Well, my doctor, BCA case, 3123 building three A and 3b the BCA petitioners, Ronald McDonald, Council, district number five, the location, 299303307313319,
and 325, Smith and 7719, brush, between Brush and John, R and in our three zone, low density family residential district, city council district number five, Ronald McDonald requests multiple multiple dimensional variances for the proposed development construction of two multi family buildings to provide six units, building three A and 10 units building 3b respectively, for a total of 16 family units and in our three zoning district, we will now hear from inspector for it. Thank you.
Director, good morning. Board members. Morning we're hearing this case today because the Board shall be authorized to hear dimensional variance request for matters beyond the scope of the building department's 10% administrative adjustments for variance of minimum setbacks. Deficiencies for this case are front setback for both buildings and efficient recreational space for both buildings and deficient side setback for building 3b We're hearing this case under Section 54 131, six per minute dimensional variances and 54 121, the approval criteria we're hearing this case under the legal description attached. Our attorney will assess ownership the BC Site Plan Review letter dated january 30, 2023 states. The current legal use of the above area is vacant land, approximately 25,658 square feet. The proposed development consists of building three A, which is a two story 4650 square foot six unit multi family building and building 3b a, two story 8207 square foot, 10 unit multi family building. The project area zone are three under Section 5874, for multiple family dwellings, with fewer than 50% of the units in the structure being efficiency units are permitted by Wright and Arthur redistric. Thus a special land use hearing is not required. However, under Section 53 113 applicability as more than 12 months at family dwelling units, 16, in this case, are being proposed. Site plan review is required prior to issuing of a building permit. Under Section 5014, 34, household living as multi family development is located within a half mile of a bus transit line, which is what BC can reduce the off street parking requirements for the proposed 16 multi family dwelling units to 0.75 parking spaces per dwelling unit, or 12 spaces, 20 off street parking spaces, including two ADA accessible spaces are being proposed. Thus no parking deficiency. The following variances are needed from the VCA prior to issuance of a building permit. Building three, a deficient front yard setback, 20 feet required. 11 feet five inches provided. Eight feet, seven inches deficient for the front yard setback, the fish and recreational space ratio, 990 square feet required, none provided, building 3b deficient. Front setback 20 feet required 11 feet, five inches provided. Eight feet, seven inches deficient. Front yard setback deficient side yard setback, 12 feet three inches required, efficient recreational space. 990 square feet required Petitioner again, is before the board for multiple dimensional variances for the proposed development and construction of two multi family buildings to provide six units, building three A and 10 units building 3b for a total of 16 multi family units in our Three district
hold on second teams is messing up The
this Monday, I
yeah, I. Ah, thank you.
You the
front view of the subject. Property in question, again, is vacant land proposed for two buildings, one six unit and 110 unit. You looking down Smith Street, looking to the west. Again, a front view of the subject property looking towards brush street along view looking down the frontage of the property to the left on the screen, looking towards brush this is again, a view of the subject property looking to the north. Subject property is immediately adjacent to brush street off of Smith Longview, looking down the front of the property, looking to the west, a block opposite, there's vacant land and residential properties. Again, block opposite, I would and that completes the again, this is vacant land. They proposed to have two buildings on this site, one six unit and 110 unit building. And that completes the visuals. Mister Chair, thank
you, Miss pierpo, Alright, any questions from the board or Inspector pierpo? Hearing none, seeing none. It's a petitioner in today. Yes.
Good morning. Good morning.
Good morning. If you state your name and address for the record, yes, we're doing it. Ronald
K McDonald at 6925 Oakland Mills, road, Columbia, Maryland,
21045, raise your right hand on board today is true.
I do. Thank you. All right. And just before we proceed, Mr. McDonald, will anyone else be joining you today and presentations? Yes, we have them all just sworn in state your name.
Stand up and raise your
hand, not just just a part that's a party of to this case. So not to not including community testimonials only the folks is going to be speaking as a part of activities matter. Okay?
Darryl Carter,
yeah, yeah, just name and address and we're just going to swear everybody in at once.
Darrell Carter, for flagstone, tribuco, Canyon, California,
Meredith Megan, 1948 Allard Avenue gross point woods, Michigan. Meredith Megan, 1948 Allard Avenue gross point woods, Michigan. Good
morning. Patrick Howard the Honeyman law firm 2290, Woodward Avenue. First National Building, okay, Detroit.
Hi, Marion partial Hanuman law firm 229,
zero, first national 660, Woodward Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.
Hi, Jim Cummings with Hannah architects, 1500 Woodward suite, 300 Detroit, Michigan, okay, and just this is all all a part of this matter, right? This is it. Would you all raise your
hand for me to do your permanent testimony for what today's truth?
Thank you. All right. Thank you, Friday. Wait,
Mr. Chair, we do have one more party who will be arriving late. Jason Jones, is still open. I travel.
Okay. All right, I'm trying to sleep. That's fine. All right. Attorney demors, can we help us out with standing? Yes,
good morning. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON, Thomas, good morning to the board and to the public. Jonathan Amer, City of Detroit law department. Mr. McDonald, these questions are for you. They're designed to assess your standing to appear before to appear before the board. It's pursuing section 53, three of the city Detroit zoning ordinance, which requires that any party appearing before the board possess sufficient standing. That just means that you either possess a legal interest in the property, or you've been authorized by the property's owner to appear on the owner's behalf the title for the properties for today's first case, which is case number 5524, and address, 27535, and 7521, Greenfield. Those properties were previously had their standing assessed. The satisfaction of the law department with you as the authorized representative. Can you just state on the record that the six individuals previously and Mr. Jones, who's arriving later, is similarly authorized to speak on your behalf
today. Yes, they are authorized to speak on behalf. Thank you, Mr.
McDonald, based on the statements made by the applicant and prior review of the ownership, the law department says five the applicant
standing to proceed. Thank you. Now. Also want to recognize board member Bowmans arrival, and we do have a full board. Okay? Okay, Nana, we gotta echo here. All right, okay, so Miss McDonough. What brings you in today?
Yes, sir, good morning, Mr. Chair and honorable BCA board members. We are here as a continuation. We brought seven different cases before the board on a previous occasion, 14 October, we have completed four of those. We are here today to present and request variances for the remaining three cases. From a procedural standpoint, it's in the last hearing, we presented significant amount of information as an overview for the project,
you said, four remaining cases, all right, right.
In our last hearing, we presented significant amount of information as an overview for the board. Obviously, we were here a year ago in August and presented this. But this is a different board. There are new members to the board, and for, I guess, for information purposes, we presented an hour long presentation. It is our intent to not do that today, unless the board requests that we revisit the overview of the project. We will have opening remarks from my good friend and business partner, Darrell Carter, CEO of avanti. From there, we will proceed to go through the cases with our civil engineer, moving forward with the variances requested for site number three,
okay and condense presentation ticket,
the presentation will be strictly limited to the variances. Thank you very much. Technical today. All right, like for bringing up Mr. Carter Darrell, Carter,
morning. Mr. Carter, good
morning board members. My name is Darryl Carter. Again. I'm the founder and CEO of van at Capital Management, an apartment and investment company that owns and operates 100 apartment communities in 15 states that house 16,000 families. We're the largest black owned department company in the US. While my company is based in Southern California, I grew up in Detroit, as did my partner, Ron McDonald. I'm a product of the Detroit Public Schools, McGraw elementary McFarland, and Drew Middle Schools and cast Tech High School. I received my undergraduate degree from the University of Michigan and two master's degrees from MIT abanith became involved in this subject project north in landing in 22,008 my U of M classmate, Pam Martin, who's sitting over there, of CEO of Vanguard community of development, reached out to introduce The project to me. We thought it was an attractive opportunity, and we've been working on it ever since. Please note that this property has been development has been vetted by multiple city departments, planning, zoning, building safety. City Council and the Detroit land bank have conducted multiple public hearings and forums, multiple neighborhood organizations have been provided numerous public forums to express their support or opposition for the project. Please note that the overwhelming responses have been positive, particularly from long term North End residents. Again, we have been in a pre development process for six years. I knew this project would be different from most, as this is one of the first properties to be built in an established neighborhood, versus being downtown or Midtown or another commercial district. We have performed considerable community outreach, and we've gotten great community food feedback, feedback. We've reduced the number of apartments by 30 units. We've added a For Sale component through our partnership with Jason Jones, a talented black developer in Detroit, we've doubled the amount of green space in the development, again, this project has been thoroughly vetted by the city of Detroit government infrastructure. It is important to remind this board that they are evaluating minor variances to zoning ordinances. It's also important to note that this the board approved this variance less than a year ago. So. Like four considerations when looking at this. If you look at pictures from 1950 and 1960s in Detroit, you will see a consistent thing along secondary thoroughfares like John R and brush and joy road and others, you will see three to six story apartment buildings, and then on individual side streets you'll see residential homes. That's what this looked like, you know, 3040, 50 years ago, and we are simply rebuilding what was there. If you look at pictures on John R, lots of four to five story buildings. Second thing, our opposition has made numerous disparaging remarks about the renters that will be moving in to our property. They have labeled them undesirable and even implied that some might be pedophiles. We have some 40,000 residents living in our apartment, communities in the US all hard working, family oriented people who are pursuing their versions of the American dream. Many are black and brown as the minority. Home ownership rate is significantly lower than the white home ownership rate. Our residents make positive impacts on all of our communities. This anti renter sentiment expressed by our opposition is simply a racist dog whistle. There is much public outcry about excessive housing costs and rents. One of the major reason that rents are too high are excessive delays, like the one we are experiencing with with this development. Again, we started this in 2018 and there have been considerable cost escalations. This negatively impacts our investors, who are primarily public pension funds and charitable foundations. More importantly, we are short of 5 million new housing units in the US. So this also impacts many Americans and Detroiters who need housing. Finally, the development team led by Mr. McDonald and me have made considerable outreach to the north end community and to the leaders of our opposition, Mr. Tyson Gerst and Miss Joanne Warwick, I personally reached out to Mr. Gersh in 2018 early in my involvement with this project. Despite repeated outreach to both Mr. Gersch and Miss Warwick, we've received minimal constructive feedback. They only want to kill this development disparage the development team and stand against the majority of North and of the North End community who want to welcome new neighbors to their community. Thank you.
Thank you. And before you leave, I want to say this because I think it was brought up the last time Mr. Carter. Want to just leave the race issue out of it. I think I heard it before the last hearing, and we're not going to, let's go stick to the facts. I understand some opposition and folks in support look at the factual concerns only. I don't think I don't want to interject that poison into the conversation here. Let's stick to the facts, and that's only Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, young lady.
All right. Good morning. Tricia DeMarco, and just move into slide 119, here. Perfect. Okay, all right, so for site three, as we've heard, there's a request for variance for recreational space requirement, front, setback, side, setback. And then I do want to add a rear setback as well that wasn't flagged in our site plan review letter, but having gone back and re reviewed the rear setback requirements, I think out of an abundance of caution, we need to have that one documented as well. So I'll start first with recreational space for building three A and 3b 1677 square feet of recreational space have been provided, or, I'm sorry, are required, and 1020 square feet have been provided, as we've seen in some of the previous cases, recreational space balanced over the multiple project sites greatly exceeds the required amount, 142% of what was required the provided square footage for recreational space over the full. Package of seven developments is 25,390 whereas the required is only 17,911 so given that that compensatory recreational space that will be available for access between the various project sites, we feel it's appropriate to grant of variance for recreational space on site three and 3b when it comes to the setback requirements. The front setback required here is 20 feet, and similar to what's been discussed and in previous cases, the setback that's provided is 11.8 feet and 11.64 feet in the two buildings, which is in alignment with the existing setback of structures within this block or adjacent blocks. The side setback that's being required is on the east of the building, and we feel is appropriate due to the corner nature of the lot to to to make the side again align with the context. When you look along the adjacent road, the rear setback requirement is 20 feet, but the rear distance from property line is 11.4 feet. It is important to note here that there's a rear alley that's 20 feet in width, so the distance from the building to any adjacent structure is well over the required setback, and that that covers all of the requested variances. We could flip through and take a look at the site. If you just flip through a couple of the next slides, there we go. So here's where the the project site is, along Smith Street, existing conditions.
We can just keep flipping through. Here is an elevation of the proposed building
variance discussion, which we've already gone through. And then again, a rendering of the proposed buildings, three A and three BD. And here's a site plan showing the parking and building orientation. I believe those materials are also in your package. Any questions regarding the variances that are being requested for three A and 3b
No, not for me right now. I will say this now what's on the screen looks like if you're going to go through section 54, 121, are you guys there yet? Or there's more conversation
before we go through the questions I'd like to bring, okay, my project partner, okay, no problem.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, what's the question again? Please.
Oh, you, were you complete with your presentation? Or did you have anything else we are okay, yes, okay, great. Then I'm going to go to the department stand first before I do that, any questions for the petitioner from the board? Hearing none saying that. Let's go to our departments. Let's call upon building a safety first. Miss Wilson,
good morning. Good morning. Board members, Jada Filson, representing the building department. This is a high right use in this zoning district. Can you not hear me?
Still can't hear you. I don't your laptop muted? Because I don't use muted on the screen. Director, Brian, oh, you're a co host. Miss Wilson,
yes, I'm not. I
think it's your device, because I see the screen light up when you're speaking. On,
I'm not sure what's going on.
Can you hear us?
I can hear you.
Can you say something
I am let's go
to the court reporter. Can you hear us? Yes, I
can. I can't hear her either. I can't I can hear you.
