott are present.
Minutes from February 13th approved.

Motion to dismiss these cases approved.

https://twitter.com/amysenese/status/1627676558684028928?s=20

Correction and amendment the address above is 17236 Mount Elliot.
Calling BZA Case Cam-Am International Trade Crossing LLC at 4445 Lawton, the concrete crushing facility. The decision to deny by BSEED was appealed by the developer. https://t.co/shWrNwmZos

On Feb 6, they received communications from the Cam-Am attorney–that they are working to address issues and are requesting an adjournment. There was extensive community involvement around this case. They have been notified of the adjournment

There is a motion to accept the adjournment on behalf of the petitioner (Can-Am International Trade Crossing) The motion was granted.
Case No.: 01-23 aka BSEED SLU2022-00131 is postponed.

The next case is the 9:45 hearing. They will recess for 10 minutes.

Check out past #Detdocumenters reporting from the May 17, 2022 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
At that meeting, BZA upheld BSEED’s denial of a permit to construct a new asphalt plant near the Grandmont Rosedale neighborhood.
https://detroit.documenters.org/assignments/bza-hearing-asphalt-specialists-inc-12155-southfield-3877/

Here’s reporting from @j_e_n_a_b on the “outpouring of opposition” to that project in Grandmont Rosedale.

https://detourdetroiter.com/asphalt-specialists-detroit-plant-opposition/

This is the screen now, as far as I can hear, the meeting is not called back to order. https://t.co/KAa9x2wKUR

They are scrolling through a presentation with photos but there is no audio. Andrew Adams is pointing out that there has been no audio. Now we hear audio, hey are continuing with the presentation that has already started. https://t.co/Qmu53WJahd

Zack Learman is speaking on behalf of the petitioners along with others. There is some confusion about who is speaking. There is another person speaking in person at the auditorium, Attorney Demers. They need to swear speakers in. https://t.co/b6sWaTzWMu

There are others with raised hands in the zoom. Irma Moss Bryant is a consultant that will speak as well. Speakers are being sworn in. Zack Learman on zoom will be the main spokesperson. https://t.co/QaQyJpfmz8

Jonathan Demers from the Law Dept is speaking now and going over the case. https://t.co/dRswA0HP6B

Demars is asking Learman to address the property owner. Who are the members/owners of the LLC that is the tenant and the petitioner? (Full Green Fields LLC) The owner is on zoom with the consultants. I didn’t catch his name, but he is the sole owner. https://t.co/Q7kbSGQEBc

Jack Learman is speaking now about their appeal of the BSEED denial. The was a public hearing last October. There were 8 letters in opposition and 1 in support. They did not meet BSEED’s approval criteria. https://t.co/uo7QqquOHQ

Their position is that the project is congruent with the City’s code. This is a “giant unused warehouse” that has been unoccupied for some time. It will increase property value, create 30 jobs, and there will be security.

This project is a positive massive project that will beautify the area. Learman thinks residents misunderstand the project. This is not a dispensary and will be entirely indoors. There will be new landscaping outside. Learman is asking the board to look at the “black letter law”.

There are no public outreach requirements according to Learman, but they have people today to speak in support of the project. Learman says he’s walking lightly because he is not a Detroit resident. He’s representing the petitioner, Full Green Fields, LLC.

Correction, think I said Demars was the attorney speaking in person, but Jonathan Demars is from the City’s law department. I’m not sure of the attorney’s name speaking in person for the petitioner. He works with Learman.

The director is asking if they’ve spoken to the community. Sounds like the attorney speaking in person did not, but the consultants did. Miss Bryant will speak now. She wants to go over the approval criteria. She’s saying there are over 18 people there to give support. https://t.co/fY5WgBBi1f

The director confirmed that Miss Bryant was not hired prior to the BSEED hearing. BZA is only supposed to discuss what happened in the BSEED hearing. The board can only consider what happened prior to the Dec. 22 decision order.

Miss Bryant is echoing the party line that everything about this proposal is a benefit to the community, and now that they’ve reached out to the neighborhood, they are in support.

Jayda Philson from the city is speaking about the denial. She’s saying they denied it because of concerns around community opposition, the petitioner did not do their due diligence. Also, issues with parcel splits. https://t.co/ULrVcQTKZW

Helen Sharply from the planning department is speaking. They had concerns about the lot split. Also concerns about existing fees & violations, access issues on the residential street, & a screening that did not meet the zoning ordinance. Corrugated fencing needed to be removed.

