Board of Zoning Appeals part 2 (missed 20 minutes after part 1)
5:46PM Aug 21, 2023
Speakers:
Keywords:
marijuana
petitioner
community
consumption
facility
property
conditional
marijuana dispensary
city
bc
building
establishment
people
udc
board
district
applicant
lounge
state
approved
In Progress, so we're going to look at 50 days three 321 again and compare that timeframe whether or not BZ made the correct decision as as to each criteria point that Correct sir
yes so if you if you take a look at the text on the screen board member Watson section 50 dash dash 281 states and this is coming from the city's zoning ordinance that BC cannot grant a conditional land use approval unless it has made each of the following findings and there are 15 in total so, BC to saying when it grants conditional land use approval, that all of these things were present. For example, and finding number three, the conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. BC came to that conclusion when it granted this condition, ladies, and so you're assessing whether they ultimately concluded that all 15 of these findings were were there, whether they were right to do that or not. And as people we argued, obviously that they were not okay, thank
you. Okay. I will be available the rest of the time of course as you thank you
very much attorney DeMars I write to the board and just no questions. I am going to jump to Attorney co building safety
Jefferson Thomas, I just want to clarify are you asking you to turn and go to proceed with arguments right now?
Okay, okay. DeMars that I was aiming towards that your question makes me second thing he does now.
For what it's worth, Jefferson time it's traditionally the sport has had, you know the property or the community pellet make their case first. Let's do that then. The department to make their case
called the wrong attorney. Okay, Attorney Avery, let's start with you
today. Before we get into analysis of the 15 factors I would like to note that the April 12 2023 BC letter presents a short list of three findings but it doesn't specifically address the 15 factors and as has been quoted numerous times section 50 Dash three dash 281 requires that each of the following general find the netlist is it List of 15 factors must be considered before a conditional use can be approved. There is no finding as to each of the 15 factors what we have from BC is a list of three general findings. We do not have an analysis of the 15 factors as is required pursuant to section 50 Dash three dash 281. Our position is that this this is actually not ripe at this time for discussion on the merits of this appeal, because BC has not made a proper finding as to the 15 factors. So our position is that we would like to ask the board to vote on whether or not it's even proper to proceed today on the merits of the 15 factors when there hasn't been a finding by B seed specifically and our position is that this actually is to go back to BC they need to give us a finding as the 15 factors and then the board can consider the appeal and can consider the merits.
Okay. I don't think we've had this one before this new argument here. Attorney DeMars.
Yes, sir person, Thomas.
Okay. There's been a request from the petitioner here to serve as counsel. Attorney Avery to for this to go back to building a safety because the findings on section 15 were not met by them before it came back to us
and my recommendation chippers and Thomas's that BC be given the opportunity to explain why they are satisfied with the findings that have been made, as opposed to me give that case. I don't have insight or perspective into it. I do have some thoughts, but I think it'd be more appropriate for BC and their counsel to speak to that specific issue.
Thank you very much. Okay, with that being stated for Niko.
Greetings board members Brian COVID City of Detroit law department here on behalf of BC I think that the petitioners attorney is confusing what the seed found. And after holding their hearing with what is in the seeds letter. The the BC letter as noted by the petitioners counsel does list three summaries or three three conclusions summarizing their findings of fact pursuant to 50 Dash three dash 281 But the key language here is after considered after careful consideration, the required findings of fact were made per section 50 Dash three dash to anyone specifically that the proposed conditional land use is consistent with the city of Detroit master plan. Future generalized land use designation of light industrial that the proposed use of the subject property will not have a negative impact on the community and the surrounding property and maintaining active business on the site. And that potentially detrimental effects of this use will be mitigated by the strict conditions contained in this letter. Well that does not walk through all 15 factors that is consistent with how BC documents its approval. And its process now. They held the hearing they have the special land use hearing is as this board is familiar with. They do go through a number of these factors in those hearings, and then they also consider those factors as part of their regular administrative process. So the fact that this letter and their decision does not list out all 15 factors does not mean that all factors were not addressed. And it's consistent. With beseech practice that's in essentially every case that comes before you. And I believe it's also consistent with this Board's own practice. At hearings here when you are asked to consider the 15 factors because of an appeal by a petitioner. You ask about those factors, and you have targeted questions for them. But I don't believe this board writes a summary of its conclusion as to each of the 15 factors. So my response to the petitioners suggestion that this board, send this back to BC would would be to contest that and say that BC did make its required findings. The discussion in the letter significantly talks about how the property has been vacant and they believe it would be appropriate and beneficial to the community to have it redeveloped. And I believe that the required findings of fact were met, the board can proceed with its decision today.
Okay. You turn eco alright Georgia row how we proceed with this one here.
Jefferson Dallas, may I make a recommendation? Sure. I don't believe that. You know, a request that the board can actually administer has been made. It's not really appropriate under the Board's rules of procedure or the zoning ordinance to send cases back to BC. That's not an option that's available to this board. If the applicant wants to make that as a part of their case, that inadequate findings were made. They're entitled to do that and request that the decision be revised or overturned. But I don't think that this is even really a request that the board can vote on. And I think the board should probably proceed with the merits of the case as has been, you know, requested for quite some time now.
Right? Language has been around for attorney DeMars let's proceed. Okay, Attorney Avery, we're gonna move on, are you gonna read proceeding with the matter today? Are you ready to go over to our 15 factor analysis here?
Yes, I would just like to make a statement. If we are now making this as part of our our general presentation as to the 15 factors. I do want to note that a consideration is not a finding while BC might have considered the 15 factors, they're required to make a finding of the 15 factors so a mere consideration alone is deficient. And I just, I want to note that for the board just right off the top but Duly noted. Thank you misspeak. We'll start with factor with the first factor.
Thank you very much Miss P. Yes. But before we do this, let me let me try to solidify who's gonna be speaking today. So misspeak gonna start this off? And are you guys gonna go back and forth or at this? I'm trying to stay away from that back and forth, man. You're not here right now and going back and forth. It's gonna be timely. I need you guys to be a little you know concise sync. misspeak Are you ready to start this off?
Yes, I am. Alright. And so you have the you have the factors you have this.
You have we all have the factors here from you get from your guests. You pass these up. So yeah. 15 criteria section 53 to 81. All right, let's start with whether or not you do the first three please.
The establishment, maintenance location and operation of the proposed conditional use will not be detrimental. To or endanger the social, physical, environmental or economic well being of surrounding neighborhoods are accurate or aggravate any pre existing physical, social or economic deterioration of surrounding neighbors. So do you believe that be seated took this into consideration when rendering their decision? If you do not believe that they did, I guess explain why you believe that. Okay.
I do not believe that they did for the following reasons. Legacy greens, the butts and nine black residential area in the firewall community of District Three. St. Louis.
Why read into the microphone? Yeah. Okay.
So I need to repeat myself. Legacy green supports a nice black residential area and the firewall community of District Three, St. Louis Dwyer and Gable streets within the boundaries of East Malraux, Malraux II started drive and mount Elliott. The establishment will encourage the proliferation of drugs within the community as well as hinder economic development due to the existing proximity to a marijuana consumption lat lounge. The residential area surrounding live legacy greens has a preexisting vulnerability that will also be asked for baited by the presence of a marijuana dispensary and consumption lounge. The establishment and those like it foster criminal activity, robberies, assaults, and shootouts and I just want to give greater clarification to everyone that this will pose dispensary abuts residential. We share an alleyway. There are families that live on St. Louis Street, we have children. We do not want our kids exposed to this.
Okay, the second question, the conditional use will not be interest to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes permitted. Do you believe that DC took this into consideration when rendering their decision about this establishment?
They did not take in consideration. Why do you believe DC Urban Development Corporation owns the two adjacent lots and and the and UDC property rights will be greatly violated by this use. It is reasonable to assume that the adjacent lights will be used by employees and customers of legacy greens as they are only four available off street parking spaces. This action will enter the enjoyment of UDC udcs property udcs mission is to improve the quality of life and to promote a safe drug free health clean and beautiful environment. The presence of a marijuana dispensary and consumption lab lounge directly interferes with are Michigan drunk driving is a key concern for this establishment, residing in increase and reckless driving car crashes along mount Elliott. There will be increased foot traffic spilling over into residential streets which may lead to violent encounters. Let me just see if there's any other notes. There are many residents in our community suffering from alcoholism and drug addiction. The last thing they need is a marijuana dispensary within walking distance of their home. The objective of Urban Development Corporation is to help Detroiters remove barriers that are preventing them from from employment currently in our geographic area where this dispensary is proposed. We have a 47% poverty rate. And corporations as you know at this time are looking for employees, the better jobs that offer gainful employment, most of them require that you be drug free and the experience is and I'm a resident here. I've seen people strong out they're just vulnerable. They're susceptible, and to put this in their presence, and they have families. It is wrong of us for those of us who don't to do this to them. They're vulnerable. You know, we've got them as I stated suffering from alcoholism, we've got the liquor stores everywhere. Now we're proliferated with the marijuana dispensaries.
Okay. I have one last question. The conditional use will not substantially dis diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Do you believe that B seed made the right decision regarding this issue? And if not, why not?