Leah, can hear her.
I can hear you.
Some speaker phone, both of them, I.
And do a reset there. I end you
I hear us now. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you now. Our caller can hear Ms, Filson, can you hear us? Yeah, I can hear you as well. I want to thank you for helping us. Okay,
okay, good morning once again. Hold
on Miss Wilson,
hold on Jada, it's not music.
Check one, two. Court reporter, can you say something again?
Yes, the court reporter can hear Thank
you. We have it now. Go ahead.
Appreciate you to Amina for helping us bridge that technological gap, there generational gap that is.
Good morning. Once again, board members, Jada Filson, representing the building department, the proposed multi family uses. Our buildings are, by right in the zoning district. So this was reviewed by the plan reviewers. It was stated during the plan review that the current buildings are deficient in recreational space, front setback, inside setbacks, and so that's why the developer is before you today to waive those dimensional variances.
Okay, recreational front and side setbacks.
Yes. Thank
you very much. Any questions for Miss philson from the board? Hearing, none, seeing none. Thank you very much, Miss Pilsen. Miss sharply, did you have a presentation, though, as well?
No as as Miss philson stated it was plan reviewed by BC, so we didn't provide a report for this case.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms, Sharpie, okay, so at this point, okay, let's go to section 54, 121, the approval criteria. Ms McDonough, taking the bar reviewed this and you already have answers ready. Yes, sir. Okay. Let's start with board member weed. First two questions,
this is Mike on your mic, Mike,
board member weed. The first issue that we have to deal with is, why is your requested variance consistent with the Master Plan and the spirit and purpose of the zoning ordinance of the city of Detroit. How do you respond to that
the requested variance is consistent with the Master Plan the neighborhood and the housing goals for the middle Woodward district are reinforcing sound neighborhoods, revitalizing neighborhoods with poor housing conditions and increasing residential density. The project accomplishes all of these goals.
All right, the next issue is that to have you explain the practical difficulty can prevent you carrying out the strict letter of the ordinance.
The original plotting of the parcels done in the early 1900s is in direct opposition to the current zoning for the B r3, zone, the current zoning code, and the original plotting of these parcels is in direct opposition with the current vision. Density, walkability and community development are the aim set forth for the city's current vision. This corner parcel on a significant thoroughfare needs full depth development facing the park inside corner. This quality design moment is not contemplated by our zoning code.
Thank you.
Thank you for Murnau.
If we grant the variance, what will it do for your business and the site where it is being built? It
will alleviate the tension between the current zoning code the existing parcels in our city core and. And the relevant stakeholders preferred vision for density and walkability, it will eliminate practical difficulty of complying with strict setback that does not contemplate its context, which will allow the project to proceed as proposed and approved by the land bank, the city council, the Brownfield authority and BC, it will eliminate the practical difficulty of achieving urban design at these corner parcels that is not contemplated by our zoning code.
Okay, can you explain how your development will not cause any adverse impact on other businesses around you. And if you can also, as you're answering that question, address, how long if you know the property has been vacant?
Yes, my understanding is the property has been vacant since the 90s, and that's from residents who, you know, have given us that information, who are in the neighborhood, but somewhere in the 90s, that how long the parcels have been vacant, this project will not have an adverse impact will have actually the opposite effect of returning a blighted and followed property to productive use, adding 10 to 15 new residents to the north end neighborhood, and contributing property taxes and income taxes to the City of Detroit's general fund. Thank you.
Thank you. Program for the next two
questions, please, if
there are any impacts, how would you deal with them? If there are any impacts, how would you deal with them? Yes, ma'am,
the project providing setbacks that are contextual and designed to the existing structure precedents. The setbacks are appropriate in both neighborhood scale and design. The recreational space will support the needs of the residents. Density and walkability encourages the residents to utilize the nearby public amenities, and if any issues arise, we will work directly with the community to address them.
Now, what is different about your site that's different from others around here.
This is a case where the strict dimensional standards set forth in Detroit zoning ordinance have not been updated to reflect the development of the diverse housing types that are called for in the City of Detroit's master plan. The unusual aspect of this site and its diminutive plotting inside of a neighborhood. These are a collection of uniquely small parcels that are not shared land owners in general. Land owners are not generally corner parcels on significant thoroughfares facing municipal parks.
Thank you. Hey,
former Osborne, the next request is,
please, when you purchase the property, what were your plans?
We have not taken any we have not taken any negative actions. To the contrary, we have entered into agreements with the City Council, the Detroit brown field authority, and we have a standing development agreement with the Detroit Land Bank Authority to develop this site and return it to productive use. This unto itself, is a significant positive action.
Will you be conducting any other business than what you have spoken on record today?
No, we are proposing a by right development that is in accordance with the zoning uses within the r3 District. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. And former Roberts, yes,
Mr. McDonald. How will your development benefit the neighborhood? And specifically, we've heard repeatedly from folks in the community that they feel it's going to devalue the worth of their property. So if you can speak to that as well, yes,
substantial. Justice will be delivered by allowing us to move forward with the development plan that will return blighted and follow property to productive use, adding 10 to 15 new residents to the north end neighborhood, and contributing to the City of Detroit's general fund via payment of property taxes, as well as improving the experience of all residents who utilize Dolores Bennet Park, substantial justice will also be delivered by reaffirming the decision originally delivered by this board. We expect that our investment here will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 43 to $45 million Uh, populating this neighborhood will be catalyst for businesses, as well as restoring the vibrancy that once existed in this section of the north end.
And part of this development is city owned property, correct? Yes. And are you in compliance with that purchase agreement? Yes,
yes, the requested variance is not in conflict, but rather a necessity in order to comply with the terms of the sale and the development agreement, mandated by the city of Detroit Land Bank Authority and enforced by the Detroit City Council be,
I think a very exciting panel on community violence intervention was in Detroit each year in the series we do one kind of panel. Ace director,
board member, Watson, board member Bowman, former chairman, former woman say a hand.
Excuse me, yeah, any I just want to be a little confused here, because I just want to make sure that the thing we're hearing right now is purely regarding there's parking is not amongst the variants. No, just making sure, because I read through it, I didn't see it there. Okay, so I'm in looking at some of the more recent documentation that I received by email. Late this week, I saw documentation implying on two different things that caught my attention. One of them was that the shadow study that was provided to us by the petitioner, the same Petitioner in a previous case, was not the was not accurate, and it was a shadow study that would carry over to this case and the other claim that I received from the appeal or the appellant was that they had not been invited or properly contacted for the meetings that you had mentioned, held in various meetings, the meetings that were held
in in order
to discuss this matter, and I just wanted to hear a response from you right now regarding those two allegations.
The first, sir, regarding the shadow study was performed by licensed architects, so they are here to defend it, if necessary. The question regarding the contact and participation, as stated earlier, this project has gone through six years of public vetting, and not only at each of those public hearings have the opposition been present and had an opportunity to express significant input and commentary, But also there was a period during which Mr. Who I guess you could say, is the ad hoc leader of this opposition, participated with our development team. So some of the changes that you see, the poor sale housing, the additional green space, those were contributions made to the project by Mr. Gersh. So for, you know, for the allegation that we have not been collaborative, it's just patently false.
What specific one thing I started Now you mentioned Mr. Gersh regard was the restraining order that was, I guess there was a request for restraining order that was denied that I saw copies of sent to me. You speak to that? I know nothing,
sir,
you're not aware of any restraining order. I
am. Yeah, where's
this information coming?
Not the email I received from the director that was they received on Friday? Okay?
No, sir, I'm not aware, Mr.
Chairman, that would have been information that was sent by not the petitioner, but community I understand.
Yeah, we have not had any restraining orders issued against us, nor have we requested,
okay, thank you.
Thank you. Former Sherman, former Watson. Thank you very much. All right, thank you very much. Any further questions from the board? I had a question. Okay, Mr. Bowman, again, yeah,
when would it be appropriate to further discuss the shadow study on what the that's
that's a case that's already been approved and. We moved along with that one.
Okay, it's not gonna apply to this one. No,
okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Any further questions from the board hearing on seeing none. Let's go to community testimonials. Yeah. I mean the same rules with this matter, because it came back from the court, and the court wanted the community have a little bit more time. Yeah, they're going to get the time that they need to speak, but within the limit, so that five minute limit is still in place.
And just to add, if there is not a sign affidavit, hold on before I proceed with that. Jonathan, your approach, please. I
i Okay, that's how we're going to proceed with these. Because I believe at the last case, individuals indicated they representing other folks in that matter, if you are representing someone, let's have a signed notice indicating that you are representing that person, and you're allowed to speak on that purpose person's behalf. So I hope I make that clear. So we're going to start with any testimonials coming from the audience first, and then we're going to go to our virtual participants, if you'd like to provide a community testimony or guarding this matter today concerning case number 3123, at 299, 302-303-3073 13, 319, and 322. And 325, Smith Street and 7719, First Street. Please approach Ma'am. Ma'am. Can you come down to the podium? State your name and address for the record?
Procedural matter through the chair your real estate that you have supporters first, the real estate supporters first. I'd like to take a bathroom break, if I may, address for the record, please. Are you not going to follow the rules? The rules say supporters first started that support. Can
you state your name? Thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. Next person, please.
Please follow me.
Next person, please. Can you come down? Please? You state
your name and address for the record, sir. Miss pierpo is where you
at? My name is Dr Castello. I reside at 550, challenge Street, Detroit, Michigan.
Testimony for the board today is true. Yes. Thank you,
Prime Minister. Good morning. Board really couldn't
afford to be here today. I was supposed to be at work, but I could not afford not to come here. This has been long delayed. We have we're overrun by vacant lots in this neighborhood, that property has been vacant. I've lived in on the north end all my life. There's been numerous apartment buildings throughout the North End. There was some smaller apartment buildings on Smith growing up. This property has been lighted for a very, very long time there's wildlife running through there, deer. We get hawks running around. I get groundhogs in my backyard. I stay exactly two blocks from the said location. I don't see anything wrong with it to bring on residents to the neighborhood. I've had candy spur in the neighborhood before three restaurants in various locations throughout the neighborhood, all the folks are gone. So this project being built, I think it'll bring you know, if it looked attractive, you know, we won't have as many vacant lots in the neighborhood anymore. Might bring businesses over there. You know, other people that want to build up and make our own neighborhood. Look nice, we're within walking distance of downtown. Know, in the summer, growing up as a kid, you can walk to John our street and see the fireworks. You know, you didn't even have to come all the way downtown. So us being adjacent to downtown, it's only right for them to continue building on right on from to Highland Park. So with this area, I think it'd be a great project. We've been getting delayed and delayed. I know people that would love to move back over into the north end, if it was some place that's affordable for them to come. Everyone over there is not home owners. In recent years, a. A lot of out of state people have been coming in, buying properties and turning in the Airbnb so they're not all home owners residing in those homes over there. And I think this would be a great project, and I wish it would push forward. Thank you very much. Thank
you. Just a quick question for you,
how long you been in that area?
I've been living I'm 51 I've been living nowhere all my life. My great grandmother moved into the north end in 1938
Okay, and how long this property so the one this one question right now, how long has it been vacant?
That whole block has been empty since I want to say like 1992 or three if I'm correct. Thank
you very much. Sure next person. Community testimonial. Community testimonial, if you'd like to provide a community testimonial, please come down to the podium.
Hey, it's Bernie Savage, morning state. Your name
Clarissa Hamlin, Lucky 205,
Mount Vernon, okay, yes.
Well, I tried to write something so I wouldn't forget
I was born and raised on the north end. I'm 67 years old. The house that I live in is the house that I was brought to when I was born.
I attended all the schools, Palmer Elementary, Palmer Elementary, SHERRARD, bright Meyer and northern High School. And I'm just saying that to say I have children and grandchildren that weren't allowed. They couldn't go to walk, they couldn't walk to school. They had to be bused to school because the everybody was gone. There was, you know, no neighborhood. I'm
sorry.
I was there when there were a lot of grocery stores we used to have. There's a king CO on Euclid. Then there used to be a market directly across the street from there. And then there used to be a market on John R and Holbrook, where the northern, northern playground, or something part of, part of Northern high now and then. We also had a market on Euclid and Woodward, which we have a new market now. Before the market was built on Euclid, we only had Whole Foods, which is almost exactly two miles away, you know. So even young people are saying that's where the community stuff, but that's quite a ways if you're walking.
The other thing I want to say is,
I was here for the last meeting, and the gentleman over here, he kind of addressed it. Things start just getting silly on why they don't want things built. When they were talking about building, the building, and then people would be peering in some of the little girls bedroom, and it was going to be trash everywhere. I mean, like, it just sounds crazy, like, you know, why would they just rent to criminals? Because now when you rent places or they do background checks, I mean, so so that should we those people out? And why would they just all come to that area? So why would it be for that and on that? The other thing I want to say is that
I don't want to, well, I'm gonna have to say Joanne is always a position, okay, I can't say that. Well anyway, okay, no names. Well, there was opposition to I said, I live on Mount Vernon. It was opposition to that project. I ended up signing something and saying that I was for it, I supported it. It ended up being built. And then one of the speakers, the last time I was here, she lives at 60 or 65 Mount Vernon. I don't know, I'm not sure the address, but she wouldn't be there
if the opposition,
if you know if they had made it, you know if they're opposing, it stopped it from being built. So I'm saying I'm for building our neighborhood, bringing new residents, bringing life back. When people come, we'll have shops like we used to have. Well, it started up with those grocery stores because we used to have everything. You could walk and then up on the Boulevard, and that's what we called it. You could go shopping. You know, you didn't have to go downtown. You could go downtown. But I was thinking about, you know, when things are there, you'd be talking about going somewhere. You say, I'm going shopping. I'm going up on the Boulevard and buy some shoes. There was a crowd. Police there. There was a legal means there, the Sanders breaker. You know, it was just everything you needed was right there. So
that's it. Thank
you very much. Ma'am, okay, next person. Community testimonial. Community testimonial, please come to the podium.