Now the director, James W. Ribbron is moving on to questions for the petitioner. There was a question, but the mic was off. The first issue is location, maintenance, and operation and whether or not the neighborhood will be affected in a detrimental way.

Miss Bryant is saying it will not be detrimental. She is now addressing the previous residents who spoke out against it at the BSEED meeting. Bryant is saying there will not be traffic like residents previously thought. There will be security.

The next question is on property value is there proof that there will be an improvement? Bryant is saying the company will be paying taxes, so that will enhance the value.

Q: Explain how this use will not be inconsistent with the master plan, which would be to protect the rights of people who live there and who have been there for a long time? A: Bryant is saying it is consistent with the master plan.

Q: Explain how the establishment of this business will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property? Asking for evidence in writing. A: Bryant is referencing the site plan and saying it will not impede future development.

The conditional use will be compatible with uses on adjacent and nearby zoning lots in terms of location.

The attorney present is saying that community benefits won’t come up until they apply for licensing. The attorney is saying there’s a “bifurcation of the rules within the city of Detroit” and “based on the city’s rules they would develop the site, then go for licensing”.

Board member Thomas was speaking but his mic was not on.

Q: how do you plan to deal with the entrance address, which is on the residential street and not on Fullteron. A: this is not retail, there will just be employees, so not a lot of traffic in an out of the facility.

From the board: any site plan issues should be addressed at the BSEED level, not at BZA today to try to correct it. The attorney keeps trying to appeal these issues to the BZA board, sounds like he’s trying to explain the rules of city zoning to the board.

He’s saying they should have done a better job with the community. He thinks there’s been some miscommunication within the City of Detroit around this proposal.

They are back talking about entrances, but someone from the board keeps bringing up that any site plan issues need to be addressed with BSEED.

Q: Please explain how the conditional use will not hinder or have a detrimental effect on vehicle patterns, nearby intersections, visibility, and pedestrian traffic.
A: No detrimental effect.

Q: Please explain how the conditional use is consistent with any approved preliminary site plan.
A: It’s in line with the use and requirements necessary.

Q: Please explain how the conditional use is designed, planned, and to be operated so that public health safety and welfare will be protected.
A: it will be.

They are going through a list of questions.
Q #13: Will there be noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors? A: They will provide all the necessary environmental and filtration systems. They will be working inside and growing plants, and there will be no noise.

Q: Did you conduct an independent health impact assessment that would see the impact on the surrounding community?
A: Attorney Learmen is saying they didn’t do a study and they don’t unless that is required by BSEED. There will be no odor issues. Their goal is to be compliant.

The attorney speaking in person is saying these facilities wouldn’t be approved in Michigan if there were issues with smells coming out of the building and into the neighborhood. He hasn’t heard of any issues like that in the state.

Now the board is pointing out that one reason BSEED was denied is because of community opposition. The second issue is traffic, as the entrance is on Whitcomb, a residential street. https://t.co/LSKdJwSFDo

The attorneys keep pointing out that it’s not open to the public. The only traffic will come from employees. The BZA board is pointing out that this should have been addressed during the BSEED hearing.

The Attorney speaking in person said it was an unlawful denial, even though the company should have been a better job reaching out to the neighborhood. Thinks there was a misuse of terms like “retail” that came from the city.

The attorney for Full Green Fields is also saying, sometimes they just can’t change people’s minds if they have a problem with a cannabis facility.

Now they are entering the community input section. Jonathan Demars is saying public comment is acceptable to hear right now. Their decision today is only around whether or not BSEED made the right decision at their hearing.

At the time of the BSEED hearing, there were 8 letters against and 6 against in person. Only one person was in support at the time. Demars is saying the board can hear public comments, but that’s not taking new evidence.

Even if public comments today are from residents who didn’t speak previously, they may speak on the decision made by BSEED at the time.
Now onto public comment with the audience in person.

There were no members of the public in person in support of the project, they are asking for people to raise their hands in zoom if they are in support.
There is one hand raised.

The first comment is from a resident of Whitcomb. She lives directly across the street, saying the company has been a major asset to the neighborhood, they feed the homeless, feed them, and keep it clean.