I believe that they had made the incorrect decision. The proliferation of liquor stores strip clubs marijuana dispensaries, has made our nine block area in the firewall community of district three unattractive to prospective homeowners with gainful employment. marijuana businesses deter the establishment of Family Centered companies in our community. According to a 2020 study conducted by the National Association of Realtors, in states where marijuana was legal, the longest 27% have seen a decrease in residential property values near dispensaries. The surrounding residential area has already experienced a significant depreciation of value in marijuana dispensary consumption lounge will only serve to further decrease already affected residential values. And one of the things that I want to point out we will get to later the master plan talks about the fact of we have in our geographic community a strip club, the Master Plan speaks to the fact of that, but one of the things that the BCA has done, you have given her approval, where we have truth gentlemen's club. You You have given them approval. Not only do they have the strip club, but you approve right where we live at. And you'll see shortly a map that shows you the distance for where we live at. You have approved for two marijuana, retail outlets. You've also approved right behind on my Elliot so these will be all my le you have approved for to Gore opera aerations they're going to build to new abilities 30,000 square feet. So we are everywhere and you'll see the map and this is the problem that we're having. Everyone loves these deals. Everyone wants to participate you know every you know people in secret so people want to go to the strip club. People want to smoke marijuana where where I reside where Urban Development's hands has been on this geographic geographic area is Island to itself. And as a consequence, let me tell you what happens. So people go to these entertainment venues and it all seeps into our community. So you see the paraphernalia in our community from when they didn't went to the marijuana dispensary. So they are electing to come into our community and do these things. And when we call the police, the police are gonna say well, you know what, there's nothing really we can do about it. And as I pointed out to everyone in the previous meeting, that we had, Chief White has stated this is the place we need to be if we Detroiters want to eradicate crime. It starts right here. Okay,
thank you hold on one second. Turning downwards. So do you see your hand up?
at Jefferson town? I just wanted to clarify there a few times misspeak where you indicated that you I believe referring to the board of zoning appeals have approved these sites. That may just be a misunderstanding, but the board of zoning appeals doesn't approve conditionally and use requests for growers or processors or any other marijuana uses. Or zoning appeals only sees marijuana is when they're appealed by community members or when variances are involved for property owners. So I just want to be clear that you may be confusing the role of another city department with this board of zoning appeals that's before you now.
I do apologize. You're correct. You gave your proof of the variance so what happens is district club needed a variance so that they can open up two provisional centers and two Gore's and you gave that approval without you giving them approval. Those four would not be in our community.
Okay, thank you, Attorney. DeMars. Former more the next big questions please.
Board Member more the condition are you shall not be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Detroit master plan. BC made a right decision. Okay. And I believe that there are they made an error and so I explained, the Master Plan repeatedly speaks to the need to reduce conflicts between land use and residential areas of the Farwell area of District Three, Cluster One. The master plan for Cluster One outlines, buffering the negative impacts of land use upon residential areas. This is not being done. The master plan speaks to establishing and enforcing designated truck routes to and from Mount Elliott and East eight now that's not being done. The master plan encourages code enforcement to maintain neighborhoods and removal of abrasive commercial uses. You can go all up and down where we live at, you know the truth. I mean, you should just literally see it, you know, you see a flash of naked women. I mean, there's no consideration that we have families, we have kids, we want to sell the right seats. You know, one of the things that the attorney spoke of last week when he came before us. He was so delighted that this establishment was going to be coming to his neighborhood and he he the only negative was the fact that he mentioned his wife is going to spend too much money, the negative in our community is this. Our kids going to get hooked on drugs. You know, there are so many negatives, you know, the negative of this, this establishment is this. We have poverty stricken kids who will look now to marijuana as the gateway to selling of illicit drugs because they are profiting so and and other things that the masterplan talks about encouragement of code enforcement as a tool to maintain neighborhoods. If there's one thing that we're all talking about improved. Detroit does not work. Code enforcement does not work in our geographic area. And let me tell you, so we go to the police. The police tell us to go to BC BC tell us to go back to the police. Then they tell us Oh code enforcement, so we put up signs in the community. They put up signs just last week. Oh, we're gonna clean the street. What do they come back and check to see if anybody's cars parked in front? No, as chief why to say and I'm gonna tell you when he said when he said I went home and went to bed, but he is white. He is white. The police can't be here with us. 24/7 We have now have to take it in our own hands, increase the vitality of commercial thoroughfare. What I heard in the people who came earlier you know a strip club, a selling marijuana or these marijuana businesses. The majority of they're all barricaded they got Jersey concrete around them for protection. This does not increase our vitality. There appears to just pathetic you know, I was in this weekend I had the opportunity. Let me go see what marijuana dispensaries look like in Hazel Park. Let me look see what they look like in Ferndale. They're off they're there. They look like your gallery as you wouldn't really know that they were really marijuana dispensaries. But one thing that I noticed they had sufficient parking and they were away from residential.
Okay. My next question is the establishment of a conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for use as permitted in the district. Plans for such development and improvement shall be evidence in a written or published Community Plan, development plan cluster board or a similar document. Okay. As I've stated
UDC stoners and granters. The recipient the receipt of which we will likely be adversely affected by UDC. Its proximity to marijuana retailers and consumption establishment. And I can tell you this, our funders and who we're going after to really support our community right now. They have an expectation just as chief wife has an expectation. They have an expectation from an advocacy standpoint that we will start as a community open up our mouths, the philanthropic community can't do that. We have to begin to do that. Now. They can support us in our efforts to say, hey, we don't want these things, but we don't open up our mouse. And now one of the things that you see as the economy changes, you know, they're looking for impact. They want us to be able to show them that we're going to make the investment. And our problem is this, you know we everything about who we are as drug free, you know, no one is going to answer the plight in in the issue of people of color in America. We have to take that leap and that's something that you sit saw with, you know, everyone supported Martin Luther King Rosa Parks, but but but they took the lead and so that's what I'm asking for the opportunity to do. There's a letter from a business owner in the community and that business owner is on the same block as this proposed legacy greens. And when I tell you this, this business owner has made a commitment to this community before legacy greens was here, but he states in his letter and you have a copy to see that the establishment of a marijuana consumption business could have negative effects on property values and create disinvestment in our area, making it more difficult for homeowners and business owners to sell their properties or track new residents, tenants and employees. The opening of a marijuana consumption establishment sends the message to our young people that drug use is acceptable and even condoned by the community. This could lead to increased rates of drug use and addiction, particularly among vulnerable populations such as teenagers, the community will not look favorably on would not be looked favorably on by companies who have a zero tolerance for drugs, inclusive of marijuana policy. This may deter businesses from operating within the community. And I must say in district three, we're already feeling the effects of this proliferation. You know you live in cringe when a homeowner is moving because you know what you're gonna get. You're probably gonna get some investors. You know, we're not, you know, the land bankers challenge and I can show you I have deeds to show you now that the land bank and district three is just selling houses for $1,000 You know, we had been devalued you know, and we need in order to sustain any good community, you need homeownership, and that is being taken away from us. Our greatest fight is that everyone else is coming to the table with things that from an economic standpoint, the worst that the people who came here the day have the worst that they have, is that they can sell their property. That's the worst they're gonna have. We're not those seeds of goodness, are not being sold in District Three. It's not happening for us. Okay, my last question was Peters adequate utilities access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been a will be provided. Okay. I'll answer that. The Mount Elliott is a high volume truck route to Willer semi trucks travel along a single lane and are frequent. Okay. There was a lot of vehicles being parked along the curb side of Mount Eliot in areas that are one lane roads, causes trucks to veer over to the lane. Of the on going traffic in opposite directions to avoid the potential of hitting a parked vehicle. Get you
a board member Watson number seven please.
Am I at seven?
Yes seven.
So will the conditional use be compatible with the
king I wasn't finished. Okay, I wasn't finished but I can start listening back. Okay. Okay.
Question number seven. Will the conditional use be compatible with the capacities of the public service and public facilities that are affected by the proposed use? In your in your opinion? Okay.
Miss peek, I can give you a break in to take this question. Okay. So what we have here is a consumption lounge that quite frankly doesn't have the infrastructures to support an influx of customers and patrons we have a 288 square foot consumption lounge. What's going to happen is that it's reasonable to to assume that people are going to purchase marijuana and they're going to go out side to to indeed use the marijuana and this is certainly not compatible with the use of the surrounding areas as it's been explained by Miss peek that this is a bunch of residential area. This abuts the UDC property that's being used for community development for community outreach. Having drug use nearby, if not right outside is certainly not compatible with the surrounding areas. There's also going to be a continuous flow of customers coming and going throughout the day and the issues that come with that misspeak previously talked about the the roadways in the parking lots and that infrastructure not supporting the crowds but now we have to consider that there's going to be pedestrians crossing the street. There's going to be going to be pedestrians getting out of parked vehicles and a very narrow thoroughfare. There's also been a representation by Dr. Floyd that she recently obtained a license as a marijuana event organizer. So now we are looking at the fact that there's going to be quote unquote, parties or something to that effect. And we have to think about everything that comes with that the increased noise the increased odor, the increased sights. And sound in general disturbances. And then also to consider that we don't have a parking lot or parking capabilities to support this kind of influx of patrons, which would no doubt lead to people using the roadways using udcs Lots invest depriving them of their use of that lot for its intended purpose.