You state your name and address record. Mel, yes, Pamela, Martin Turner, and my address is 1246, Strathcona, drive, Detroit, Michigan, or 203.
People.
I do good morning board. Thanks for this opportunity to speak to you. I'm the president and CEO of Vanguard community development. Vanguard is 30 years old. We have developed and built 236 units of housing in the north end over those decades. We provide a variety of quality of life services over the past 30 years, we are governed by an independent board of directors, and our mission includes preserving and elevating the African American History and Culture of the north end. We provide outreach and engagement with the community, including home repair grants to all residents of the north end. We have that program going on now at one at one time, Vanguard employed 55 people in the north end, and we still employ people from the community today. We own and manage 20,000 square feet of commercial property in the area. We have been hard at work for the past 30 years. In partnership with the city of Detroit, we support the city's goals of repopulating the city and having taxpayers available to pay taxes so that we could provide city services. There's a lot of vacant land in the north end, as you heard from the residents who have lived here for decades. And so part of our objective with this project was to repopulate some of that vacant land and eliminate slum and blight. We tried to partner with with private developers here in the city. Originally, we first started this I came to Vanguard in 2015 and we first started this project at that time. But those developers locally offered us only to build for sale houses that would be 400 $450,000 which for most Detroiters, are way beyond what people can pay. And so the economics of the deal, we didn't want to build that type of housing. We wanted to build housing that was accessible for for Detroiters and for people who live in the north end, especially seniors who want to stay in the community but don't want to continue to live in 100 year old houses that they can't maintain on a fixed income. So we, I Pamela spoke to Mr. Carter, who is my classmate from the University of Michigan, and that conversation developed into a relationship in this project that you see before you. Now this project is an is an asset, will be an asset, is an asset for the community, and will we pop help to repopulate the north end in a way that it was populated once, once before. My grandmother lived on the north end, and I remember as a girl, and I'm 66 years old, so that was a long time ago, when I was a girl, what the north end was like with stores and shops, and you can't have those type of stores and shops if you don't have rooftops, if you don't have people living in the neighborhood, you won't be able to get the commercial development that you want. So this all works together to revitalize the community and Vanguard our board of directors, our staff and all of the people that we work with in the community, which is a lot of people are in full support of this project, and I wanted to just make a statement for the record, saying that. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Okay, anyone else? Anyone else? Can you testimonials? Community testimonials? Please come down to the podium.
Morning, ma'am, please state your name and address for the record. Miss pier for you.
Olivia crumpets, 240 Chandler Street. Yes, just
bring it down a little bit.
Okay, so my husband and I bought our house about a year and a half ago on 240 Chandler, and we intend to start a family there. It was a vacant home. We are restoring it, and we have a long way to go, but we've gotten a lot done. We're doing it with our own two hands, spending our own money on this house and trying to bring a young family back to this neighborhood. We we care a lot about the neighborhood already. Even just a year and a half in, we've made a lot of friends, and we care a lot about our neighbors. I think the support paints a very dismal, dismal picture of what this neighborhood is currently. I think even in the last year and a half, I've seen so many homes bought up and restored, and there's a lot of good movement in the area. Area, I think that there is a way to bring new new buildings and new residents to the area in a way that doesn't affect who's already there. A lot of their plans will have a great negative impact on US residents that are there. This one that we're talking about right now in particular, isn't one that I have main grievances against. It's not one that neighbors with my property. But I I'm concerned with who's managing this property. They have terrible reviews on Google. They have about 1.6 stars, which is concerning their current residents state that they're no better than slumlords. I'm I'm concerned for the quaint value to our neighborhood. And I just, I want the people in our neighborhood to care as much as we do about their properties that they own. And I fear that these this group, will not
be those people.
A lot of the traffic will be going up and down my alley that's right behind my house. So this will be the main access point for these, for these homes here. I want to state that there has not been great communication with the developers. I did not see the plans until five days before our first hearing, and we did not see the slides until after the hearing. So the communication has been lacking. I haven't been invited to anything. No one has reached out to me directly. And I fear that this type of behavior will continue into their management style. And that is backed up by the fact that they have very poor reviews all over the country. People say that they're they're slumlords, and their properties are dirty. So I just hope to see someone in our neighborhood that cares as much as we do. I believe that young families and people owning homes are the future of the neighborhood, and I believe, even though I haven't been there long, I am the future of the neighborhood. We want to have our kids there, and we cherish our home, and we cherish our neighborhood, and I just hope that the neighbors that develop that land will care as much as I do, Mr.
Chair, thank you for watching. Can we have your address again?
240, Chandler Street. 240, 240, yes.
Former vote, yeah,
you mentioned something about access through the alleyway, and the case we're hearing right now is really focused specifically on setbacks. Are you saying that the setbacks would affect your access to the alleyway, because it sounds to me like that would be something separate from the property itself.
I would maybe need to review it. The alleyway is pretty small. I'm not sure if it's affected by the setback, but the alleyway is too small for two cars to pass by each other, so maybe if they didn't have the setbacks, they would have a larger clearance, and it would make it a little easier for people to access that
parking lot. Is
there access point to where you can park your car that does not involve going through the alleyway to your home, to my home? Yeah, to where you park on that you use a garage or driveway or home. Yeah, our
we currently don't have a garage. We will build one. It was torn down previously. The access to that was originally in the alleyway, and we would like to keep it in the alleyway with this development going up. I'm not sure if that's an option, but the front of our house is so this is behind our home, so the alleyway is behind our home, so we could access from the front.
Thank you, Mr. Chair,
thank you for watching the
speaker previously stated that she not against this case. Currently under consideration this particular case, she's against another case that perhaps involved supporting, channeling, and I have clarification on that point.
Yeah, I'm against the development as a whole. I'm against who is doing the development. I think that this particular property is an example of how they may appease the neighborhood slightly. I still don't think that they have the best management style to match our neighborhood. So as a whole, I oppose development, but this particular property is one of the better suited properties to fit our neighborhood.
Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.
Oh form or not, yes,
I wanted to know. Where
do you park now,
in the street in front of our house. Yeah, we have a driveway. It's it's fairly small, so one of us will park on the street. Okay,
so one of you parks in this on the street, in the other in the driveway.
We have a driveway, and. Parking Okay, so, yeah, one of us will park in the street, one in the driveway. Okay,
okay, all right. Thank you very much. Next person. Community testimonials. Community testimonials, you have new testimonial. Please come down. Okay, please state your name and address for the record. Sir. Yep. My name
is Calvin krumpets. I live at 240 Chandler Street, right, Michigan, 4202 what's next? So I won't touch say the same thing my wife had said, but just wanted to speak to the setback variance for this property, it would affect us in a way that, because the access for those homes that been questioned right now, would go through the alleyway and John R and brush our one way streets, and the alleyway is not wide enough to fit two cars through. So then bringing the setback so close to the street, you really wouldn't be able to get two cars to go through there. So it's just going to be going to be a lot of cars backed up trying to get through that alleyway, which would be it probably end up having to drive somewhat on my property. And if I were to put a fence there, I'm just worried about getting damaged and things like that, and all the noise and traffic with that. So so that's the one issue I have with this one. But I guess one of the also state is that this development for this area is, is nice. I welcome it. I think it's, I think it's appropriate for the neighborhood, sized, right? Awesome, just but as a whole, of the developers, the their lack of communication and how they've treated us so far, worried that for the future and the other properties. I can't really say too much. That's not this case, but I'm just worried as a whole, it's going to bring a negative to the neighborhood, and that's all I have to say. Thank you.
Thank you for Renaissance.
So are you saying that you have never received any communication from this, this team, development team, you've never received any notice. No one has ever knocked on your door, you've never received any mail.
I have not no the only community, the only way I've ever received any information is from our neighbors, who have been trying to reach out and gather that information, and from their word is that it's been very difficult. I personally, have never been reached out to by any of the development.
So you haven't received a flyer or anything,
nothing. Thank you for watching. What year did you and your wife buy the property? About
it in May of 2023
23 Yes. Thank
you a little Okay,
board member to remember, not question with the with the discussion about this being in front of multiple public bodies, Council, Planning and Development, you didn't get a notification about that, either,
not to my knowledge. No, is that supposed to be like a flyer or an email? Or how do I
how does that flyer would show up on your door? Okay, right? I would assume it's a flyer.
I've not received a flyer
that would be a let actually a letter from the city of Detroit that they give to people who are within 300
this case, is about
a right use. It didn't go through a BC hearing, so there was no notification.
Oh, okay, yeah. And I think that's part of the reason why the petitioner tell you stated that they've had many meetings since 2021 knowing that they didn't buy right, and there's no public hearing for it, then they engaged in 2023 and 2024, looks like looking at page 12 and 13 of their petitioners presentation. Okay, any other board members for Okay, for me more, I
want to ask. There's been a lot of discussion about alleys, running back and forth to the alley in your neighborhood. Are there two lane alley? Aren't alleys notorious for going down one way or the other? I mean, it seems like it's such a busy discussion that you might not have an opportunity to get out because of the traffic.
Yeah, so I'd love to be able to use that alleyway, use my driveway, and have a garage, and have a pass through to use that and now that this whole development is going on, I'm totally almost thinking forgo that idea, because the alleyway is just gonna be so packed with all of that traffic. I mean, obviously these sites that are in question aren't. Are not like a whole lot. I think it's 17 units. But if I could speak to the larger one, that's the next case, that's going to be a lot of cars going down. And the alleyway right now is 17 or 20 feet wide, and there's been a study done with the poles being there. There's no way you can get two cars past each other to be able to get to each of the all those properties, and it's going to definitely encroach on, yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Next person, next person. Any other community testimonials? Any other community testimonials? Oh, please come out, sir,
you state your name, you state your Okay, go ahead. Brother, name, address, yeah,
I'm Keith booth. I live at 312 Chandler.
Be a part of testimony for the board. Today's the truth. Yes, it is.
All of this is the largest part of this project is going in across the alley from me, out my back door. My family has owned that house. My The house was built in 1911 My family has owned the house since 1940 so my family has owned that house than any longer than anybody else had. I've been back in the I started out in that house in diapers, and I'm probably going to end up in that house in diapers. It has always been a very quiet residential neighborhood. I've been back there and lived through the hookers on Woodward, a lot of abandoned properties all around us, up and down the block and in surrounding areas. I'm all for having new home owners come in. Home owners. This project that's being put forth here, one we don't really know what's going on the other side has not been very forthcoming with any information that is good enough for us to make even more specific challenges to what they want to do. One of the challenges that is going to be the biggest problem we understand that the amount of occupants that they're trying to put in there will bring about 400 new cars to park in the area. There is no way from what little bit of information we have about their project, whether it's going to how many parking spaces they'll have and how many leftovers will have to park on the street parking is at a premium in that neighborhood. Very few of the residents at driveways. There's a lot of street parking already. On my block, there's 12345,
housing projects. One has already been open. It's a three place. Has three, three separate levels that has been occupied. House next door. They're working on coming in house across the street. They'll be finished with that and have that online before this even breaks ground. That's a three place. There's two more. So, I mean, we won't have any park in the whole area which is going to cause problems, it's going to cause problems, and it's going to cause chaos. It's going to cause chaos. We have beloved Dolores Bennett Park, which is in the center of all of this, which doesn't have any parking of its own anyway. And it's street Park. This whole project is going to surround that. And it's, it's a beloved the park is being used even right up until it snows. They're out there now, okay, it's, it's beneficial to the whole neighborhood. That's going to be a problem. That's going to all the parking for residents of the project and their guests and visitors, is going to push us out and drown out what we have been with in the park in the area. For since the parks been there, and it's been I'm 75 years old, and the parks been there all that time.
I'm concerned about our property value, because I found when you try and shoehorn a rental project right in the middle of a residential project,
renters don't have the same skin in the game as we have. We've held on for all of these years. I know that there's been a long time that folks who lived outside of the city wondered why folks in the city didn't take any better care of their property, because it was red line and we couldn't. Now they're coming in, and I'm very heartened that I'm seeing a lot of the vacant, vacant properties that are well built, that are being
transitioned. Thank you.
Is my time up? Yes, I'm against the project.
Thank you. Thank
you very much, sir. Okay, anyone else? Anyone else, please come down to the podium. You
state your name and address for the record now.