Pamela Brown from Whitcomb is next. Has been a resident since she was 10 years old, she’s 58 now and is in support of the facility. They came in 8 years ago and have been an asset in keeping the community clean and helping her assist the community with food and water.

Q: What were they doing 8 years ago when they came into the community? Pamela Brown is saying she’s a community advocate and she introduced them to City officials. They helped with cleanup from dumping. They don’t have a lot of neighbors as so many homes have been demolished.

Q: Have they been growing for 8 years? A: They bought the facility from an Auction Block company.

They are asking for more comments, it looks like the community members are all in the same room, using the same zoom. They are all in the zoom with the consultant Irma Moss Bryant.

Mr. Simpson: says they are helping to bring back the neighborhood. He’s been there 50 years and sees them as an asset.

Next: they’ve been helping the neighborhood, giving back, and promising jobs.

Beatrice Morn, bringing something like this into the community will bring jobs to the neighborhood.
All commenters are being sworn in.

Xavier Gaynor: Thinks this will be a good opportunity for employment in this area as there are not a lot of jobs in the neighborhood.

The next comment was hard to hear but he was in support.

They stopped asking names? Another comment in support from a resident there for over 30 years. Sounds like they have given out food and water.

The board thought there were 7 people in the zoom. But there are 17 confirmed by Miss Bryant.
The next resident is in support.

The board is asking them to organize this better.
Next up is a resident from Whitcomb, he is in support, they are nice people and help with food and water, they are good people.

Hannah Hendricks: here to support, again speaking about them giving out water and food.

Elliot from Whitcomb Street: he supports the company, they are good people and help folks in the neighborhood. He’s seen a lot of changes and supports them.

A resident from Terry? street is in support.

A resident from Ward? street is in support.

Mark Warren: in support, thinks they will bring jobs.

Now they are calling for comments in opposition. There are people in person to speak.

A resident from Longacher is in opposition. He’s a president of a neighborhood association. They have fought this for many years. He’s concerned about churches and schools. He wants to see a recreation center. He’s concerned that the owners don’t live in the neighborhood. https://t.co/EeL4HSEypO

He’s concerned about marijuana being sold to their children.
Eugene Owns from Longacre, and is also a member of an association. He’s been there 40 years. There was a grow facility on Schoolcraft that blew up and someone was killed. He’s worried about retail on Schoolcraft.

George Purdue, President of the Schoolcraft improvement association, BSEED got the decision right. It’s massive and across the street from a residential area. He spoke to residents that don’t want it there. He’s worried about trucks moving cannabis.

They want STEM programs they want mind-building programs, not mind-altering marijuana facilities.
He’s speaking to real needs in the community.

Now Miss Bryant will address these concerns. Bryant is saying the people that spoke today on zoom are in support. She’s speaking about boundaries–why these residents in opposition didn’t speak to those people? Saying this is a legal operation and the one that blew up was not.

Attorney Learman is saying they respect the community’s views. Thinks those in opposition are against it on principle, that their opposition is not directly tied to the specifics of the project. They are asking for the BSEED denial to be reversed.

Those community members in opposition did bring a signed petition with them today. Now the board will discuss this. Board member Weed is saying that they have not addressed the potential negative impacts on the neighborhood. Two other board members agree.

Another board member, I think the chair? is also speaking to the letters in opposition submitted to BSEED, concerns of increased traffic. There is no revised site plan. The petitioner introduced 17 new testimonials, but there are over 80 signatures on the petition in opposition.

Board member Weed is making the motion to deny the petition because the petitioner has failed to address the issues raised by the community. The applicant has failed to present the appropriate arguments and facts.

The petitioner’s appeal request of the BSEED decision to deny has been upheld for Case No. 06-23 aka BSEED SLU2022-00086. https://t.co/KZkcks8WjI

https://twitter.com/amysenese/status/1627710315482710023?s=20

Now onto 10:15 a.m. CASE NO.: 03-23 aka BSEED SLU2022-00131 https://t.co/ywEnQgg0wK

Now they are looking at photos of the property around E. Jefferson and Campbell St. They were denied because of the close proximity to Fort Wayne. https://t.co/wNCyn0Ehye

There are people from Veteran’s Cannabis Group, LLC in person to speak today. Attorney Dumas is reading through section 50 of the Detroit zoning ordinance.
There was a warranty deed supplied with the application, the owner is Kip Greenwood. He is approaching the podium.