Next, will the conditional use be compatible with land uses on the adjacent and nearby zoning lots in terms of location size? And character? For the province of this section nearby zoning lodge you owe me those lands on the same side of the street, same side of the block block face as the subject property.
And I can take this one too, as long as peak so the applicant site plan indicates that there are four off street parking spaces and one of those is for handicapped persons and UDC owns the two adjacent lots next to the legacy greens. The intention for these lots is that they will eventually be developed into for wholesome community activities for people of all ages, and nearby marijuana dispensary and consumption lounge. All the safety concerns that come with that as we've already talked about the the noises, the odors, the safety risk posed by that that directly threatens UD C's intended use of the adjacent lots and the same site. The next block over UDC is the owner of a 10,000 square foot building. There are plans currently in place to develop this into workforce development. skill development facility and a community meeting space. This I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Okay. The proximity to legacy green it also poses a heightened risk the the kind of people that will likely be utilizing this community. meeting space and skills development facility are individuals who are likely vulnerable to increased risk risk of addictions and substance abuse. This is going to impact udcs ability to serve the people it is directly trying to impact and it's also going to directly impact udcs ability to maintain funding for their work. As misspeak has talked about this organization UDC is reliant on grants and donors who are going to be discouraged about donating money to a project that is right next door to a facility where marijuana will be dispensed and consumed.
Next, will the conditional use hinder or have a detrimental effect upon your attorney patterns? Ingress egress traffic flow nearby intersection traffic visibility in the clear vision triangle and other vehicular or pedestrian traffic patterns in the vicinity.
And our position is that it will this is a consumption lounges. It's not somewhere where somebody's going to run in and grab something certainly could be but the dual purpose one of the purposes of this is to be a consumption lounge. The intent is that people will be staying for prolonged periods of time to consume marijuana. There's four off street parking and they've indicated that they anticipate having about six employees. There's not enough parking here for employees, let alone customers frequenting the establishment. The outcome of that is going to be individuals parking on udcs property, parking on the street so now we have udcs being deprived of their property. We have people parking on a one lane road truck route that creates a serious hazard to pedestrians getting out of their vehicle. And then when if they are actually able to get a spot in the parking lot. This is a one way exit and entrance all in one. Someone leaving the parking lot while someone else is trying to enter. That's likely that there's going to be accidents that arise from that, especially considering what the use of this facility is for. And then we also have just increased traffic so customers are going to be using neighboring intersections. They're going to be cutting through the abutting residential area likely to get to the main thoroughfares so now we just have increased foot traffic but then just vehicular traffic in the residential area as well.
Thank you for more robbers next day please.
Okay, number 10 here is that yeah. 1112 Yes, the conditional useful. See, how can I word this? Do you believe that the conditional use or actually the applicant for the conditional use will quote unquote be a bad player by not following rules set forth by BC and the licensing?
Yes, and two factor 10 Going back to the BC letter of April 12 of 2023. And there it says a total building footprint is going to be 1924 square feet. B seed says that there needs to be seven parking spaces that are normally required by that ordinance. And as we've already stated multiple times there's only four off street parking spaces and that's inadequate. But in reality, 10 spaces 10 parking spaces are what's actually required for a facility of this size under 61 Dash 14 Dash 58.5 That that code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of building. So now we have to consider where will the other cars go? They're going to park on Urban Development's adjacent lands are in Mount Elliott's and they're going to be infiltrating the surrounding residential areas.
Number 11. Do you think that the conditional use is consistent with the approved preliminary site plan?
We do not. The if we look at that April 12 2023 BC letter again and I really want to draw attention to item 13. On page four of the letter where it says the consumption of medical marijuana on the premises is prohibited. But this is intended as a consumption lounge So that right there is inconsistent. Also we have the inconsistencies with the parking requirements. You know, we know that there's actually 10 parking spaces that are required, and they only have the four and then the BC letter indicates that they require six so we have a lot of inconsistent inconsistencies here.
Number 12 Could the conditional use again
Do you believe that the public health safety and welfare will be protected?
We do not. The public safety and welfare will be harmed by the allowance of this conditional use. Miss pika talked about grinning, Inc, which is another neighboring establishment who's also has legitimate concerns that they've raised about. About this proposed use that community is concerned about safety about public intoxication. If this conditional use as a result of the approved conditional use. This again, we cannot stress this enough that this is abuts a residential area. We are putting children and families directly at risk. Of the increased dangers of drunk driving of crime of marijuana odor, drug use, illegal and legal and safety concerns related to increased foot and vehicle parking. You now have an area where drug use I'll be legal is within the neighborhood. It I don't think it's crazy to assume that individuals who are selling or are using illegal drugs now know that there is a building here with people who enjoy drug use, who say that that's not going to bring illicit drug use into the neighborhood because now we're shining a spotlight on individuals who are already impaired. It's threatened by the risk of drunk driving this is just like we would consider drunk driving this is a safety risk to all to pedestrians to those in the surrounding areas. And notably, the applicant hasn't made any mention of any if there is any security measures that are going to be taken to protect the public health in general were welfare of the surrounding areas including the residential zones and I think that's really important to note.
Okay, former chairman and lastly, please
gonna have to know
this 1314 15
Understand, I ask the question, the conditional use shall not involve activities, processes, materials, equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to the physical environment or to public health and welfare, general welfare by reason of excessive production of noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors. Can you provide any feedback on this?
Yeah, so this conditional use would directly go against would directly go against this. So inherent in a facility that allows for marijuana consumption and use is that there's going to be there's going to be odor, there's going to be fumes there's going to be smoke. There's no mention of any engineering controls. That are going to be taken by the applicant to eliminate detectable odors outside. There's necessarily going to be more noise the onslaught of customers is going to mean more people. With that comes more music more vehicles, more noise in general. And there's the risk of increased nighttime traffic. Now we have a facility that is going to be imposing a nuisance on nearby residents who are going to be forced to face increased noise and the glare of headlights in the evening hours when they're trying to enjoy their family. Or when they're trying to sleep. And there's also no clear understanding of how this how debris will be handled at the location again, where there is where there are people not only is there noise, but there's also debris. So we have a proposed conditional use that inherently we'll create a greater increased risk of excessive fumes, odor noise and just cause a general nuisance to the surrounding areas including the residential zone.
conditional use is consistent with and promote answer and purpose of this chapter. What are your thoughts on it?
Our position is that it is not consistent with and does not promote the intent and purpose of the chapter. The purpose of the chapter is defined in Section 50 Dash three dash 241 And I'm just going to paraphrase this, but it talks about that there needs to be consideration of the impacts of the proposed conditional use upon the neighboring uses. There needs to be a review of dimensional requirements, location construction, development, and operation of each use and this is necessary to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. a marijuana dispensary and consumption lodge directly interferes and is highly incompatible with neighboring properties that are being used for residential purposes. This includes raising families and providing a safe space to live unfettered by the dangers of crime and drug use. Legacy screens facility does not possess the capacity to accommodate its intended purpose. The surrounding properties, including udcs will ultimately bear the brunt of this. This means overflow parking on the streets and the UDC property, creating a safety risk and generally depriving you to see of the exclusive use of its own property.
Or a public civic or institutional use is proposed on land zoned industrial, the impacts of the normal operations that are allowed in the district including noise, smoke, fumes, glare and odor, shall not adversely affect the employees patrons or users of the proposed public, civic or institutional facility. What are your thoughts?