Yes, good morning. My name is Joanne Warwick, W, A, R, W, I, C, K, Mr. P, for us. Where are you in I live at 264 Smith Street. Would
you raise your right hand you find your testimony for the board today is
the truth? Yes, I do the best of my knowledge. So I would like to begin of her the procedural matters that I was not allowed to address at the beginning, and I can understand why there is a bit of you know, problem here, because the rules need to be addressed because they're not fair. Yet under the rules, you do have a duty to be fair, courteous and understanding at all times during your duties. And I have been asking Detroit City Council to address the rules. I guess there's some interest, but it most unfortunately, has not happened yet. So one of the things about the rules that I see as first of all, there's nothing in the rules that say you can be limited to a five minute public comment. There's also case law that I cited before and that I've sent to your attorneys, that a one size fits all is not legal, that doesn't pass constitutional muster. It really depends on the individual facts and circumstances of the case. The other thing in terms of and I understand there's a problem with the record, and again, part of the reason is the rules. The rules say for the petitioner to give you all the information, excuse me, go the bathroom, brush my hair before here, give you everything a week in advance, right? But here's one of the notices, and all it says is all letters. You may come down to the hearing, bring an attorney. You can authorize someone to represent you, or let us know how you feel about this case by writing on the back of this letter, and then it says all letters should be in our mailbox before the date of the hearing, by email, fax, mail, public comment form, etc. Or you may visit us on Zoom. Okay, so this does not say this arbitrary deadline of October 31 at 5pm in fact, in 2023 I submitted materials the day before, and I got an email acknowledgement saying received it would go in the record, but then a lot of stuff didn't make it to the record. So this is a problem in the procedure. I've been trying to work with your attorneys about this. I asked to consult with your attorneys prior to these hearings, prior to the october 14 hearing, but they were unwilling to do so to try and smooth these matters out so that we wouldn't have these problems and we could have a proper hearing. Now this notice also does not say that you have to have some written authorization to represent someone. Now, one of the board members asked me about that at the last hearing, and subsequent to that, I wrote an email to your attorneys, and I said, Well, I don't see that in the rules. You know that I've represented people in the Third Circuit Court, but how would you like me to address the other matter, and then I didn't get a response. So there's nothing in your rules that says I have to give you something in writing about who I represent and but if that's something you'd like to do, let's just put it in the rules. Now, in terms of the time for the submissions, it is a problem because the. In case you all didn't know when they wanted to expand the board, and I said that I thought the board members needed to be paid sufficiently enough to not just be present at the hearing, but the time to digest, study, review, digest the materials, right? Because there's a lot going on there. At the same time, we as the residents who are statutorily required to get notice, we would like that courtesy as well. I am not someone who is versed in all of this. It would take me a long time. I also have some invisible disabilities, although you may be able to see them on my face, right? So I need more time too, and I would, I think we all would have loved to have had the six to eight weeks that the petitioner had after they hired an attorney and they were granted an adjournment. But, you know, another reason that I need an adjournment personally is because I did a FOIA request on september 30, that was the Monday after I got the notice on Friday, and I still have not gotten a response. I had to do an appeal, and I'm waiting for so I'm being denied the opportunity to submit evidence. Now, the problem is, the state law doesn't contemplate how long it takes to get a FOIA request in general from the city of Detroit, because of the 15 day minimum notice rule. Most people, if you've done any FOIAs, you know that the city, due to the volume of the foyers they get very understandably, always use, almost always takes the extra time to respond. In this case, I was asked for over $800 for something that should just be sent to me, and so I'm waiting for the appeal. So that's another reason that I had asked for an adjournment. Your rules don't specifically state that I cannot, as a notice resident, ask for an adjournment, but you do have the duty to be fair, and it like really would be nice if there could be an adjournment and we could sit down and have the presentation that apparently they had on july 14, 2024, in Dolores Bennett playground. I didn't get a notice of that. So, you know, there was never any community engagement about what the actual variances are. There were some earlier meetings. The plans have changed. A lot of them were zoom meetings. So they weren't really adequate. We didn't get one off meetings with the city council members like other people did. So I don't know how we address before I go into my own presentation, how I would be representing other people. If you're going to try and limit me to five minutes to represent my neighbors who could not be here, that is highly problematic. So if you shut me off right now, you are violating my due process rights and the due process right for my neighbors who have authorized me to speak on their behalf because they couldn't be here. Are
you representing someone else now?
Pardon, will you? You're I'd like to represent myself testimony
among yourself. So if you've already completed your testimonial.
Actually, I've not completed it. I was just giving some background in discussing procedural matters. I was not allowed to discuss early
representing someone else. And if you are, do you have a signed notice to say such?
I do not have a signed notice. I've got some notice in my phone. Thank you very much. Where is it in your rules, Sir, where is it in your rules I have the right, Your Honor, please. This says right here that you have a right. The notice does not this. The mailed notice does not say that. Testimonial, okay, well, on the record, I object, and you have violated due process, right? Thank
you very much. First,
I appreciate and I guess you don't even want to let me say who they are, and this is hugely problematic. I also do not appreciate the race baiting. I used to work for Congressman who I was with, Sen Kimberly Hill and
thank you very much, Attorney demos, thank you,
Chairperson, Thomas just briefly for the record, as was directed by Vice Chair Roberts as the chair at the prior hearing on these matters. The standard is very clear what the board is asking of applicants who are not able to speak in their individual capacity at the hearings today and are not content to submit letters or any other form of communication, are able to provide an agent or attorney consistent with the zoning ordinance and the rules, a letter authorizing that individual to speak on their behalf, so anyone who is able to do that today can have an opportunity to speak in such manner. Thank
you very much. Next person you state your name and address for record, sir and Mr. For was working.
Yes. Tyson Gersh, 252254246, Smith, raise
your hand. Testimony from what's this true? Yes,
ma'am. I don't know if this could avoid eating into my time, but I am speaking on behalf of. Several entities that I have submitted authorization or documentation of my authorization for. I'm not sure what else you could ask me for, as I am the owner of one of those companies that has a unique personhood entitled to participate. So I'm not sure how you guys want to deal with that, but I putting that on the record. I hope you don't cut me off at five minutes.
How many entities are you representing? Sir, I am rep second
down.
Five, I believe.
What's this again? Five, that's not going to happen. You're asking me for five minutes per entity.
I am asking this board how it would like to handle okay instances where someone is, where an individual is an authorized agent, uh, participating on a entity's behalf.
Okay, have you have a signed notice from each one of those entities that you're underrepresented?
Yeah? I mean, yeah, there they were submitted.
Attorney demos,
Mr. Gersh, can you just identify each of the entities and each of the documents that you submitted that show that you're the Authorized Agent for each of those entities. Yes,
please don't eat into my time. I got to pull up the slide. We're
not not eating into your time. Mr. Gersch, we just want clarity for the rest. Thank you very much.
We can't, we can't hear you. You're fumbling there.
I said, Please don't eat it my time as I'm trying to locate this document that was requested correct, and
while you're doing that, Mr. Gersh, if you'd like to
now, ma'am, you have to see, please next email ma'am,
page two of
the Thursday
at 5pm I don't know what the date of Thursday was submitted previous to the deadline. It was also sent on october 14. It should
have been the 31st of October. That's Halloween day, I believe,
right. So you've received this documentation several times. Okay, so I've got the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative. I have our articles of incorporation. I am the Authorized Agent, which is documented here. I am speaking on behalf of the lower I'm sorry, North End landing impact community LLC. I am the Authorized Agent. I've submitted the articles of incorporation, which document that speaking on behalf of the Lower North End Neighborhood Association, which is referred to as lower north end block club, there was a recent name change,
Mr. Garish. Just
quickly you're saying you submitted these things. Can you just identify for the record where or what documents these are? This is a part of your 368 page slide deck. For example, I
understand page three of the slide decks of all three versions of the slide decks that were submitted. The first was on october 14, 2024 The second was on October 31 2024 Another one was submitted on what is yesterday, what is today? November 3, 2024 I also, I guess I gotta just look through here. Sorry, I am submitting it as evidence, as part of my testimony today with the physical binder that is physically in my hand that I will be handing to, I guess whomever from the museum board or staff would like to receive it.
All right, you can proceed. We haven't confirmed. I don't see that.
That's right. I will say up to 10 minutes. Caller
day, slide three in that binder,
I'm so sorry for the record. Chairperson Thomas, that appears that there were articles of incorporation included in a 520 slide document that somehow I wasn't able to locate before the hearing
today, submitted on Thursday. I give 10 minutes, we're gonna we're not gonna play loose foot with this.
It was the that slide that's clarifying. It was submitted on october 14. October 14. It was submitted on october 14. Okay,
I'm fine with that. We're gonna do 10 minutes, call a day. That's two entities, yourself and whoever else you're going to represent, all together.
I'll take what I can get. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Oh, sorry. So are you saying, Okay? I'm sorry. I thought you were
saying max time is 10 minutes, if you want to consume that time if you want to start earlier later. I mean, you don't want to exhaust all that time. That's fine with me, but your max time will be 10 minutes. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you for the consideration. For the record, I object formally that limitation, but I will begin as instructed. Thank
you very much,
sir. So Tyson Gersh, testifying and submitting evidence on behalf of myself and as an authorized agent of the north and landing impact community incorporated the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative, poly craft LLC, the Lower North End Neighborhood Association, also known as the lower north end block club. So five, including myself, pursuant to section five, zero, dash four, dash 193, of the Detroit zoning ordinance, which states testimony at hearings, the board of zoning appeals staff, sorry, the board of zoning appeals staff report shall be entered into the record. The Board shall allow an opportunity during the hearing for the appellant and any member of the public to offer either written or oral testimony regarding the proposal under consideration. I am submitting this binder which contains a 520 page slide deck as evidence to support these testimonies. Additionally additional participants who contributed to this document, this evidence, and on whose behalf This is collectively submitted, are listed on slide 129 of the slide deck given it given the limited time available for me to speak today, I want to state on the record that the evidence of our claimed protected interests and rights, as well as our evidence of special damages, are detailed on in the 520 page slide deck presented as evidence to you today. A earlier version of that was submitted on October 31 before 5pm and an earlier version of that was submitted on october 14, 2024 prior to the start of the hearings that took place on october 14, as well as the additional 1000 plus pages of materials that have been submitted to the BCA numerous times over the past year leading back to the 2023 hearings. So one known as disparaging renters, we are begging this board to not let an out of state developer change our entire community from being a majority long term home owners to a majority renter community. No one person or entity should have that power. Just really consider it our community. You know, we did this eight week process with the whole lower north end around identifying what was important to our community. One of the and this exercise was done to establish a development guidelines that would be given to to help steer incoming investment interests. One of those priorities was our value of our history of home ownership. The North End in particular, has a lengthy history of minority home ownership. Specifically, it was one of the first neighborhoods in the city to allow Jewish people, and subsequently African American people, to own property. That is a huge deal to us. It is still a majority that I'm Jewish myself. The majority of the people that have been involved in this opposition are long term homeowners of color. No one person should be able to take that away from the brand, the identity of our neighborhood. That is a massive thing. And the developer has tried to characterize this in as a sort of racial, discriminatory thing that we're doing. And it's literally, it's it's outrageous. I'll move on. I did just want to address that. Furthermore, no one claimed anyone was a pedophile. What we said was that it was an egregious design practice to place the bathroom windows for eight to 10 units facing the adjacent single family home located just feet away. We pointed out that the design of design of record in August 2024 like a few weeks ago, placed these bathroom Windows directly in view of a teen. Girls bedroom as a tangible example of why design must be mindful of the existing community and potential adverse impacts this instance, among many others, clearly show that this development does not follow good design practices and is harmful to the existing community. If the petitioner another point I want to make, if the petitioner is allowed to make arguments on the totality of circumstances, which was referenced earlier, I believe, by the engineer who specifically said we should be able to get an exemption from any recreational space for this project because we're providing it over here, then this board must also consider arguments opposing the development on the totality of circumstances, which considers the transition of our community from being majority homeowner to majority renter, that that's the totality of circumstances. Similarly, in the same breath that these the development team makes this argument, they also argue to narrow your scope of what you're able to consider within the context of a very specific case number and a specific variance they don't get to play at both sides, and then deny us the opportunity to do the same. Fair is fair. City charter also obligates everyone on this board to be fair. What's next. Sorry, the renderings provided are utterly illegitimate. PLEASE SEE SLIDE slides 113 through 119 for a breakdown of one example. I hope you look at that. It's wild. Some study that was presented on october 14. The renderings from october 14 is what I just referred to. I'm also referring to the Sun study that was presented on october 14. Detroit's grid is on an angle, things like 24.8 degrees or 24 degrees. The sun study that was provided failed to consider the angle of our city's grid, at least that's the best I can tell. Because when you adjust for the real world environment, it's pretty clear. It's very similar to the renderings that were presented. I would expect better from a licensed architect than to produce such misleading or to make such a careless mistake, and I think with the inconsistencies of the renderings provided, not just with regard to orientation of the shadows and sun, but to the building height. I don't know if you guys noticed, but for 202, Smith, the rendering showed that building is three stories. It's four. I mean, that's like a pretty significant. I don't I don't want to, like make accusations, but as somebody who has professionally done 3d modeling and architectural rendering for about a decade, that's a huge mistake to make. There was a number of other mistakes made. Please look at the slides. Furthermore, approval criteria. What is it? Believe it's 50 dash, sorry, 50 dash, four. Dash 121, criterion to a requires that the proposed variance be consistent. Sorry, so the actual language is the requested variance or administrative adjustment is consistent with the Master Plan and the spirit purpose and intent of this chapter. In petitioners brief, they referred to this chapter as r3 zoning designation. This chapter is specifically defined in the zoning ordinance, which is chapter 50 of the Detroit city code. It specifically says when references made to this chapter are made, it's referring to the zoning ordinance in its entirety. The words purpose and intent sound like something you would just use your judgment around. But that is not the case. Those are specifically defined section 61, dash one, dash five. Purpose and Intent specific. These are the purposes and intent of Chapter 50 of the Detroit city code, which, this is the purpose of the Detroit zoning ordinance. There's very specific. There's a very specific list here for what the purpose and intent is. It includes, ensure adequate light air privacy, sorry section, 61 dash one dash five, three, ensure adequate light air privacy, safety and convenience of access to buildings, structures and land. Four, conserve. 61 dash one dash five, conserve or enhance property values. 61 dash one dash five, protect all areas of the city from harmful encroachment by incompatible uses. Section 61 dash one dash five, prevent the overcrowding of land with buildings. Section six. One dash one dash five, AVOID UNDUE congestion. By the way, Section 61, dash one, dash 516, provide for a board of zoning appeals and its powers and duties. This is the same section of the zoning ordinance that empowers this board to exist in the first place. So I would urge this board not to ignore the specific criteria located within the approval criteria that you're familiar with. Our myself and the participants I'm representing have given ample evidence of why these are not met, therefore the variances cannot be a burden. Thank you, sir.