The applicant is Veteran’s Cannabis Group, LLC. Dumas is asking about the relationship. Greenwood has started a separate entity to work with veterans. There will be a resource center, support groups, mental health support, etc.

The group will purchase the property from Greenwood.
Dumas is asking about a purchase agreement. Dumas is saying all they have is the deed with Greenwood’s name. If they have the purchase agreement, they can bring that into the record.

Dumas clarified that Greenwood has standing before the board, but no one else does. He recommends the board conditions in the motions today, including any decision to overturn BSEED’s decision.

Brian Ellison, a consultant has a presentation that was sent yesterday to the director. They are saying they don’t work on Sundays. The director will look in his email. It’s not a presentation, more like substantiating documents.

They are looking at this screen, but won’t go through all of them. Brian Ellison is continuing, they were denied because of a measurement from the “supposed drug-free zone” that was created by Fort Wayne. They claim the measurement is inaccurate. https://t.co/BML7wAlW4n

Ellison is reading through the drug-free zone code. The city is calling Fort Wayne a park. There are members of the law department on zoom. Ellison is going through an ordinance with 4 distinct zones and legal uses. https://t.co/QBKiIlXkn5

Christopher Rodriguez is also on the zoom from the BSEED zoning division. Brian Ellison is still reading through code, zoning, and ordinance details. We can’t see what document he’s reading from.

Brian Ellison is requesting that ordinance 2021 11? is set forth by the Detroit City Council and made effective on April 9th, 2021 be respected and applied to the distance calculation utilized by BSEED to qualify their site plan for approval.

Ellison is also talking about a report submitted by the City Planning Commission as their basis for the approval of this change or sectioning of the 77-acre parcel. Revised site plan 9.2020. This is a site plan for Fort Wayne. Area D is what he’s been speaking about with 60 uses. https://t.co/58XGbVnBNe

Areas B and D are full of buildings that are mostly dilapidated, most of which the city wants to see reactivated.
The reason they are opposing this denial is the master plan of policies has changed the designation of the property from regional park to institutional use.

The defined areas within this 77-acre geography show that there are park elements in Areas A and E that are not within 1,000 feet of the subject property. https://t.co/xjQpMgdry2

Moving to the City departments. BSEED’s Rodriguez is speaking about the letter of denial issued last October. It is 805 feet from a drug-free zone, known as Fort Wayne Historic Park at 6301 West Jefferson. Referencing the Detroit City Code section 50-3-5,25 Subsection C.

They took the measurement using a geographic measuring tool that is used by BSEED for all land use applications. Rodriguez is saying neither a zoning district map nor a master plan amendment, changes the existence of land use on a zoning lot within that new district.

Brian Coe is speaking now. The City of Detroit classifies Fort Wayne as an outdoor recreation facility and a “City” park, not a state park. There are many buildings included as part of the park, barracks, quarters, and playing fields. It is all a park.

Recent changes were meant to address the uses of the buildings at Fort Wayne because there has been a struggle to determine the uses of the buildings because of the historic district. It is treated by the city as a park. It is zoned as a planned development currently.

Attorney Demars is speaking about the difference between land uses and zoning classifications. There is no such thing as a zoning classification for parks. It is not zoned as a park, but the issue is the land use, not the zoning.

Demars is not there to help BSEED, but the BZA board. The issue is not whether Fort Wayne is zoned as a park. Ellison is arguing that there’s a portion of historic Fort Wayne that is not properly considered an outdoor recreational facility.

Q: Did BSEED make the correct decision?
A: Dumas is saying there wasn’t a special land use hearing, BZA just needs to determine if BSEED calculated the distance correctly.

Now onto public comment/testimonials. There is no one on zoom to speak.
Darryl Stavros is speaking about their investment. They put a lot of investment into it based on BSEED’s website. They have screenshots from a website that shows they are in the zone.

He’s saying there are 300 parks in Detroit with a different designation than Historic Fort Wayne. He’s saying the city is going to develop all the former barracks for residential housing. He’s telling them to look at the parks and recreation website.

He went on at length on the project and what it will do for veterans. Talking about how they will address blight. He keeps going back to the City’s website as to the reason why they chose this location and invested so much money into it.

Bryan Coe is saying that he’s wrong about park classifications that he spoke to based on the website. The website is more of a park finder website for residents and doesn’t have complete information on zoning.