Yes, so allowing a marijuana dispensary and consumption lounge means allowing increased noise, increased smoke fumes, glare and odor that is inherent in such a facility with such a facility. This increased nuisance it will adversely affect the udcs use of its property. For example, employees patrons and users of the 10,000 square foot building that we discussed previously that's intended use will be for community development, job training and community meeting space. Individuals who may otherwise want to work there or use those services may be deterred by the odor of marijuana and choose to no longer associate with or endorsed the use of this facility. This also applies to the lats adjacent to the legacy green property in which the UDC intends to develop for community outreach space and to use for community driven events. The noise, smoke fumes and odors inherent in this facility, likely to deter those who would benefit and enjoy such effects. We have to think about children and families and if you're I don't know how likely parents are to take their children to an event where they get out of their car and they're hit with a waft of marijuana smoke I think that would put understandably put a lot of parents on edge and probably deter them from using the space. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional questions for from the board? To the petitioner? Any additional question for the petitioner at all from the board. All right. Thank you. All right. We'll call you back up. Hey, Miss speak. Thank you. All right. Here from city attorneys to code any code building safety. And in your response you please address because I did hear some ote ordinances spilled out 61 In
green board members Brian COVID Steve Detroit law department here on behalf of BC. The the petitioner or her counsel did reference I believe it was section 61, which was an old code reference. I'm not sure what specifically that applies to because the current code only goes up to 50 and that is with the zoning code. Attorney demurrers who's more familiar with the zoning code than I am might be able to point us to where that has been recodified if it still exists, but I did not catch the actual section reference that was noted there. I don't know if this board wants to proceed by going through 15 factors again. I know it's been a long day for everyone. But I will start with a statement and then allow or you can ask any questions you might have. I was able to speak last week before this case was adjourned. And as I stated then the petitioners arguments seem to be related to general complaints about allowing a marijuana use near her property and as this board knows, the state of Michigan legalized marijuana, the city of Detroit after a voter referendum also approved of marijuana and and although there are still a lot of things being worked out it is a use that is a approved by the city and legal use and something that as a city has been determined wants to be I'll say pursued. And essentially, I think what we heard today were just a lot of grievances about someone who was opposed to marijuana use, which I I would note is distinct from her aggrieved person standard where she claimed Specific, Measurable use by virtue of owning the adjacent property. A lot of the claims today about you know, crime or illegal drug use which is separate and apart. From marijuana use are unrelated to the reasons that she is before you today and has standing in this case, which was simply parking and potential negative effects from the marijuana facility onto the adjacent property that she owns. So to the extent that she's she's here trying to debate the the negatives or positives of allowing marijuana use, I think this is an inappropriate forum for that, although, as I stated last week, have have a high degree of respect for advocacy in the community and the way that she's trying to improve that community. There were a few few references during the presentation to concerns about the size of the property that, you know, it's approved for a consumption use, but there's a restriction as that prohibits onsite use of medical marijuana. I'll note that condition number 13 In the letter is specific to medical marijuana, not all marijuana. So retail adult use marijuana could be consumed at the site. I think that was just a confusion with the petitioners counsel as to what the conditional uses stated. And just as to the 15 factors, which this board knows about the appropriateness of the facility in where it's located. On the mount Elliot is a is a pot or a road full of industrial use zone for light industrial. In this property, as stated by the petitioner does share an alleyway that backs up to the rear of residential properties, but as to the properties considered when assessing, assessing the appropriateness of the use, which is stated in the code is the adjacent properties of the block on the same side of the street. This use would be consistent with them and that is locating a residential marijuana and consumption lounge in an industrial property. This board knows there are very tight controls on marijuana usage as far as location to avoid proliferation or undue concentration one area. It was asked last week how many consum or how many marijuana retail stores are in District Three was able to confirm with the Office of marijuana entrepreneurship. There are 16 Let me just double check that number. Sorry, there are there are 11 retail establishments in district three that is out of a total of 36 retail establishments currently licensed in the city. And there are maps available online for that, as you will see there. There's a concentration along a mile road, I think because the businesses want access to suburban consumers around that area. And district three has a large amount of the city's industrial land in it. But you know, 11 out of 36 That's, that's certainly more than one seven, which would be if the properties are evenly distributed, but I don't think it reaches the level of undue concentration.
Okay, you have anything else to go?
I just want to say as to the questions about appropriateness in the area as as I stated, it's an industrial zoned area, a lot of surrounding industrial use. And I think it's appropriate I don't think there's there's evidence that there will be any nuisance created by this site, specifically marijuana facilities when they go for licensure, which happens after zoning approval, have to demonstrate to the state that they will have controls as far as who they sell to making sure that they're they're appropriate consumers. Not selling to anyone under age, they have to submit a security plan. So to the extent that the petitioner or their counsel question whether those existed, I would say that those there is a process for creating those before licensure. And I assume that the petitioner or that the applicant, the marijuana operator would prepare those is going to be complied with all state and city regulatory requirements.
Okay, thank you. All right. Any questions for city attorney? Back? Okay, I do see 120 I mean, returning warming Roberts.
So under the grief, and I have a couple of questions actually, under the agreement, persons doesn't require that there's this specific you know, specific issue that triggers the the, you know, the aggrieved person, don't they have have to have, like one specific type of an issue.
My understanding is that doesn't require that the petitioner has actually experienced a spin on an issue of harm from the proposed zoning use as discussed, yes or not yesterday last week. The the board and the petitioner are able to draw inferences of likely harm that would happen, but the aggrieved persons standard, the harm suffered by the petitioner has to be separate and distinct from general complaints that would be experienced by members of the public generally.
I will add that we've we've passed that portion I think that greed purse, the grief persons standard was solely for standing. So this is this is a now we're an appeal of BCWS recommendation to prove the marijuana Gungeon facility and I think it's an assumption loan as well. So we we have to address address these 15 factors to see if they building a safety air somehow, in their judgment. At that time they made that determination which did you have another question? Yeah.
So out of curiosity, where where is the petitioner? Who I see in the audience where that process?
You mean the the marijuana applicant business? They might be able to answer that question. Yeah, it's
gonna come down. So because they're there, their property is now going to impacted by the decision we make today.
Right, they need to obtain zoning approval, which includes resolving this appeal before they are able to obtain a license and there's a bit of nuance to that because it's on a point award basis. So one of the the methods of obtaining points or one of the ways that licenses are scored is you have higher points for having received the conditional land use. But certainly you needed before you would be able to open or operate in any capacity, you need to have your zoning approvals.
Okay, we're gonna we're gonna call it that that building a safety Petitioner down shortly. Let's go to or not then board member Watson, but go ahead and proceed with your last question. Okay.
Is a petitioner going to be coming before us for any variances in particular parking?
No, I am not aware of that and has not been submitted to BC it is it is not a part of this application. I believe, as was stated there's four parking spaces in the rear of the property
but but it's been brought up by other board members that you know, and by the applicant that parking issue
1500 square feet right now,
so it does not require for
whatever reason I just wanted Yeah,
I just wanted to bring that
the the the petitioners I did some code that requires parking, but because this is under 3000 square feet. There's no specific parking required.
I just want to clear if I knew the answer, but I want to clarify Yeah. Fair question.
We're not then born was
yes. Hi, if I could provide more information about the operation of a weed consumption lounge. So in terms of people outside or or can they smoke weed outside or outside and I guess they can hang out outside but what I can try make loud music because it is
so so they're a marijuana consumption Lounge is a specific land use that has to be approved in order for there to be on site consumption of marijuana. So that would, to my understanding need to be in the building. There's there's no special rules that apply for playing outside music. So you know, no business in the city can do that. We have a noise ordinance related to it. The There was reference to the petitioner or not the petitioner to the marijuana business, obtaining a license to operate as an event organizer. That is a separate state level license that is not specifically related to this site, but would allow the event or the marijuana company either as a company or a business depends who got the license to operate marijuana events. At other or ad approved locations in the facility or in the city became you have to be approved as a marijuana event operator, and you have to obtain a separate approval for every marijuana event that's held so that would be like if you if you put on gathering of AED wouldn't be at a park but it would be at a private warehouse or something if you wanted to have some sort of a party but that's that's unrelated to this site unless the company were to obtain a specific permit to hold a marijuana event at the site
licensed purchase or a weed organizer. I mean, you know who knows what will happen but it's be smoke would not be surprised if that was the next step for this.
I would defer to to Attorney DeMars who in addition to advising this board is is also one of our foremost experts in the city's marijuana regulations. But I think that the qualification of the business as an event organizer should be unrelated to consideration about this site because there are two different licenses and different operations. And and this site is not specifically approved for any sort of marijuana events, it can have regular consumption if it obtains a designated consumption option. License. Again, it's only here for a zoning approval. But that's separate and apart from any event organizing. Okay,
let's go to warmer Watson.
My question is Are you aware of any of the circumstances where bsme Ed does not grant would not grant a marijuana use next to certain established use?
Yeah, there's a significant amount of restrictions on the spacing requirements for marijuana. It can't be located in a drug free zone which is 1000 feet from any school, public park. Other public facilities you can't be located within. I believe it's 750 feet now from other retail establishments for forgive me the spacing requirements were subject to recent amendment by city council. So I believe that's the new requirement. And essentially the the public facing marijuana uses which are your retail uses your consumption lounges on your micro businesses have a minimum spacing requirement from other similar facilities to ensure or to at least combat that there's no undue concentration and be seen routinely denies marijuana applicants that come before them that are located within certain feet from a park or a school or church I we don't get a lot of those cases because a lot of times they weed themselves out by understanding that they will not be able to obtain a license with their in those restrictions. They still get here. I've been before this board myself defending DC in those such denials.
And the reason for that would be that we don't want to allow drug use next to churches, schools and other uses already established. Marijuana is a drug. We're talking about a drug drug consumption on the premises is what we're talking about.
Advocating beneficial. Not sure you obey with the consumption lounge. And I think this is one of the courses so building stages approval was I believe, is that as an
apologist board members we cannot hear chairperson Thomas on Zoom.
Yeah, I'm on red here. All right. I was asking a trainee Cole if he can dive into the consumption rounds. Definition. Actually, if you can tell us what this what the building and safety applicant what they were actually approved for.
That is that's spelled in the letter but I believe they were approved for a marijuana retail provisioning facility and a designated marijuana consumption lab establishment.
Okay, now we're familiar with the retail and it's 36 City why you stayed with 11 and District Three, the consumption lounge. Orson how many exists and can you give us a gist of what the consumption loans
I believe there are no current consumption lounges licensed in the city of Detroit, as discussed briefly last week. They're authorized by our licensing ordinance. But in the first round of licensing, which happened last year, there were none that reached the minimum standard or I think none that had land use approval and applied at that time. So there are currently no consumption lounges off the top of my head. I don't know if other consumption lounges have been permitted in the city or if this is one of the first ones but attorney DeMars in his other capacities might have more knowledge of that.