Thank you. Okay, let's turn to our virtual participants. If you'd like to provide a community testimonial and you're participating by zoom or by phone, please dial in by pressing star nine by phone for option plus y by MAC device for all plus y Bucha keyboard,
we have a field. Talbert
Albert, good morning.
Please state your name and address for the record. Miss pier for us. Where are you in?
My name is Philip Talbert. My address is 2720 Oakman court, Detroit, Michigan, 48238,
do you affirm your testimony before the board today is
the truth? I do five minutes.
Thank you once again. I thank your body for allowing me to speak. I'm speaking on behalf of myself as a lifelong resident, but more importantly, someone who grew up in the north end attended schools and was actually in that community when it was a very vibrant community with stores on Oakland Avenue, Woodward Avenue, one of our one of the previous speakers, spoke about the amp market that was on Euclid and Woodward, there were movie theaters, there were restaurants that needs to return. I also would like to speak as a lifelong resident, but more importantly, a child of parents who started off as renters in the north end community on brush street, and they transition to home owners on 515 East Philadelphia Street. And I have a concern that when we speak about renters that it has a negative connotation, and I am now a business owner. My brother, who grew up and attended school, went to Northern SHERRARD, all the schools in the north end, is a minister and a former business owner. Just because you are a renter doesn't mean you cannot be a fully participating citizen in the city of Detroit. They are renters in the suburban communities, and they are welcome. We would hope that that would be the same case here in the city of Detroit. I also want to speak specifically on behalf of the North End youth Improvement Council, which has been active in this community for over 65 years, founded by the great Delores Bennett in which the Delores Bennett park is named after I have volunteered with that organization for close to 40 years, so I have been involved in that community, whether I have lived there, grew up there, and still remain committed to that this community, and I know, as A business owner in the city of Detroit, that whatever development happens in the city of Detroit age the Detroit community as a whole. But more importantly, I keep hearing them talking about all the town developers. These are home grown gentlemen who decided to come back and give back to their community, and I don't think we should kick that out the door. Let's remember that development helps everyone in the city of Detroit. So I support this endeavor as a citizen of the city of Detroit, and hope you do as well in your vote. Thank you. B Stewart. B Stewart,
state your name and address for the record. Where you at? Can you hear me?
Yes. My name is Susan Stewart. I'm located just behind the developments, the proposed development. At 290 Chandler Street.
Do you affirm your testimony before the board today is the truth? I do. Thank you.
My name is okay. Thank you, and thank you for hearing us. My name is Susan Stewart. I'm located at 290 Chandler Street. I am an impacted resident. This traffic will be coming up and down my neighborhood. And I am an African American and a 40 year resident, I hope that we are looking toward integrating Detroit. One of the reasons that it did become so segregated is because of a lot of negativity. So I hope that our city will be open, opening up their arms to people who would like to invest in our neighborhoods. I do not support the North End landing project due to the following concerns and issues the overall proposed increased population. Dentist, dentist, density will lead to traffic congestion with visitors, social events and daily traffic to and from I 75 and parking problems. Chandler leads directly to clay, which drops off to I 75 we already get an enormous amount of traffic, just people going to I 75 so we're looking at an increase, the proposed population increase within 1.25 city blocks is well over 600 people. This is encompassing the entire development. 600 people in 1.2 city blocks. It is my understanding that the developers are creating enough parking spaces for less than 40% of the occupancy of all the developments, which is going to lead to increased parking problems. Currently, there are very few empty parking spaces, especially with the popularity of trucks and oversized vehicles, the developers are supplying tension and frustration to a rather calm and peaceful neighborhood. The inadequate parking spaces will crowd the streets with cars and litters such as fast food bags, bottles, cigarettes and pet inscribed excrement, in addition, the alleyway parking lots will lead to rear property damage and destruction. So this the alleyways are not wide enough for two vehicles side by side to pass, and there is no one to monitor traffic, so this traffic will be encroaching upon our back alley and the property, and there will be damage to our property because there's no one there to monitor traffic. Traffic will be going up and down. 24 724. Hours a day, seven days a week. Quite noisy. According to zoning regulations, it is my understanding, the alleyways cannot be widened. The alleyway between Chandler and Smith streets will accumulate unwanted parking, partying, noise and congestion, the developers appear to offer inadequate, inadequate partitions for our property borders. The alleyway at Smith and John R has a salon entrance in the alley with the door opening on to the alleyway not shown in the renderings that I saw. They they avoided that. Once again, the architect did not incorporate that into the renderings. That leads to a false sense of safety for the alleyways. Video, simul simulations have been emailed constantly, and we have made everyone aware of the blocked entry ways, the congestion, garbage and security. I'd like to mention that there are quite a few markets, etc, that have opened up. We have the People's Community Market on Euclid. We have at least eight or 10 new restaurants on Woodward so we have a lot of spaces that people can go and eat or shop already. They have closed hardware stores, etc, around to make way for other things. But I do not support the North End landing project in its current state or as proposed copies of the proposed site should have been mailed or emailed to all residents around the proposed development instead of the lack of personal communication the neighborhood has received. I'd also like to mention that the Google reviews regarding the developer has a 1.6 the Google reviews about the developers are quite negative. They are likened to slum landlords who do not take care of their property. The developers have, as I say, a 1.6 Google review all over the country. I'd also, once again, like to move. That I am an African American, although it should not matter what culture or race you are, we are talking about the quality of life that will be impacted negatively by the way this development has been thrust upon us. Thank you.
Sunita gray.
Sarita, great.
Okay. Sunita Geary,
okay. Address for record, Miss pierpo is where you at,
sure. Sunita Gary, my address was 421, Harper Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.
Do you affirm your testimony before the board today is
the truth? Yes,
thank you. You can proceed. Ma'am.
I am. I'm a community leader, but I also was looking for properties on the north end to buy, to purchase, but it has been quite expensive, even with the dilapidated or houses you want to be in on. So this project was very interesting to me. Currently I'm a renter, so I would be very interested. You know, being eligible to be a resident and newly developed, no living over the year, rent has worked out really well for me, so I understand the traffic, the development, or whatever, I think those things could be worked out, versus just stopping the whole project. So I am in support of the project, and hopefully the community and developer can come to some type of agreement to push the project forward. And I have been to the community meetings, including the one in Dolores Park that certain people say they weren't there, but I saw them there, so I don't know, no was. I don't know if it's a person or a business, but I do think they have explained on multiple occasions what the development was about and everything, and I'm as the renter now, I'm definitely interested, once the practice complete, and possibly being a renter with them.
Thank you very much. Miss Gary
Reagan. Reagan,
good morning. My name is Reagan. I am currently a renter, and I want to say I'm in full support of this project. You
state your name and address. Ma'am. Miss pier, for us working,
yes, sir. My name is Reagan. I live at 2911, West Grand Boulevard.
Testimony before the board today is the truth,
absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. I live and work on the Boulevard. I do want to say I'm very excited for this, because I am a Gen zer, and it will be awesome to see just new development happening, also seeing blighted areas turn into thriving housing for people and for families. I also want to add, if you're looking for a great example of how well seeing a harmonic flow between like an alleyway, a great example could be where I currently live, which is the boulevard apartments in the back of our building. Our entrance way to our garage parking is shared with the DPD, and it's quite a harmonic flow. So that's a clear example right there. And I also want to add any concerns about the park. I mean, there's a park near where I stay. It's called palester Park, and it's surrounded by housing and home owners, and it's, it's still very harmonic. It's not over, overly crowded or anything. And that's all. I just want to say, I'm, I'm in full support of this development. And thank you so much.
Thank you very much. Mary
Bennett.
Bennett, Mary Bennett, your name and address for the record, Miss pierpo, is where you at Sure.
Mary Bennett, King, 111, King Street in Detroit, 48202,
do you affirm your testimony before the board today is the truth? Yes. Thank
you.
Yes. I thank you for that opportunity and the hard work that we doing to ensure that we return residents into our blighted area. I don't like the term blighted, but yes, it has been blighted for a while now. Initially, I know I'm hearing as well that some of the people wasn't present, but yet, indeed they were, even if they were outside of the park protesting or inside of the park with some of the council members of. Them to discuss, know the development in the area I am, I am so concerned that this is going on so long my mom, Dolores Bennett, current council person and Commissioner advocate for the North end for over 65 years, as her legacy entailed to us, yes, the initial was to develop housing around Bennett Park to bring back more of the families. Firstly, for our seniors, which we been trying to get off the ground for a while now, the part about parking, back when the homes were in the area, they had street parking, and they have front entry If they wanted to develop a driveway. You know, back when the streets were you know, homeowners were there, renters were there, we lived in harmony. Delores Bennett Park was a legacy built to bring harmony in our area, to have concerns for each other. I love my neighbors. I love my neighborhood. I love Detroit, I love the new comers. But every time we get a new person, be it a year or half a year, 30 days, you know, they want to start the process over we've been voting on this for over seven years. North End stems from the Boulevard to Holland Park, from Oakland to pretty much Woodward some so we do have the need for families that would help us in our voting. It would help bring life back to our area. We have stores, we have ice cream dairies, we have markets. You know, we need all those things to return to the north end. North End is a historical place mark in my heart and in hearts of a lot of people in Detroit, um for as the parking in the alley that was actually brought to the table by a part of Tyson's group that you know, that might clear up some concerns about parking on the street. So some of these things were good ideas. We kept the good ideas our developer, who was from Detroit, come back here to help us in this endeavor. I appreciate the patience. I'm looking forward to continuing our relationship. I am definitely and stand with the North End youth Improvement Council to approve this development, that's well needed. I spoke to different families in the neighborhood. I it's a lot of elders that could take advantage of this housing and then leave the encompass part of home ownership today that to their children, they're not able to maintain it in their health and their age right now, so I'm very much for taking care of our seniors. First, I applaud the developer by continuously pivoting over these seven plus years to have input from the community that import has been there numerous times. Thank you for your time. I'm sorry I have a call, but thank you for your time, and I'm definitely for the project. Thank you.
Thank you. Miss Bennett, Director Brown, Quincy Jones. Quincy Jones, excuse state your name and address for the record, Miss pierpo, is what we're doing.
Yes, how you doing today? Board? This is Quincy Jones. I am a long term resident of the north and 405 Chaplain Street, Detroit, Michigan,
testimony before the board today is the truth. Yes, it is the full truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, you can receive, sir, just
a few things. One, the July 14 meeting with one, there's been a tons of community engagement meeting about this project, in particular, the July 4, July the 14th meeting that was held at the Great Park Dolores Park. Tons of residents came out plenty of time. Letters went out to engage the community about the event. You do have some residents stating that they were not there. They were fully there. Tons of people saw the individuals there. So these individuals are stating that they tell them the truth, but they were they. At that park is saying that they were not in particular that July 14 meeting, which was an engaging meeting to report back to the community, many of many of the alleys that was in the north prior to almost two years ago, they were overgrown, particularly the ones where the development is going. The Detroit alley team came out and cleaned them out. So these alleys are now active again. This development, prior to the city getting dollars to do the alleys, talked about revitalizing these alleys, giving them the access, giving residents the access to the alley. So this this project, was already thinking about how to reactivate these hours prior to the city getting the harp dollars to think clean the out. This project represents a new way of thinking about communities aging in your community, the senior project is a great way, and this can be a best practice of the North End has always been known for long term residents. My family has been living over there. My parents are thinking about selling their home and so understand the community. This project represent the aging in your community. If you sell your home, you don't have to leave. So this is a really great, innovative project coming to the north end. This project is also bridging home ownership and renters. I know you stated previously board chair, this is not going to be a racial thing, but this is really about people talking about homeowners against against residents. And the mission of the city of Detroit is to is to grow the city have opportunities for homeowners and opportunities for renters, their rights are all equal. This project represents that giving home owners, giving opportunities for homeowners, giving renters the opportunity to live in a clean and safe place in the neighborhood, this project represent that this project is also has been vetted through various departments, various department heads who are expert in who are expert in their industry. So they are not going to vet a project or approve a project that will be damaging to a community, damaging to a resident. They want to ensure that Detroit is growing. They want to ensure that this project represents a good project, so that Detroit can grow. And this board has done that, and various department has done that, fed it this project over and over again. I've been at several hearings. I've been at several community meetings with various department heads, including various city councils, have been there. So this project has been vetted. It's probably been the most vetted project that I've ever seen. So once everything is done, this can be a best practice as well
to for the board.