The Drug-Free zone is based on an area that is within 1,000 feet of a zoning lot of a recreation facility.

Brian Coe is saying Rodriguez from BSEED might have a map to pull up so they can see the parcels in dispute. The board is asking what website they should go to in order to determine if they can propose a facility at the location they own.

They are referencing a particular map, but it sounds like it’s not the official map used by BSEED. It’s not an authoritative map. The petitioner is arguing that they used this map from the website to determine where to do business.

Coe said again, it is an informational tool, not meant to be official. The board is asking what map should they use?
A: The petitioner should contact or make an application to determine whether the parcel is within a drug-free zone.

Q: Have you reached out to historic Fort Wayne?
A: They reached out to the district manager Eva Torres. She’s aware of what they are doing. She told them about plans to redevelop Fort Wayne.

The owner/petitioner is saying the whole area is condemned, and the buildings won’t be preserved but turned into condos. He provided no evidence to these statements.

Jayda Philson from BSEED is speaking now, explaining that Coe is correct. It wasn’t on the maps they were looking at which is why BSEED provided a letter that stated this proposed location is too close to Fort Wayne. https://t.co/YewLWr242M

Now the owner is saying they have spent over $100,000 and their life savings in the good faith that the website was correct. He’s saying this was not a smooth process. They’ve been working on this for a few years, he’s going to be in debt for the rest of his life.

A board member asked, did you read the fine print? He answered yes that he did, but someone told him to ignore that. The owner is saying he’s had lots of other offers from Dan Gilbert and other real estate companies. He’s saying there was no way to verify this information.

Ellison, the consultant is speaking again and pushing back on the fine print, and BSEED calling the whole 77-acre parcel a park. He’s pushing back on the measurements. He’s saying the City of Detroit did not intend to keep this area a park, they put a list of uses together.

Ellison said this is not a distance issue. Philson is saying they gladly give this information to applicants. BSEED goes through the special land use hearing first. She’s saying you do not have to purchase the property and pay all this money to get the correct information.

All BSEED needs is a deed, lease, or purchase agreement. The owner is saying there’s been so much confusion in this process and it’s disrespectful to the veterans.

Now a comment from zoom. They are speaking but having issues unmuting. There is no one else.

Now a discussion: does the BZA board agree with the BSEED decision that this is within a drug-free zone. Member Weed thinks the petition should be granted because it is a group of veterans, and they spoke to Fort Wayne. Weed thinks these facts allow them to grant the request.

If BZA overturns this denial, they will be able to have an SLU hearing with BSEED.
Another member is looking at the disclaimer and thinks that it provided a way for the petitioners to be able to find out more info before investing any money.

Another member is speaking about the disclaimer. There are issues, but the owner did say they read that info and should have done more research. He’s conflicted.

Attorney Demers is saying from a procedural standpoint, this case would go back to BSEED for a special land use hearing, under the presumption that this is not a drug-free zone. It requires 4 members of 5 to vote yes for a majority. If voted down, it’s equivalent to a denial.

Demers is saying the veteran’s group doesn’t have any legal interest in the property yet. At this time, they haven’t shown any documentation to show the veteran connection to this proposal and appeal.

Robert E. Thomas the board chair is saying he’s surprised this is a drug-free zone, but he didn’t understand there was an outdoor recreational purpose use. He’s sympathetic to the veterans, but they need to follow the law.

Board member Weed is making a motion to proceed, based on the veteran group’s proposal. There is a second. Now a roll call vote. Sherman-yes Thomas-yes Knott-no Weed-yes. There are not sufficient votes and the motion fails.

They can appeal to circuit court. The denial of BZA case 03-23 aka BSEED SLU2022-00131 has been upheld. https://t.co/O3wnrej0XG

Call for public comment. There are none.
No new business except for announcing the new board member, Robert Roberts. The meeting is adjourned at 1:16pm. https://t.co/ZmXyfEXE5T

That concludes the live-tweeting for today. IMPORTANT: If you believe anything in the coverage tonight is inaccurate, please email us at documenters@outliermedia.org with “Correction Request” in the subject line.
Visit https://detroit.documenters.org/ for more coverage by #Detdocumenters

Also, check out the most recent newsletter here:
https://twitter.com/DetDocumenters/status/1625508128534978562?s=20

https://twitter.com/amysenese/status/1627703708904566784?s=20