Okay. All right. And it just no questions. Okay, all right. Okay, any questions from the board? Thank you. Very much. carnico. I will go to our building safety. As Phil said, can you speak to the consumption lounge conversation we just had. Attorney co indicated that none air in existence to date and this could be possibly the first one you guys approved?
Yes, I don't through the chair. Um, I I think we might have had one more but they haven't got to the process of getting a permit yet. So this this is this will probably be it right here.
Thank you very much. Okay. I appreciate that. Mr. Wilson. Attorney dimmers do see your hand as well.
Thank you, Chairperson Thomas, just just to briefly clarify the way that a designated consumption marijuana consumption establishment would come into effect is first getting zoning approval, then getting the permits and CFO and CFC then getting a license. So there have not been any of these establishments licensed yet, because they're still in the process of obtaining their zoning and permits, and that's partly what's going on
here. Okay, thank you. All right. You know, something that just Pam, let's hear from the BC petitioner. Yes, and come down and introduce yourselves by stating your name and addresses. Miss pure focus where you all in?
Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Danny's Floyd. One night before suddenly I'm the owner of the property.
Good afternoon, Michael Bay, John. The architect for the project. Yes. Hey.
All right. Any questions for Petitioner here? Okay, can you guys tell us a little bit about the history?
I know it's been a long day. It's been a long year. It's it's pretty flat. And it's been a long year for a doctor right here. Maybe I can cut to the chase and go through this one here. But before I start, I just wanted to say misspeaks had some kind of a comment about the attorney that he was cheering up that his wife is once this establishment gets open that she's going to spend a lot of money. I think she's mistaken that hearing with the previous hearing last week, with a restaurant, it wasn't him. Okay. Now, I'll go to this one here, and most of the questions are about the consumption lounge. Okay, the consumption lounge. It's made only of 288 square feet. The only reason the doctor actually got that consumption, round up loan approval into that facility because she's got couple of employees. Okay, they actually do marijuana as the medicinal purposes and instead of them standing outside and smoking marijuana outside which it is allowed outside, there'll be smoking inside that confined space. Now I have designed and I have built most of the dispensaries the provisional center that grows in Michigan and 10 different states. There is some kind of a system we even even when you walk into a provisional Center. First of all, everything is actually packaged right now. They don't sell they don't sell any loose flowers. And then there is an ERP system actually, it's an energy recovery system that's used in casinos where they smoke cigars, and I'm a big cigar smoker. You can have that one there inside the provisioning center. And it is on the plans. It is submitted with the Mechanical Plant, it will be submitted to BC and there will be another system like that where the charcoal carbon filters that will actually not take the smell outside the building. We're using that in Grow facilities. You can even go into Grow facilities what the smell is atrocious inside the building, but you cannot even smell it outside. So there is a system for that. So basically that 288 square feet, it's not going to have a music it's not going to have anything. It's basically for a couple of employees. They actually depend on medicine to smoke it and she doesn't want to be smoking and outside even its industrial area that allowed that can go into their car and they can smoke it but she doesn't want to smoke it out there. Now as far as the parking and why this place is there. Yeah, I do understand and I am the one who got more so the other provision the center almost an hitting mount earlier, there is no traffic there is no footstep and they're the only idea of the only reason she got that is actually basically for delivery purposes. She's not going to have people walk in and driving through Montpelier, there is not much traffic. It's only truckers so no one is going to come from the suburbs, or from the city to go into that small building right in the middle of Montpelier. It will be basically for deliveries most of our businesses will be for delivery. And then the parking in the back. Few of them will be actually for employees. If a customer happens to pass by, maybe he can park maybe he can come into the facility, but the majority of her visits, it will be for delivery. Okay, no, I don't see that. Dr. Floyd has actually been portrayed as an outsider and she is not from the community. She is actually from the community a year ago when this one the ordinance passed after three years of deliberating with counsel going through lawsuits and all that and they came up with an ordinance to bring Detroiters as an entrepreneur as an opportunity so they can enter this market. Dr. Floyd called me up and matter of fact, I am the one who actually went into the Detroit marijuana venture into one of their meetings, and I offered my services for the employer because the city have done a lot to me. You know, for me, I benefited a lot from the city for doing a lot of different businesses for the last 30 years. So I offered my services for free, otherwise she would not even be in this position. I'm very expensive. So I did offer my services for social equities and that was canceled and taped. The idea about that was cancelled. T. 's proposal is let's get some Detroiters to have the opportunity to log into this market. And that's the reason she was here. She has been trying for a year to get into this one into this business. She was hoping to get into the round two. It doesn't mean she gets approved. She gets a building permit. She got a certificate of occupancy that she is in business. She still have to go through round three now. She had 5050 chance before that before all this delays and all that kind of stuff. Now she might have 10% chance the licenses will probably be over and round three. Who knows? As far as dealing with the community. I did actually talk to Pat Bosh. We speak is the face of Pat posh and I will say I will say it straight up Pat Bosh. If you don't actually contribute to her organization. She will come against you. There is other organizations in the city of Detroit. She's got a lot of other organizations that she's supported. She's got family support, she's got friendship supporting. She actually invested in that property more than anyone else misspeak or parallelisation. Maybe they invested $100 a slot. You can buy NLRC one instead of Detroit for 100 balance. She invested hundreds of 1000s of dollars. And that's not based on assumptions. She did not wait for this thing here to be approved. Once everything was done with BC, and she wasn't sure. Okay. And I said you know what, you're fine. Go ahead and do the closing. She did the closing on the building. She did not know that there is a community of someone, which we don't even know where they are. We tried to contact them they have no phone number. They have no buildings that can actually associate with all they have is just an email. She is still at Reuters. She is still part of the community. She is not an outsider. Maybe she can speak to herself to actually what she has replied. Okay,
thank you, Michael. I am a resident of district three as well. I have I own a home there. I live there I shopped there. My children went to school there. And so I am very invested in the community not only because I'm a business owner, but because I live there as well. We did our due diligence on this property. We knocked on doors, we had conversations with neighbors meetings with neighbors and things of that nature. Some of them are here today. I hope they're still on. It's been a really long day. But if they're not here, we have submitted over 20 letters of support for the community. So when I hear Ms. P talk about what the community wants, it's a it's a direct contradiction from what we've discovered in our due diligence with having conversations with the community and I believe that you should have those in your packet. I don't really have a lot to say besides the fact that this is a very interesting process. We will be one of the first black women in this industry in the city. I'm a resident I'm invested here and our mission is to restore the community are we reached out to miss peak hours. Our mission and vision is very similar to hers which is interesting. We will be using the funds to restore we already do a lot of community events. And we are here just to say we hope that you uphold BCWS decision today. Thank you. Do you have any questions for me?
Any questions for the BC Petitioner here? For the board, we have a quick question for you. Which is something about delivery. Right? That was primarily the business model. Deliver.
So it is actually similar to premises. It's like she's got fewer employees and spaces under 188 square feet. How many people can you actually fit in? Instead of like I said, a smoking outside that can actually smoke inside of most of her business. I know for a fact I built a lot of them. I'm a part of a lot of them. Okay, that there is no foot traffic over Mt. Eliot. Most of the traffic is basically on eight mile. So she will be dependent on delivery for a business. And I do know some other places actually an eight mile they depend on delivery. That's where they make the money right now.
question regarding the assumption lounge licenses. I was on our understanding the person that the city was trying to push more consumption lounge going under utilized after they passed these things. They
are been trialing each week. Yeah, they have been trying and actually I've been contact I'm not going to name who and who. But yeah, they asked me to see if actually I can find some more clients that can actually do consumption. loans because it is part of the ordinance. No one has applied yet.
Did you say that? The consumption portion Lounge is only 280 square feet.
Yeah, so what we're using it not only for the consumption for employees, but we will be using for educational purposes as well. One of the biggest thing is overdosing. So we want to make sure we have an educational we have an RN on staff that will be educating staff members and or community members regarding dosing and so it's an educational use as well.
You just had something up for the footprint of this facility here
Okay, so it's proposed to be in front of that's yeah, oh, you can see. Practice up around a restaurant was a provisioning retail center. Parking into that product.
Okay, all right.
All right. Any additional questions from the board? Thank you. Thank you. All right.
Right now let's
go to the community for community testimonials. Anyone here support?
I think Mr. Chairman,
we can just go to immunity participant, both in support and opposition
diversion. Thomas your microphone may be muted.
Thank you for catching me. Hello. It's three o'clock eat already is 305 to be exact. Okay. Um, IVR support or opposition. If you want to provide a community testimonial around this particular facility, please do so by pressing star nine by phone option plus y by MAC device plus y by keyboard. If you'd like to provide your opinion your community testimonial regarding this matter to date, press star nine by phone option plus y by MAC device Alt plus y by keyboard. Let's start with the people that is here. In the audience. Actually, before I go to
the chairman, Mr. Doherty is on unmuted so I want let's get him so he doesn't speak at a time
who was just now
he dirty and dirty.
Okay, let's go.