Finally, I just want to say Detroit is growing. Detroit is growing the way that we have never seen before. This project is adding to that. This has been a project prior to advanta and Vanguard talking about this. This has been a project where underground homes talked about growing the North End and bringing homes into the north end. So this project represents everything that is positive about the north end, growth, growing the neighborhood, providing home ownership, providing renters the opportunity to move it into the community. And I know previous individuals stated that this neighborhood has always been about home ownership. It's been about both. We know the North End has always been a place where people who were escaping the south, where oppression was and a lot of individuals that was coming up were coming to the north end, renting rooms from homeowners. So homeowners and renters are always live in peace this divisiveness to talk about, homeowners are better than renter. We don't want that. We don't want that. That's not who we are. We are. We are community that want to grow. We are community that accommodate our youth or that accommodate families that accommodate seniors. That's who we are. These oppositions are, are are trying to divide us. These oppositions. Only want certain individuals to live in the community. This project represents everyone's vision, everyone's passion, and I encourage this board to pass this great project. It's been vetted through various smart individuals that's been doing this work for years. So I am in full support of this project. I am in full support of every positive project that will grow this city and give someone, a young person, not to leave this city, to keep their knowledge, to keep all of their tax base here in the city of Detroit, this is what we need. So I'm in full full support of it. Thank you so much.
You. Margaret, hearing,
Margaret, hearing, yeah, I need yourself. Hi, how are you? This? Fit your name and address for the record. Miss pier for us. Where you at? Hi,
my name is Margaret herring. I live at 227, East Philadelphia Street.
Do you affirm your testimony for the board today's truth? Yes, I
do. You can proceed now.
I spoke once before, and I mentioned that I wasn't raised over here, but the property was bought by my grandfather in the 30s. I was raised on Santa Barbara when we would come over here for holidays, I noticed that there were always apartment building, which wasn't so around Santa Barbara, but this neighborhood always had apartment the closer you got to downtown, it was always more integrated with apartment buildings and homeowners. I remember Phelps Lounge, which was flourishing because a lot of the entertainers lived around the Santa Barbara area. And we would go to see like Johnny Mae, Matthews, Eddie James, I was quite young, but I would go with her daughter, because she was like the house pet over at Phelps lounge, and she was always there. And this neighborhood was wonderful. The Saks Fifth Avenue, a complete replica, but it's at the Troy sax Fifth Avenue. I mean, this neighborhood took a nose dive. I mean, they need to bring something back to make it look like it used to. So I'm for anything that's going to make it look like it used to look. As far as parking goes, everybody's not gonna have a car. You know, you can implement parking for people that lives in the structures at a certain time, the people that don't live there will know they have to leave because people that live there are going to be parking. Seniors won't have cars. All of them don't have cars. So why not this city that already turned into New York City? Anyway, if you know this is already like New York.
So what's the problem? I
That's all I have to say.
Thank you very much. Ma'am. Richard Bernhardt,
Hi, my name is Richard Bernhardt. 140
managers for record, Miss pier for us. Where you went? 14038
fair crest, Detroit. 48205, I'm I've been kind of an impartial person in listening to what's happening, but I'd like to point out some of the things that I've noticed that seem to be a big issue in some of this.
Sorry. Where are you in? Do you affirm only before the board today is true? It
is yes. Thank you. Proceed. Okay, so one of the biggest issues that some people are bringing up is the reviews of the community followed by parking and residential numbers and then traffic via the alley, current community makeup compared to outcome changes, design issues with the proposed project. So it's been stated repeatedly that reviews of the company show that there could be lack of concern about the community. I think that's something that should be first and foremost addressed parking or residential. Numbers show that there is community concern, and this could create congestion. One of the individuals who was trying to represent five different entities. He was bringing this up as and he showed some of the statutes in regard to zoning. And there can be an issue here, if it creates congestion traffic via the alley, highlights issues, again, with congestion, and could probably create an issue with the right of way, with the current residents compared to the new also the community makeup compared to the outcome, seems to have an issue with the zoning variations. And this might actually create litigation against the city, and I think that that should be something that needs to be looked into a little bit more closely. There's also been the design issues with the project which make it appear that the designer has not considered the impact of their design on current residents or existing structures. This can create many issues, not just between the neighbors, but it could also create issues with the developer themselves, and having to do like some restorative remodeling, when from my knowledge and having worked with people and trying to get things taken care of, that's usually a lengthy and often tedious process. Yes, I'd like to say it does appear, in some regards, that there is a lack of due diligence in the planning of this project on both the developer and the council. And I'd also like to say it's not simply, it's not wise to simply accept any company just to get development into the city, especially unit using zoning deviations for this purpose. I would also suggest, finally, that the board consider working with companies such as O'Brien. I don't work for O'Brien. I have no connection to them, but they're a company that develops cooperatives, and cooperatives are a unique form of living that allow individuals to own residents at a lower cost and allow for residents to be more communally minded and participate in their shared community. I'd like to thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. Carla Phelps, someone else?
Carla Phelps, good
morning. Good morning. As a resident, fearful
is where you went. Carla
felt two, 231 Inglewood and 216 Euclid, okay. Um, has a long time. Resident, okay,
Excuse me, ma'am, yes. Where you at?
Okay,
do you affirm your testimony before the board today is the truth? Yes,
thank you. You can proceed. Ma'am. Has a long term resident of the north end, as a member of the Board of North End youth Improvement Council. We have been going through this for ages, right? We've been going through this too long. We've been we're a part of the planning. And what people fail to realize is, and I'm hearing a lot about the size of the buildings and the blockage and things like that. As a long time resident, what these new residents are complaining about? They don't even realize they're where they're taught the area they're speaking of the building that used to be there was two times the size of the one that's trying to go there now. So there's never been those of us that are long time residents. Welcome this, this development and and frankly, we're tired of going back and forth. We've been through this multiple, multiple, multiple, multiple hearings, and now we're doing an appeal again. We want to see this happen. We want to see our community grow. Um, we like the development that's going up. We like how it looks. I like how it looks. That's one of the main reasons. When I moved out of the area, I moved back to the area because I like the community. I wish to stay in the community. I left for a little while, but I came back, and I've been back over 10 years. Um, I'm what I'm tired of is individuals that are not from the area, that have just moving and transplant, that are trying to make decisions for the those of us that have left here, that have been here forever. And we welcome and as a board member of the North improvement North End youth Improvement Council. We welcome the development. We want to see this happen, and we submitted petitions on this multiple times. We've had meetings in the community with the council members, where we voted and the residents won. We won the vote, and here we are still again going through this. How many times do we have to keep dragging this out? Why can't we just get a decision made and let this happen? Thank you, ma'am.
That is it. Mr. Chairman. Thank
you very much. Director Brown, okay, so we're going to proceed. I will ask the petitioner,
the petitioner or their representative to approach, and this is only to address the opposition, if you will.
Thank you. Mr. Chair again, Patrick, on behalf, on behalf of the petitioner, we're here today again on our re hearing to give the residents meaningful opportunity to be heard, and we've done that today. This is what makes America great. Everybody has a different opinion on the neighborhood, on housing, what it should look like, where it should go, and who should live there, renters or owners. But specific today and this case before us, are three things, a deficiency of recreational space, which the development as a whole, we almost have 1.5 times the amount of recreational space acquired a front yard setback, specifically being a deviation of 8.14 feet, which the architect spoke to earlier. And a side setback of 2.16 feet that's before us today. As mentioned, this development has been going on since 2018 and the concerned residents have done everything in their power to delay, stall, request a rehearing, file lawsuits, the file 1000s and 1000s of pages, speak at every opportunity, which we've not objected to one time, and they're going to file a lawsuit again. They've told us that they've told the board that they're suing you, and that's what they're going to do. But unfortunately, the criteria here for these variances are met, and we've outlined that in our brief we've outlined that in our testimony, and what they're trying to do is distract you by talking about parking. Well, there's no parking deficiency with this building, and there's no parking deficiency in the whole project, traffic. We don't want renters that is not in your approval criteria. I want to specifically address each speaker that spoke in opposition, the crumpets, the nice young family to the area completely respect their position. They both got up and said they don't oppose this building. Mr. Crumpets said it's it's sized right, and he's not impacted by it. They're concerned about the alley. Well, the alley is not in question with the three variances before you.
Mr. Keith booth spoke parking chaos. This building, specifically, five parking spaces are required for three A, we're providing 10. 3b.
Eight spaces required. We're providing 14. Again, the parking variance is not before you, but I'm just bringing this to your attention so you're not distracted by your relevant information. Miss Warwick. Miss Warwick, didn't mention any of the three variances in question. One time during her five minutes, she's speaking about process, well, that's not what we're here for. We're here about public comment on the petition. That's it. That's in your rules. 5.04 a seven. That testimony was for public comment in opposition to the petition, which she did not provide. Mr. Gersh, I have to commend him and his efforts. He loves his neighborhood, he really does. But we're proposing a by right use that's called for in the zoning ordinance and the master plan. We're not asking for use variance and all the issues related to changing the character of the neighborhood, and we don't want this to become renter versus owner. That's not before us, nor is that in the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance doesn't say you can have renters in this area and you can have owners in that area. It speaks to housing type, and we're compliant. Furthermore, he didn't speak about all the entities he represents and how they'd be damaged. I understand he's resident, so I'm taking his comments as a resident, but his entities and all the talk about all the entities he represents and all the time he needs, he didn't mention them once, and how are they damaged by the setbacks and the deficient rec space. Miss Stewart submitted a number of materials and spoke virtually parking. Again, she spoke to parking and traffic. We have an overage of parking, and she tried to defame the largest minority affordable housing developer in the country by saying erroneously that they have a 1.6 Google review. Further management. Well, a quick search of any one of their communities would prove that wrong, and I did it sitting here today. Furthermore, their Google reviews, I'm sure it are stellar, is not in your approval criteria for dimensional variances. Mr. Bernhardt just spoke virtually the big issues, parking, reviews, of management, traffic, alleys, community, makeup, design, impact. And just letting any company come in and do this, any company this is the largest affordable housing developer in the country, with a national reputation, you should be so happy that they're investing 43 to $45 million in this team. As to his other comments, parking management, traffic alleyways, they're completely renewing the alley community, makeup design, all compliant for the reasons you've already heard. That's all I have as the negative comments. Thank you for your time. Thank you for giving the residents an opportunity to be heard. And with that, I'll
turn it over to Mr. Mr. Carter, thank you.
If there are questions you want to ask me, I'm here, but I stand on the comments.
Okay, I'm going to allow this. I. Um, before we go into discussion, is there anything any other board member has to ask a petitioner before we go on to discussion amongst board members only, and please keep this simple, we've heard related matters before. A lot of information they've already shared. Feel free. Mr. Bowman, yeah,
I just had a question for the previous speaker about a comment he made. You made some a comment about improvements to the alleyway. You elaborate on that
absolutely. Thank you for the question. I'm happy to address it. I want, I want to make sure we are very, very clear, specific to site number three, we are seeking a front setback, side, back setback and rear setback. Even at this site, we have improved the recreational space. Let's also be very clear, this is a six unit building and a 10 unit building that is multi family by right, and is requesting dimensional variances. That is the scope of this conversation. We want to make sure that we are addressing that very, very clearly As to the question around the alleys, let us be very specific in the alley north of Smith Street, between Smith Street and Chandler Street. The entire Alley is absolutely unpassable. I'm sorry I didn't get sworn in one moment
duration right here. Yeah, he wasn't here earlier. Do you affirm your testimony for Bucha is true? I do
again. My name is Jason Jones of tech time development, local developer and participant with the project again to address the point around the alley. If you reference slide number
121, and 122, they show you the physical status of this project today, the alley that is in question is completely impassable to traffic in any form. That entire alley will be built in full, from John R to Bethune, with incomplete requirement to city standard, as is the code and requirement of the city of Detroit engineer. There will be a new and full brand new alley built at the cost of the development, not at the cost of the city. In for the alley in question. It is a 20 foot wide alley, and that 20 feet will be fully passable to cars in expectation and in accordance with the requirements to that point. The other point I do want to address make sure it is addressed around community engagement. There have been on page 22 and 23 and 24 a very clear enumeration of the meetings that have been held in the public there were more than 21 public meetings that the entire North End community has been invited to, including the lower north end block club, as well as many others, more than 21 formal public meetings. In addition to the one on one meetings that were held during that time frame, there is and should be no question as to whether or not the committee has been engaged in this project. It is also and should not be any question whether or not this developer and this development intends to be transparent with the committee, because that, frankly, is the intent that is our our goal, as you have seen evidence, but not just in photos, but also in letters of support, and as a caller reference, continually coming out, hearing after hearing after hearing after hearing, even a rehearing. Still voicing their support, I would encourage the board to continue to maintain focus in small matters that are at hand, and please do not allow the small yet vocal minority to discourage you from continue to support this project. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, thank you. You have a
you know, I just want to make one comment about the characterization of my company as a slum lord, which I deeply resent. You know, we own and operate in multiple cities. We operate two properties here that I encourage you to see that are five minutes away from where we're we're looking to develop this so that characterization is wrong. You can find anything on the internet, and I stick with the fact that most of the times we have gone into new cities is because we've had mayors and housing authorities invite us to invest there, and we invest private capital in communities that have been underserved by capital. It's a tough job, and no good deed gets unpunished, but we stand with our reputation.