Yeah, so thank you. And I was like
already? Yes, sir. Let's get you sworn in first. Can you state your name and address for the record and Miss Pierre for us? Where are you in?
Yeah, my name is Evan Doherty. I am my address is 70 West Alexandria Street, Detroit, Michigan. And I would like to speak in support.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
We have some more. Pet boss.
Bad boss. His boss walking back. His boss
asking you to unmute his boss. One more time.
Hello. Hi, can you hear me okay?
Yes, we can you state your name and address for
the record Ms. Piriformis where your name is Patricia Bosch. I'm executive director of the North town Community Development Corporation. 20017 VanDyke. Detroit 48234. My name has been mentioned it tearing
his boss
is fearful for you and his boss you form your testimony for the board stays true
as Boston here's
your testimony before the board today the truth. I do. Thank you,
Miss Bhatia. You've been going on for too long, apparently. You haven't been?
Yes, sir. In terms of what has been said. I think the merits of this case have been addressed through the attorney and MS peak. And I do not think the emotional arguments of the applicant, the original applicant, Dr. Denise Floyd have any merit with the legality of the questions on the table. The question is did BC take into account all 5015 factors of the ordinance and I do believe that through the testimony of Miss peek and the attorney that they have adequately answered that the BC did not allow all 15 factors to be heard. And thereby I believe that all the emotional arguments of social equity should be set aside and the legality of the ordinance should prevail here, and that's why I support the applicant of this BCA hearing. Thank you for more one on one to say a lot of testimony has been said that of the number of use and city wide only a lovin exists in district three and of those a lovin how many are found on Magnolia alone. And certainly mount Elliott is the direct route for garbage to Jade bonds at six mile. So you now are adding another environmental factor to the degradation of property that people like Vanessa P and her nonprofit and other nonprofits are trying to make sure that the quality of life is adhered to. Thank you.
Next person Kena Cummings.
Mr. Young yourself, please Hi. Can you hear me? Yes.
Hi, my name is Kena Come on. a resident was the lowest
be sworn out offer second you sound garbled. Also, I'm not sure what happened. But that's where you and Miss Pierre fall.
Upon your testimony for today's true
Okay, proceed. Yeah, one minute.
Yeah, so I'm I'm a member of the community I've been over here about a year and basically my whole life I do not miss P. I do not miss LOI. Um, I spoke to miss Floyd and a couple of her members. I speak for the community as well. We are not against the dispensary. We will actually you know, speak into your phone please. We are not against the dispensary. He speaks he speaks for the community. But as the community I am a part of the community and we are not against the motto my neighbor, multiple my neighbors we are discussing and we don't think it's a bad idea.
Thank you very much now.
May I speak please?
Now Yes. Sir. Okay. Director brown next person.
Excuse me, we can't hear any of the board members or the director on the Zoom. Sorry. And you just you're still muted.
Yours now
the 550590590590 on your phone number.
State your name and address for the record. Miss piriformis were you in?
I'm sorry, who are you calling?
My system was speaking. Whoever it's 590
That would be me. My name is Melanie Tate.
I live at 19465 Dwyer Street.
I am opposed to this dispensary.
Okay. Thank you, Dr. Brown.
Telephone number and 430430 unmute
yourself please.
One more time. Telephone number 430 nd 430 asking you to unmute.
I think they did the first time there we go. Okay, state your name and address for the record and Miss Pierre for us. Where are you? In? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes.
Yes, my address is 19317 St. Louis, member of the community and I have posted a post to this specific dispensaries in this specific location through the proximity. I really want to express it to be as a community as a whole. So back to 2006.
So you state your name and address for the record.
I say that again. My address. My first name is Julius. My last name is the barley thing. My address is 19317 St. Louis Street.
Just warm in our writing
viewed farm your testimony for the board today as a truth.
Yes, thank you. Now go with your statement. One more time. You were in opposition?
Yeah, apologize. Apologize. I'm opposed. Not necessarily to the fancy but this specific dispensary in this specific location due to the proximity to the community at hand. We as a group of community members have been volunteering while far back in 2006 when numerous projects for public safety and stabilization of this community and other community members address the issues of public safety back in 2006 pre foreclosures when precinct one I didn't necessarily available from the police. We addressed it later in 2010 2012 along with the police in terms of addressing inappropriate property taxes and foreclosures and working with seniors. In order to stabilize the specific areas from 2012 2018. You know the community members address issues in terms of finding funding outside the city of Detroit to adjacent playground and Justin to that and then other community members did numerous board up cleanups to cure property that could be saved. As a kid progress that cannot be saved. This has been an issue and try that we keep an area. A lot of licensed therapists don't have a PhD. But I've been over 20 years working with kids at risk and both professional as well as a volunteer and I can get to something with you. This is very, very close to those kids who are dangerous. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Director Brian, anyone else? That is that Mr. Chairman, daughter ego. I ready? Yeah. Okay. They already have already spoken it. Yeah.
Okay, okay. gainer. P
gainers.
He gainer
gainer to unmute yourself.
Hi, good day
okay. My name is
Pamela Gaynor 8210 Suzanne Street. Do you affirm your testimony for the board today's truth? I do. Thank you Yeah, when
your your can't hear you you. You got to get a signal. You're in a matrix.
I'm Dr. Danny sloyd and I have worked. Can you hear me now? No, I
have to hear you a little bit better now. Okay.
I have worked with Dr. Floyd in the community. We have utilized to say Detroit, say center now for the third year for our Juneteenth Celebration, which is geared to the community and educating adolescents and youth on the flower as well as educational components. With tutoring in math and ELA because I'm in the educational field. I am a paraprofessional for Detroit Public School community district. So I think that her community outreach, and that her I think that she has love for her community and I think that the business would be a great investment for the city.
Thank you very much, ma'am.
Marvin Davis,
Marvin Davis. Can you hear me? you state your name and your name and address for the record? And Miss beautiful was where are you in?
Marvin Davis, can you hear me? Yes. Do you own properties on Dwyer Street? One six.
Davis, Mr. Davis? Oh, hold on one second, please.
Your farm your testimony before the board today is the truth.
Yes, I do.
Thank you. You may proceed one minute. Um
I've been listening to everybody's testimony and everything but this is a free country. Everybody has a right to believe in their dreams. I hear two people opposing but I don't hear them opposing alcohol in their community right there on Mount Eliot and southern MMA everywhere around there everybody that got a business. It was their dream leaving the people that live next door. Everybody that's on here talking for Dr. Floyd understand. This is a good person. But sometimes, sometimes people overlook the fact that how hard it was for their dreams and when they get to where they are. They try to put a roadblock and a dam up for somebody else's during But Dr. Floy has no intentions on making things worse for community. everything she's done since for the numerous years I've known her has always been first people first and then herself. So I think I am one of the ones that stand with her and trying to open this facility because nothing but good can come out of it irregardless of what it looked like nothing but good will come out of it.
Thank you very much. spoke first.
Right okay. First and
I don't know who spoke once already.
Okay. Is that a director routing see anyone else? But oh man.
That's it Mr. Chan. Okay.
I think Daughtery already spoke earlier.
Can you Okay?
Let me unmute him. First. Let me see what this is about. Mr. Notary.
Can I be heard?
I know you've already spoken on this matter. I did not get to speak. Okay, go ahead and proceed. Your name and address for the record. Miss fearfulness wording
My name is Evan Doherty. My address is 70 West Alexandria Street in Detroit, Michigan. We did speak we did hear from you earlier. No, you call him in and then you went to public comment in person and then you went to Pat Bush before you could
Okay, go ahead. One minute. I was fearful. I will say that hold on one second. Yep. Here for just warming you I can't
We can't hear inspector purify on Zoom.
During the testimony before the today's to true. Yes.
All right. You have one minute sir. Okay.
So I will say I'm very disappointed at the petitioner Vanessa peak and also Pat bushes. Northtown CDC, depiction of what happened also a disregard for the residents in the community. We knocked on every door in the area we reached out to reputable organizations like the Canada nurses will talk about Canada's cannabis education which is very important to us and our initiatives. We funded and worked with community partner of Beat Street play, who actually does drug education and is mentored over half a million students all over the country. So we take this very seriously. We reached out to Vanessa multiple times to no avail. And we've had more residents speak in support than we have opposition even though we did speak with Julius as well knocked on his door, and we've submitted this support. So it seems like the appeal or wants to re litigate the whole issue of cannabis as a whole. And I do not think it's fair for legacy greens to be made as the poster child for things like drunk driving and crime before they've even been allowed to even open as a business. And that's not what we stand for at all. I think that the BCA should honor BCWS decision to approve. Both approvals for retail and consumption.
Okay, thank you.
iPhone,
iPhone, iPhone, a mute yourself please
iPhone I mute yourself please. iPhone Director Brian,
let me put instructions up on the screen can you hear me? We know we got it.
iPhone can you state your name and address for a record?
Hi, how you doing? Um, my name is Lisa. See Lisa black asked stay at 19678 St. Louis Street. Um,
where are you in? Ma'am. Do you find your testimony before the board today? Is it true? Yes,
thank you. Yeah, one
minute now.
Yes, I'd like to say I have very much respect for Mrs. Pete because I'm a neighbor of hers but I'm very much for the dispensary because I think it'd be a convenience I'm a marijuana cart cardholder. And I don't see nothing wrong with having it in our neighborhood is very convenient for us. That's here in the city. Instead of us have to go all the way across eight mile we can walk right here is very convenient is no nothing around where it'd be dis convenient for us. I don't see where it'd be a matter. Thank you.
Thank you, Karen Washington, Karen Washington, Karen Washington and unmute yourself please. Aaron. You have to unmute yourself, Karen.
We're going to move on
one more time she left. Okay.
Thank you very much. All right. Any audience participants want to provide a community testimonio please do so by come down state your name and address is Pierre for us. Where are you in? And you have one minute for your community testimony regarding this matter.
Inform your testimony before the vote today is true. Yeah. Yes.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Joe in Warwick 264 Smith Street. I want to say that I recall recently when the city council was discussing, I guess the marijuana zoning ordinances about where businesses could be put. And for someone who usually goes along with the program, I was really surprised to hear member Scott Benson say that I think he opposed it because he was concerned about the concentration of the marijuana dispensaries in District Three apparently there's more of them in District Three than any other district. Now I know a lot of the concentration or my understanding was a lot of concentration on eighth mile had to do with Brooks Patterson not being marijuana friendly, but the leadership of Oakland County has changed. And so maybe that concentration will cease. But once again, I do think that people who live right there should be given lots of consideration. However, if the if the business is allowed, I hope they have good security, you know, and just you know, educate the users to be respectful of the neighbors nearby but I would support the people who live the closest by and please do your due diligence and see who they are. Thank you
very much. All right, Director Ron,
we try and Karen Washington again, just still not unmuted Karen
we're entertaining this again.
All right. That's it, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. All right. Going to end this, okay. G All right, Miss B, come back up. Give her a couple of minutes to Yeah, just come up. You're not bringing all your paperwork.
Please come to my
side and these were submitted in before. And they were submitted into again today. They're 42. submitted to BC. Yes. submitted to BC based on what he told me and I have one right here.
I need to check the file to make sure.
And according to what I said send an email this were at 4042 Welcome and if I can read what the record says Can I Can I read what the petition say?
I'm sorry, what the petition says yeah, in terms of your closing arguments.
So it says I want to find that I do not support the establishment of a marijuana provisioning facility a designated marijuana consumption establishment at the address of 19347 Mount Eliot, Detroit, Michigan, and asked the city of Detroit board of zoning appeals to deny BC Petitioner legacy greens LLC, the noise Floyd case and it provides the case number. I am a resident living in the firewall area of District Three, the nine block residential area where I live a bust them out mount Elliott business corridor. I do not support the establishment of a marijuana retail provisioning facility and designated marijuana consumption establishment or the open up any other type of marijuana business near my home. within my community. There exists a proliferation of various marijuana establishments within less than three miles. Marijuana establishment establishments near residential devalue property, make communities an attractive to prospective homebuyers. negatively influences children, foster criminal activity and invite an influx of people and unwanted traffic. In addition, my and other residents quality of life and enjoyment is diminished by the saturation of nearby marijuana establishments in District Three. The ordinance governing the establishment of marijuana businesses in the city choice is discriminatory based on the locations of one's residency. Yes, Detroiters voted to legalize marijuana. However, I don't think voters expected a proliferation of marijuana businesses near their home. Therefore, I asked the board of zoning appeal to reverse the city's decision of BC and denied the petitioner legacy greens and it gives all the name request for the establishment of a marijuana retail provisioning facility and designated marijuana consumption establishment at the address a 19347 mount Elliot Detroit, Michigan 48234. And so Miss Washington Miss Washington and they're organized organizations. Also we have the business owner who actually owns the remaining of the block where this proposed facility is going to be he had already submitted so we have that as well. And it's total 42. Thank you.
I don't see those letters. Okay.
Thank you very much, Miss Pete.
I have a question.
Okay. Any questions for Miss peek? Okay, go ahead.
If there was a different use in that building, such as a daycare, would you be still petitioning for a Greek person?
know if it was a daycare now? Thank you.
It was stated on the record that you do not have a functioning location. Are you located in that area in a building?
Yes, we do. And it when you go, when I say to you, our building is going to take our building no doubt it's going to be converted to a community center employment center. So we and we are in transition. When I say to you we meet there, you know we do things there. But it's in transition now to where we believe that we can best benefit the community. When you look at the fact that we have a 47% poverty rate in our community. And we have so many people that are unemployed, we feel that we can better serve the community by helping people move out of poverty and to gainful employment opportunities. And so when we're going out there talking to the philanthropic community and talking to business people, as you can imagine, in today's time, they need a workforce and we believe that our geographic area is really poised to help individuals move out of poverty. It's a full employment.
Thank you any additional questions for misspeak? Any additional questions? All right. Thank you very much misspeak. Okay. Okay, at this point in time, we're going to ever discuss it a monk's board members all Lee. I'm looking at all the board members here not just specific one, but amongst us only, and questions directly to us only. And emotions. always encouraged. I did see board member more.
Well, I guess I just want to make a statement, Mrs. B, I think you're doing a yeoman's job trying to keep the community together because you know, I live in that community. I've gotten so many calls about since this endeavor happened about this marijuana facility and how we're over inundated with the problem I have. District Three did not do their due diligence as far as before the referendum referendum and before the vote, we did not go out and do what Oh, can you hear me now?
Oh my god. Yeah. Why cuz on okay, just want to make sure
and do what we were supposed to do as a community. We have so many pockets in District Three that they do their own thing. And that's unfortunate for you. And I think for me too, because we're out there trying to keep our community together. That has not happened. But now we're at the point we have to listen to what the state says. We have to go by the rules what the state says the state says if these if I'm sorry, Mr. Floyd's facility, as is not open has not been operated. We can assume that it might have some kind of derelict effect on our community. We're assuming and that's unfortunate because we live it every day. So that's just my statement. I just want to let you know that
any more discussion points I do see boring watching
and to that point, I remember more on the city council initially, last meeting, said that since there's no established guidelines, the only thing we can do is put our mind and imagination as to what the petitioner might encounter. That's probably yes, we have we cannot do it in a vacuum we have to imagine a drug on premises is drug consumption on the premises. Along with that and I'm talking from experience come an element of undesirable behavior. You cannot have a drug facility where people consume drugs just like a bar with a bar and establishment of a bar comes up a certain aspect and you have to in making this decision, just because there's no ground, no previous gap ground rules. We have to imagine that how the community can be affected. That's probably
okay. Any more warm chairman.
I just want to say why some of our my fellow board members are going to assume the negative I'm going to assume the opposite.
We can hear Can you hear me? Yeah.
Okay. Now,
I'm just saying that while some of my fellow board members are going to assume the negative I'm going to assume the opposite and assume something positive. And also I want to point out that this is zoned light industrial is not zoned residential. So the business that she's trying to open is a probably zoning.
Board Member Roberts. So I have a few comments. You know, first off I you know, by the petitioners own admission a second ago I think that this is more of a marijuana issue than what it is anything else. I personally don't smoke. However, I have a plethora of friends and work coworkers and employees, and so forth that both smoked recreationally but I have more people now that are you know, engaging in smoking and gummies and so forth and so on. So, you know, while I don't personally engage, I have plenty of people that do. And, understandably, there's a need for it, which is why the people of Detroit voted for it. And the state of Michigan and the people of Detroit voted for it. So I think it's unfortunate that that that is actually the the issue. But furthermore, I think the VC got it right. The, you know, you had a you had a an abandoned building with a entrepreneur who wants to put something in there. The lots around it are also vacant, which obviously, the petitioner wants to eventually develop those but who knows when that might take place. Right now we've got something before us, you know, a viable business that is going to be licensed by the state. It'd be licensed by the city. You know, they have a right to be there. And some of the things that we heard in terms of parking, you know, we can cross parking off the list because they have the required parking that's available. We also heard about noise, lights, smoke fumes, so forth and so on. First off, those are all could happen could not happen. might happen might not happen, and what else, but I can tell you that I've written down that road many many times because I had an employee on a daily basis that I took home. There is semi truck traffic. You know, all kinds of industrial type traffic on that road. So, those semi trucks create noise, they have lights, they have fumes from the diesel exhaust you know, so the I guess I you know, I guess what I'm saying is that I think that the BCD got it right. I originally said that I don't didn't feel that it met the agreed standard anyway. But the moral of story is that I think DC got it right.
Okay, any other comments? I have content, former Watson.
So considering the criteria, your approval criteria that BZ considered when they granted the original petition? I believe they failed on more than four issues. One thing, this location will be injurious to the surrounding community, and we're to have that was good interest and it was substantially dismantled and dis diminish and impair the property values. And the conditional use is inconsistent with the goals and objective of the city. And number five, the establishment will impede the normal and orderly development of improvements in the surrounding community. Well, one thing if you're a businessman, you have you have a commercial building in the area adjacent to we have two lights and then we actually has a building and other business people and local people located in that area. And on site drug use is not a use that is conducive to a peaceful enjoyment of your property. What's going to happen is you're going to get undesirable elements you're going to have because you have consumption insight that is going to be it's going to come outside and I'm speaking from from experience at 20 years in the city of Detroit Police Department, gun owners. I can the days of hell. It's been my experience that that kind of situation is not a desirable business venue. So it is in my opinion at BZ got it wrong in this occasion, because they did not consider the effects of drugs being consumed on the first premises would have on the surround, have if they had they would not have granted it in this particular location. Directly behind proposed location. We have residential districts. I would not want a consumption marijuana across the alley from my home.