Thank you. Thank you very much. All right to the board. This is a board member only discussion, and a motion is encouraged board members. We're not calling another any other entity back for this podium, this discussion will be amongst board and resolve,
yeah, first of all, reminder to everyone, in case, even people listening who have not participated in the discussion. I. I may be concerned about whether or not this board is carrying out its appropriate roles. The only thing that we're here to rule on is, as I think Petitioner representative reminded us, is that is it setback that exceeds the 10% setback that can be provided by BCS judgment, along with the possible deficiency in recreational spaces, that's it. And so I would seek the indulgence of the board and the community and the petitioner and appellants to please bear with me while address points not necessarily germane, but points made, just to be clear that I am not being dismissive of anyone. First of all, the if there is incorrect representation regarding the past case, which I think someone had brought up, it is not to be used applied to any judgment on this case as far in I welcome corrections if I'm wrong on this, but is not germane to anything that we're reviewing today. Is there a recourse for in those cases? Well, yes, when we make a ruling, if it is found that there is mis that our ruling is based upon false evidence being presented, and then that would nullify the ruling, potentially, and assuming it was, you know, substantial and again, and that would be involving something outside of what we're discussing right now at this hearing today. So regarding all of that, and you know, I did ask the question earlier about shadows, but no one brought up any issue regarding shadowing, pertaining to this particular variance, and so again, that that's a matter to be dealt with. Outside of here, a lot of complaints about the procedural aspects, or whether or not the staff and the head and our chair or anyone else really in that decision making type role director was following procedure appropriately. Again, that's not something that I would be ruling on because, or my colleagues directly would be ruling on because, again, that would be a matter of a broader scope. And if you know the board makes a decision that one of the two sides, if you want to call it that in this discussion, disagree with, they can appeal the ruling and to a court, at which point, procedural matters would definitely play an important role, and they understand the need to put on the record objections again. That's not something we decide that would be, if it was appealed, if one of the two sides was unhappy with the ruling. And I'm pretty sure no matter what we decide, someone's going to be unhappy. And I understand courts can be costly and burdensome and time consuming and all that, that's just the system we have, not necessarily the system we want. We can only work in the system we have so that gets us and again, homeowners to renters, not up to us. Arguments made frequent. Sorry, I frequently heard people from the communities who were opposed to the project most stating they're opposed to the project. We're not ruling on the project. We're ruling on a variance that if we deny, for the sake of argument, if we were to deny the setback variance, the petitioner could hypothetically choose to go ahead and build anyway, proceed with the project with larger setbacks. There wasn't an argument made really. I didn't hear anybody really bringing up directly and tying their comments directly to the matters of recreational space and the setbacks. I asked a question about the alley one, because the petitioner brought it up, and two, because it was the alleyway was alluded to many times by community members as being something in the way. And the only relevance I could see there, though no one else tied to that I did it myself, is potentially insufficient setback could impair the ability to expand the alleyway. But I don't really hear that. That is what the you know in a future day, which would not again, be up to us to decide whether or not anything's done the alleyway. But the petitioner brought up that the alleyway is going to be renovated and. So I don't want to be in Oh, finally, one more thing. I'm sorry I'm saying a lot, but I want to be thorough. I want to make sure I'm not being dismissive of anybody I am appalled by at the beginning of this hearing. Basically, people accusing others of defamation and forms of bigotry, that is something that I have to deal with on television. If I watch over the air television up through tomorrow, it's nothing I want to deal with here, and I don't think anyone else wants to deal with it here. That says no place in this hearing that hominin personal attacks, impugning character is totally unacceptable. But again, whether or not someone did that is isn't germane to simply whether or not there were sufficient setbacks, whether or not these setbacks are causing any problem, or whether or not there is a lack of recreational space, which I heard hardly addressed at all. Thank you.
Thank you. All right, I'm going to state this, and I'm going to go to board member Moore after that.
Quite frankly, I think these meetings been going on since 2018 there have been numerous meetings with actually approved by the land bank, planning development, the Vanguard community development,
the historic North van Alliance, the men of North Bend, all of these entities approve this project. And this, I mean, it's a number individuals that spoke today in support of this project. Miss Mary Bennett, who's been around and told us this this project was going on for seven years, and they've been in agreement with this project. I do empathize with the newer residents just came in, but with a lot of the agreements have been made, and the amendments to the project, the edits, if you will, they've done a lot to bring this project forward. I will also, in addition, stated that board member Bowman, there's a reason why I interjected in the beginning. When we bring a race in this conversation, it was mentioned the last time, the last hearing by an individual from the audience in the community, and there's reference to race, then I want to keep that out of this hearing and this project. Detroit is a developing city. It's a industrial city, it's a beautiful city, and it's for everyone, every race, color and creed. I'm not bringing that into this discussion or this decision period, and with that being stated, I'm going to move forward and approve this project, being in favor of approval this project. Board member, Moore,
Chairman, you said most of the things that some of the things that I wanted to address, but this organization is returning valuable property back to the community. They've done all they've could. I think they said it so much with the community. They made a Yeoman appeal to the community. Can you hear me? Oh, okay, I'm sorry. They made a yeoman's appeal to the community, and they worked really hard with the community on the team. It's okay, okay, it's not gonna be long. It's nothing much. Don't
worry about it. But
the polite here, yeah, they've done a yeoman's job. Thank you. Thank you, darling. And I think they've done an outstanding job. The petitioners worked hard with the community, and that's something I like to see. Everybody wants their community to be stable like it was when they came in. That doesn't happen. It won't happen. I wanted my community stable, but it's not so. We just have to work with them and do what we can to let other people have the opportunity to grow and flourish when
we're not I want to say, you know, listening to this case has been really interesting and insightful, and I understand. Concerns of the community. I really do, I but as you said, Chairman Thomas, you know you empathize with them, and that's one of the risks that you take when you move into a community with vacant land, because you don't know if it's going to be developed or not. And in this case, and in this community, which is so popular, if it was not this development, it would probably have been another development. And so that would be something that you you have to consider. And of course, that's not considering the people who have been in the community for years and who have seen the different changes. And so I just wanted to say that, you know, it's, it's, it's, and that's kind of what makes the decision kind of difficult, just understanding their plight and what they're concerned about, but also understanding that development is going to happen, and it's particularly going to happen in the city of Detroit and in a community like this. And so that I just wanted to add that, but I just wanted to say that I do understand the concerns of the community, because it is it's going to change what that community looks like and what the people who have lived there rather recently, or who have been in there for a long time, have grown accustomed to
and then Portman Roberts,
yes, so I echo the sentiments of member Bowman about the what's in front of us what we're here to discuss, what we're here to rule on being the setbacks in the recreational space. And I do believe that the recreational space to my understanding of what's going on right now has been addressed. I don't want, I want to remove the noise of what we were talking about earlier, about the the things that divide us. I definitely want to remove that noise and hope that we move forward with a community that continues to be diverse, that will be more diverse. I mean, I believe Mr. Gersh brought up the the history and how diverse this area was, and I hope that my neighbors to the east, southeast of me, will continue to be diverse as we move forward. And that being said, I get it in my neighborhood, I would say, every three houses has a driveway. I don't have a driveway. We share it. And when I moved over there, that was a huge consideration, because I was moving from a house that had one and that had a lot of parking available. And I understand that when change happens, there's a rough road in the beginning. However, you do begin to know who your neighbors are. You do begin to have conversations and get an understanding between houses that I like to park here you like to park here? Let's figure something out that's part of community, that's part of having neighbors, the the landscape changing. That's concerning to me, looking at how it is now, hearing comments about how it used to be. A lot of people weren't around when it was what it was, and they're looking at their neighborhood, and they're seeing these buildings that don't look like their current homes. It looks like Once this is complete you the plan is to have an entrance and an exit that looks kind of the same in this neighborhood, but it doesn't look like it does today. That's a huge change with changing the landscape of this neighborhood here, and I don't live over there, but it is concerning. You know,
I'm hoping that,
well, just so we are just being clear, I do plan on approving this, but I'm hoping that the developer, even though it was one or two people who said they weren't in this meeting. I'm hoping that the developer has a robust plan on engaging moving forward. No disrespect to the process that has happened. I understand it's by right and you have the opportunity to do things, but I'm really hoping that an extra effort is made so that we don't have to hear that community. Anybody in the community wasn't, but wasn't reached out to, but I get it. If you're not home, that makes it tough. If you plan on not going, that makes it difficult. I'm glad to hear from the legacy Detroiters that they want to see this. You. I'm glad to hear from a few who are new to the area that they don't, because it's what brings us together in a in a in a system of healthy debate, healthy dialog. So again, my thought is based off the setbacks in the recreational space, the setbacks. Sounds like it's to make this unit, this development, uniform with with what's being proposed, and the recreational space, I do believe has been addressed. Sounds like there was a turn in some of the development as they went through the process of community engagement. I'm just hoping that there will be respect for not only the new Detroiters or the new to the area rather, but respect for the legacy Detroiters, and even more respect for those who are coming to the area, the future residents of This area. So I hope that this builds community former
Roberts, yeah, thank
you. So I just want to remind my fellow board members that this is a rehearing that was sent back to us by the court and basically for two reasons. Number one, to break the cases up, because when we heard it the first time it was it was presented in one case, they wanted that broke up, and also to allow for additional time to hear from the community. We've obviously done that, and I have not heard anything from the community that is different than what I heard a year ago, or anything that is likely to change the way that I voted a year ago. So having said that in I'd like to make a motion that in vz case, 31 dash, 23 buildings, three A and 3b at 290-930-3307. 99303307313319, and 325, Smith Street and 7719, brush that we approve the requested variances for deficient recreational space, front yard, setback, side yard, yard, setback, and it's a request verbally of the petitioner. Rear setback as well, having that they have met approval criteria, 54, dash, 1/22,
okay, over probably second. Any questions, any under eddies, all in favor. Indicate by sitting ay, any nays ayes have it? VCA
case 3123 Ronald McDonald requesting multiple dimensions. Multiple dimensional variances for proposed development construction of two family two multi family buildings has been granted. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank
you directors. Next matter at VCA case,
33 dash, 23 buildings, two a and 2b petitioner, Ronald McDonald, council district number five. Locations, 203259267271277,
Smith, between rush and John R and in our degree low density residential district, Ronald McDonald requests multiple dimensional variances for the proposed development construction of two multi family buildings to provide 61 units. Building Two a and 10 units, building to be respect. Respectively, for a total of 71 multi family units in an hour rezoning, we will now hear from respective Bureau board.
Thank you, Director. We are hearing this case today because the Board shall be authorized to hear dimensional various requests from Madison beyond the scope of the building departments, 10% administrative adjustments for various or minimum setbacks. The variances for this case are deficient front setback, maximum for area ratio, deficient parking and deficient side yard setback. Here in this case, under Section 54 131, one and six per minute dimensional variances and 54 121, the approval criteria here in this case, under the legal description attached. Our attorney will assess ownership the BCS plan review comments date generated on June 26 2023 state. Please provide a copy of the board of zoning appeals grant for the recorded with Wayne County Register of Deeds for variances of deficient front setback, maximum floor area ratio the Fisher Park and deficient. Side yard setback for building two, deficient front yard setback, 20 feet required, eight feet provided 12 feet deficient, deficient parking. 56 parking spaces are required, 49 provided seven spaces deficient, efficient. Side yard setback for building two, a 14.2 feet required, and. 8.2 feet provided six feet deficient, excessive floor area ratio, division recreational space. And again, a petition is before the board for dimensional variances for the construction of two multi family buildings to provide 61 units building to a and 10 units at building to be respectfully for a total of 61 multi family dwelling units in our three district.
Front view of subject, property of question, located on Smith Street. Long view looking down Smith Street. Again, when you see the orange posting is subject property, long view looking down Smith Street, get frontage of the subject property.
Long you're looking down the residential property or residential street of Smith you
black opposite,
also block opposite and
vacant land associated for the subject property, Longview looking down the alley behind the subject property. And if you from the alley looking back up towards Fifth Street,
you're looking down the alley again, looking to the I want to say, to the east, and a view of the rear of The subject property, looking back towards Smith Street.
Rear view,
closest residential property. I
don't think this is the case. Yeah, I think so too. Did you do 3324 Yeah, so,
yeah. What case do
you have? No, it's 3323 You
former Watson you want to recess or five minutes? Okay, let's see what. Let's do that after this matter,
it's not on screen. Director Brown, Oh,
I thought you were ready. I
It's it alright? So this
is the front view of the subject property. Again, the prop is located on Smith um, closer to um. John R Street. It's a corner of John R m brush. The subject, property in question? You looking down Smith towards John R Street. This is block opposite on John R Street. I mean brush street. You actually heard that case the previous hearing, you looking down Smith Street, looking to the east again.
This is a view of the subject property is on the corner of Smith Street and leading to the east, going down Smith entire view of the subject property in question.
I frontage of
the subject property, long view looking down the frontage of the property, looking towards John R Street, block opposite and that please. Division again these cases before the board for two multi family buildings, and the variances are front setback, maximum employee ratio, deficient parking and deficient side yard setback.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, okay to the petitioner. Please state your name and address again. Ronald
K McDonald, 6925 Oakland Mills, road, Columbia, Maryland.
Okay, before we proceed, attorney members, I'm going to I think all individuals been sworn in. I don't think we need to go through that once again. At least the people is here. I think maybe the virtual participants is sworn in. But we do know that the individuals here is here during the first matters. I don't think I was swearing in will be necessary. Okay, attorney, help us solidify standing.
Yes. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON, Thomas, good morning again. Excuse me. Especially good afternoon to the board and to the public Johnson, University of Detroit law department board members, because the standing statements were made in the prior hearing, and the individuals are the same, and all of the authorized individuals were similarly authorized by Mr. McDonald. I am satisfied with the applicant standing to proceed for this second hearing today. Thank
you. Thank you. Chair Flo
Yes, sir, we are here requesting dimensional variances for site two. Okay,
all right, good afternoon.