Okay, any other discussion points? All right. I will state that I do not believe that this BCA. Petitioner met the merits of this case. I don't see any grounds we can overturn building and safety. I mean, I'm trying to figure out exactly what they did wrong. I can't I didn't hear it today. I did hear a lot of I'm against marijuana use. I heard a lot of that. And I heard a lot of assumptions that there's some crime associated with marijuana, medical marijuana marijuana uses usage facilities. There's no evidence of that. There's no evidence of property values going down because of marijuana, marijuana dispensaries. There's no evidence of that. Where is this coming from? I don't know. I understand folks have policies, thoughts on it. But outside of that, I mean there's no evidence that this happens where dispensaries are located. Now the City of Detroit's you know property values went down some years ago. Now I can say on a country has gone up and just about everywhere has gone up. So it's taxes but the property values are going up. There's no evidence zero correlation between medical marijuana marijuana use facilities and property value going down. This petitioner, the BC Petitioner had you know, they sold the parking spaces they couldn't provide for they have a 288 square foot lounge inside of this facility and in an industrial zone, everywhere where city council wanted these these types of facilities to go they wanted in and dusted. In fact, Councillor Benson the one who said that he wanted an industrial area. Push hard for it. This was particularly in a industrial area. In industrial area where it's allowed, not just that, there is a push for consumption lounge for more consumption lounges an area that is in the city ordinance. For it to be consumption lounges, so yes, the city council wanted consumption lounges in the city. There's not a they didn't say hey, no, we don't want this type of activity here. There's a law now to says this can happen and in the city, consuming marijuana period it just because it's marijuana doesn't mean it's negative. I mean, it's allowable now. Now, you know, decades ago, you know, it was not allowable. And you know, you had some negative elements. There's zero negative elements. Correlation between these type of facilities and negative things happen around. And what I what I didn't hear was in but we didn't get to hear the case before. BC but I wish the petitioner had some type of green light program to help relieve folks in and around them, but it's a mistake then, that they are a part of greenlighted program as well. But I still do not see how the VCA Petitioner can meet any of the merits of this case today and overturn building safety. Okay, Watson,
I beg to disagree. If we simply stick our head in the ground and say that consumption of marijuana is a use simply because it's been passed and by the city council in the state that does not erase the put it actually is. marijuana consumption on the premises is similar to to use which should be restricted and be allowed only in certain areas. You would not put a consumption next to a school you can't put it next to a church why because of the particular use. So we cannot say just because there's no track record develop, that we should give a pass on this. We have to be reasonable in deciding whether or not this youth is harmful to the property adjacent there to to the residents in the rear. And given the nature of drugs and drugs consumption, there is a certain amount of elements of that is associated with this and it's always has built in always will we have to anticipate and allow for that not simply because it was passed by ordinance. This the marijuana as it exists in this city is going to be the bane of the city of Detroit. At some point you're going to have to come to the realization that this thing cannot be allowed and just applaud it. Even though it's it's it's it's not good.
Okay. Thank you. I'll just say I don't think 36 operations in the city of Detroit 120 Close to 130 square miles is going to be 36 operations is going to be the bane of existence for the city train. I just don't see just because the operating is gonna burn the city down. I don't see that. This particular topic does not have don't have do not have any spacing issues whatsoever. That was brought up the rent I've heard residents in support represent residents in opposition. The community, Miss peak is is an opposition she brought the appeal. But I did hear folks are in support. Folks are in opposition. And we have letters here saying that the folks are in support as well with the addresses in this community. Any anyone else before we go to a vote here?
I'll just make one Roberts and so we have at least I know we have one one location and cork town. And I can only say that, at least thus far. We have no had no issues except for it actually got broken into. And because of that they've done some fencing and some different things that the community asked for. But so far they've been a really good player. There's been no no issues there that I'm aware of. And I live I live across the expressway from it. And they've been good community members also. They're a member of the Business Association. Remember the the North cork town black club. They just donated $5,000 To North cork Council. I think that that these these entrepreneurs, you know can can be a good community members as well. So I don't think that they should be ostracized because of the the product that they sell. Thank you and we're more
in this not so much as astrocytes in your neighborhood. You cannot compare Corktown with district three we have different different areas that have different things going on. Right Corktown has blown booming, industrial they're building over there. They're not doing that in this
area other public club on our public board members. I'm gonna just wind up with a motion or with a coin. Okay, discuss.
And recently there's been a litany of smashing grabs people are driving vehicles into these buildings, grabbing the marijuana two occasions just day before yesterday, one of which was an illegal was an illegal marijuana establishment. One was legal. But these young people are smashing and grabbing the right they're driving into the side of the building. And for the for the for the marijuana. Also, lastly, channeled to Charlie Lang did a did a special on the marijuana bus or burn starting at East and market and it ran about noon on April the fourth April 20. And the circus surrounding that gives you an I do have the mentality when you start having public consumption on the streets. They were on the streets smoking everybody had a blind smoke going everywhere. And it's not the kind of atmosphere that's conducive to a progressive city. I'm done.
Thank you. I just want to override a board that Dr. Floyd is equity Apple city Drake. I will say that let's end the discussion point and make a motion I make a motion okay.
I like to make a motion that we granted petitioners
the specific structure or make them a zone the BCA applicant. Miss Vanessa peak? You're okay.
Concerning Yeah. Concerning the applicants Miss B peaks request that we reverse the B s building safety engineering decision for 1223. I make a motion that we grant her applications.
Second, it's been moving probably second. Any questions? Any Andretti's? All in favor indicate by saying aye Hi, any nays? aye director brown roll call this is for and supportive. Miss peaks
in supporting Ms. P. Am I correct? Yes. Well, I'm gonna miss Sharma. This
is an over term building mistake. Right? Well, I'm
gonna miss Sherman. Well, I'm Emma Roberts, ne well remember more. I will remember not I will remember Watson to a person Thomas Ney was to tell me you have three noes and three yeses.
I'm gonna make a motion to take it on advisory
Well, Mr. Chairman, we need a motion in favor.
No doubt. Now if I take it on your visor. Let's take it on advisory lead board.
Hold on, hold on. In the moat if a motion in favor of an applicant's fails to receive the required number of votes in accordance with the voting procedures under Article Three of these rules and procedures, the action shall be deemed equivalent to a denial and said denounced will be formally entered on the record. Mr. Chairman, you cannot take this on advisement. This Chase's case has been denied. Thank you because three three votes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Alright, thank you very much. Appreciate the correction. All right.
That's why I had the ahead in front of me. All right. Hey.
No any public comment and
let me hold on Mr.
Bye BC BC a case BC SL u 2023. Dat 001 poor community appeal. Vanessa peak appeals the decision of builders and safety environmental department which approved with conditions established in the marijuana, marijuana retail for visiting facility and a designated marijuana consumption facility. The boat was three three, it fails because this wasn't appropriate of motion. The motion is denied. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director brown any new business director Brown?
No new business.
Okay. Next hearing date is August 28 2023. That's next Monday. Any advisements director brown
no advisement.
All right in your business director Brown,
no business any public
comments when it comes down for public comment? Please state it for one minute. I'm coming.
Um, yes. Hello.
I know it's been a long day under your ethical duties 2.01. members shall conduct themselves in a fair, kinder, courteous and understanding manner and the discharge of their duties. Now, I also think the whole process violates due process because we community members in the Lower North End did not get a copy of the actual details of the plan until Wednesday of the week before and so we did not have the time to prepare. I'm glad member Hill not let me know that people were contacting her. I didn't think that was allowed. I don't think that's fair. And I would not be surprised if Miss Sheila Cocker was contacting every single one of you. And so I think that the that these rules need to be changed, that I should that we should be able to see everything that the petitioner turns in, in advance because I know they misrepresented community engagement, because they misrepresented their community engagement. You're not even listening, so you're totally violating being courteous and fair,
right now.
That's a minute. Thank you very much.
Um, because they totally violated theirs. I need to
excuse me.
We haven't properly adjourn.
Yeah, that's right.
No, I don't mean I just, I'm so sick of being disrespected by the city. This is my PTSD coming out. Go ahead. And like there's no way that you had time to read everything that got submitted to you. So it was not a fair deliberation about this process at all about North and landing. It was absolutely not fair. There's no way you could have read everything. Because the way your process is set up, doesn't give you time to do so doesn't give us time to get all the information we need. And we should have gotten way more than those detailed bones because I'm sure Miss Yukako sent stuff as misleading or whoever said this misleading stuff to the DGC.
Much. All right. Thank you. I write most of the concerns I was in order to be reconsidered because of the unfairness
problem. Secondly, we adjourn. All in favor, indicate by stating I I wrote you guys later