I am going to ask you to state your name again, just because everything's on a record. Yes,
Tricia DeMarco and I wanted to run through the variances being requested for site two today. For site two, there are two buildings on the site, so name two a and 2b there is a request for a variance for floor area ratio on this site, the required floor area ratio is point seven. For building to a, the provided floor area ratio is point seven, eight. And for 2b It's point one, nine. There is a request for variance for side yard setback. The required side yard setback is 13.5 feet. The provided side yard setback is 7.7 feet to be in contextual alignment with the structures within the neighborhood and along the block, as well as a front yard setback, with the requirement being 20 feet and the provided being 7.6 feet and 11.1 feet for the two respective buildings. There was formerly a request for variance for parking, but since you have seen this case last, we've been able to fit additional parking within the site, and so there's no longer a need for a parking variance on site two, there are now. There are 54 spaces required for the number of units provided here, and 56 are being provided. Any questions?
I think that does a token. Okay, you have a question for Watson. This is building two, two a and 2b and if Derek around, if you want to go back two slides, and this is where the red.is currently correct.
And there are a few slides provided to show the building elevation. Now.
Miss DeMarco, will you be going through the rest of these slides?
I'll go through all of the slides up until the questions. Thank you. All right, if you keep flipping, i. A building elevation for building to be. We already went through the variance discussion, a rendering of of the two buildings on the site, and again from the rear.
Yeah, pause for a second so you go back one more, and I think the next slide speaks to this. So the bottom gray line is the alley I take it correct, and the top is Smith Street correct. So the building was situated between Smith and brush, and the parking will be behind the building, in between the alleyway and the building, in fact. So okay, thank you.
All right. This is the site plan showing the orientation of the two buildings as well as the parking.
And to go back there, the parking here is their revive site plan, and which incorporates the 56 parking provided parking spaces and 54 required Correct. Thank you.
No further questions, and we'll move on to the criteria question.
Okay, okay. Board Member Bowman,
yeah, I did have a question for Mr. Marco. I just wanted to know specifically, because on the paper here, I'm looking at a 56 space requirement. We said 54 were required, and also then mentioned that now many more are available. Well, I guess seven more available than previously suggested. So I'm wondering first, how was your one went from a 56 to a 54 space requirement in two? How did you manage to get those additional spaces?
So I can speak to the second one, first, which is optimization of the site plan as we have gone through the design process over the months since the last hearing, the site design team has worked diligently to balance the requirements on the site and to most efficiently provide, You know, all of the required site programming. So yeah, that was just continuing to sharpen our pencil on the parking layout. When it comes to the requirement for the parking and why that was reduced. I don't know if inspector pure boy or planning and development
or BC, we can address that next time. And that's a question from former Bowman we can ask building the safety, about what's actually required versus what the petitioner presented to us today. I think if they meet the 56 provided, then so be it former not to do this again.
Can you show me which of these pictures respond to what you just spoke about
and hold it. Hold it up so I can
see something. Have maybe
have somebody else help you. Okay,
sorry, I was saying I can help her hold it. Gotcha.
All right, so building two A's on the corner by John R and building to be is directly adjacent. Go ahead.
Go ahead. Alley.
The Alley is in the rear of the site here,
that little orange line,
that's the fence line that creates, that's the screening. Okay, where's the alligator? It's directly adjacent to that screening. Oh, okay.
And then the White Houses, those are the houses that already exist,
the structures that are closest to the alley in in, I believe all cases, are garages, and the homes are along, along Chandler street up here.
And where is the parking? Additional parking going to be additional parking
is down in this area, in
that area, okay, okay. And
just to speak to, I know alley with has been part of the discussion, and it isn't particularly germane, since there isn't a parking variance, but it is a standard with alley. And you know, same as city engineer engineering has across the city.
Thank you. And speaking to that, you guys are in touch with DPW, and you all are going to the standards of what DPW requires, correct. Okay, thank you very much. Um. And just, can you do one more further? I don't want to make this elongate, this key show the community and behind you the same thing, the buildings to a and to be the ones in question, as well as the parking lot.
That's it. Ma'am. Ma'am, we're not going to do questions right now. Okay, thank you. All right, let's go to the departments did that conclude you all's presentation. Thank you very much. Let's go to the department's building safety. Ms
Filson, Good afternoon, Chairman and Board members. Jada Filson, representing the building department, we issued a site plan review letter on June 22 2023 where the applicant came before us for 16 unit, multi family in two buildings, and we determined that they had deficiencies for front setback, floor area, side yard and front setback, But parking deficiency wasn't on or in our letter, as there are only 16 units total, and there's 1.2 spaces per unit. And also we gave a waiver because it's within a half a mile of light rail transit. So on the site plan that we did, or we saw there was 12 off street parking spaces are required, and 20 off street surface parking spaces were proposed. So there wasn't a parking deficiency. I'm
going to interject. Ms Filson, this is regarding case 3323 for buildings a and buildings B. I have building two A has 61 units, and building 2b has 10 units, for a total of 71 units of our Oh,
this is, oh, I'm
sorry, this is the wrong case, then
I'm sorry, Chairman, I would have to look for that site plan review case since I brought up the wrong One.
Okay? And just for the record, what I'm looking at right now, it looks like there's a front setback requirement, 20 feet provided. Is eight Max far, and the required RSR is not met. It has 56 parking spaces required, 49 provided a set sign, setback requirement of 14.2 provided 8.2 and building a only,
okay, that sounds about right with the number of units. Yes, there would be a deficiency.
Yeah, okay, and just a reminder board. This was a plan review case which Miss Filson may not receive this for someone else.
Okay, Ms, Wilson, did you have anything else?
No, no, I do not. Chairman,
all right, any
questions for Mr. Miss Phillips in front of board, and just out of curiosity, the
Chairman, I have the plan review comments. I'll put them on screen. Okay,
was this 54 spaces required or 56 I think it's it matters, not because the 56 are provided now, but were they two spaces? Were additional spaces? Here
they may have been, but I was trying to find the letter. But with the number of units that are proposed, they do need upwards of in the 50s for the number of units, okay?
And just for the record. Ms Filson, when you can and you find that a dead document, let us know. Yes, all right. Director Brown, we can wait on Ms Filson. Thank you very much. Director Brown, I think at this point in time we can go to 54 121, the approval criteria starting with, let's go to former sermon the first, first two questions.
Thanks for approaching Mr. McDonough, sir. You.
Good morning board member Sherman, do you believe that the requested variance is consistent with the master plan of the city? And if so, please explain why
the requested variance is consistent with the Master Plan. The neighborhood and housing goals for the middle Woodward district are reinforcing sound neighborhoods, revitalizing neighborhoods with poor housing conditions, and increasing residential density. The project accomplishes all of these goals.
What are the practical difficulties that prevent you from carrying out the strict letter of this chapter?
They are the original plotting of the parcels done in the early 1900s is in direct opposition to the current zoning for the r3 zone, the current zoning code and the original plotting of these parcels is in direct opposition with the current vision. Density, walkability and community development are the aim set forth for the city's current vision. This corner parcel on a significant thoroughfare needs full depth development facing the park inside corner. The quality design moment is not contemplated by our zoning code. The scale of the AT and T building requires a step down typology to meet the standards of quality urban design. The current zoning code does not contemplate a 10 story structure adjacent to an r3 zone.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, board member moment,
yes. How does the requested variance or administrative adjustment eliminate a practical difficulty to you, the applicant, and if we grant the variance, what will it do for your business and the site where it is being built?
It will alleviate the tension between the current zoning code, existing parcels in our city core and the relevant stakeholder preferred vision for density and walkability, we'll eliminate the practical difficulty of complying with the strict setback that does not contemplate its context, which will allow the project to proceed as proposed and approved by the land bank, the city council, the Brownfield authority and BC will eliminate the practical difficulty of achieving quality urban design at these corner parcels that is not contemplated by our zoning code will eliminate the practical difficulty of providing a transitional building typology on the border of the neighborhood to create quality urban design.
And thank you, and please explain how the requested variance or administrative adjustment will have no significant adverse impact on the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and how your business will not cause an adverse impact on other businesses around You.
This project will not have an adverse impact. It will return a blighted and follow property to productive use. It will add new residents to the north end neighborhood, and it will contribute property taxes and income taxes to the City of Detroit's general fund. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. If there are any adverse impacts, how will you deal with that adversity?
The project providing setbacks that are contextual and designed to the existing structure precedents the setbacks opposite is appropriate in both neighborhood scale and design. The recreational spaces will support the needs of the residents. Density and walkability encourages the residents to utilize the nearby public amenities, and if any is considerized, we will work diligently with the community to address them. And what is special about
this site, your site that is different from the other sites around
this is a case where the strict dimensional standards set forth in Detroit zoning ordinance have not been updated to reflect the development of diverse housing types called for in the city of Detroit master plan. The unusual aspect of this site in its diminutive planning inside the neighborhood. These are a collection of uniquely small parcels that are not shared with landowners in general. Land owners are not generally current corner parcels on significant door fairs, particularly shared door fares with a 10 story structure on the adjacent parcel. The
when you purchased this property, where were you in this. Plans,
we have not taken any negative actions as relates to the property. To the contrary, we have entered into agreements with the City Council, the Detroit brownfield authority, and we have a standing development agreement with the Detroit Land Bank Authority. The development site, return its to product, return it to productive use. This unto itself, is a significant positive action.
Will you be conducting any business other than what you have spoken of on record today? No,
sir, we are proposing a by right development that is in accordance with the zoning uses within the archery District.
Thank you. Board member Moore, the next two questions please here,
how will your request benefit other community of businesses in your area, in the area,
substantial justice will be delivered here by allowing us to move forward with the development that will return blighted and follow property to productive use, add new residents to the north end neighborhood and contribute to the City of Detroit's general fund via payment of property taxes, as well as improving the experience of all residents who utilize Dolores Bennett Park, substantial justice will also be delivered by reaffirming the decision originally delivered by this board,
is there anything else we could have done other than what you're requesting today?
No, the requested variance is not in conflict, but rather a necessity in order to comply with the terms sale and development agreement mandated by the Detroit Land Bank Authority and enforced by the Detroit City Council.
Thank you. And in the case of the city, on land and property to be so
your property, yes, ma'am, this, this property is, is private lots.
Thank you. Yes. And just out of clarification, this is formerly owned by the land bank,
because different property was formally from was purchased through Vanguard development. Okay, yes. Thank
you very much.
Okay, okay.
Board Member weed,
okay, any additional questions I do see hands down here, okay. Boardman Sherman,
great question. When are you expected to break ground and when are you expected to complete the project?
Sir, we expect to break ground now in the spring of 2025 originally, our groundbreaking was expected in spring of 24 so we're at least a year behind schedule with the project, actually a lot longer than that, given the whole history, but spring of 25 we hope to break ground on the project. Thank you. Any
additional questions from the board? All right, hearing none, seeing none.
Okay,
let's go to community testimonials. Once again, if you like to provide a community testimonial, please come to the podium, meaning testimonials. One down to the podium. Mr. McDonough, you
have one more thing. One correction to the record is the assembly of property includes three land bank lots. So this is an assembly of a private lot which was formerly owned by Vanguard. The largest lot was private, but there are three land bank lots that have been assembled as part of this project as well. Thank you. It's
good to know. All right. Come now, sir. You
just state your name,
dr, cast, flow, 550, challenge, three. Okay, once again, I just want to say, you know, it's just been getting delayed for far too long. Been through same process over and over, you know, just trying to get a redeveloped neighborhood, no lack of residence around there. Sometimes it gets dismal, you know, you come out your house, you don't see anybody. Go around the block, you don't see anybody, you know, it's just too many vacant and white the properties around there. And if they develop something around there, like I said earlier, maybe somebody will else will be interested in developing some of the other vacant properties, from East Grand Boulevard almost to Woodland, just vacant houses on every block and it's over ran on Smith from Oakland to John R it's maybe 20 houses in that four block span. So that's a perfect spot to rebuild. Start rebuilding it anyway. You know, they already addressed the issues about the alleys. And, you know, growing up, they shut the alleys down once they start, once they start using the core reveal containers. So, you know, you just pulling your garbage to the curb. I have to drive. I have the garage. Can use it anymore. But over the last. That's 18 months, two years, they've been coming through, clearing out all of the alleys. So, you know, space is usable again. Like I said, talk to many people, even with me, I live in a I live alone in the four bedroom house. I will rent my house out and move into this project. You know, I don't need all that space, and it will be perfect. My house will be perfect for a family. No, so like say, I would like this project to move forward. Everybody's not gonna get the information if they don't show up for class. No, if you get there late, sometimes you miss things. It's unfortunate for you sometimes. But we can't just keep starting over, because other people that moved in the neighborhood, and then they gonna be the last people to move in the neighborhood. It should be developed, like I said earlier, minutes from downtown. It's the perfect area for somebody to start fresh as a rent a war homeowner, but this is perfect project. Thank
you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Public comment testimonials. Anyone else with a testimonial? Come on down to podium.
Get your name and address in your public testimonial.
Hello. I'm Olivia crumpets at 240 Chandler Street.
Ms crumpet, yes, ma'am. I'm
gonna read off my phone. I apologize. I won't be looking at you. I don't want to miss anything. Okay, a year and a half ago, my husband and I bought a vacant home with the intention to restore it and make it our primary residence. We've devoted all of our time to restoring it with our own two hands. Every day after work, we are there working to make it inhabitable. We are bringing our loyalty to this neighborhood, and believe we are bringing a positive development into the area. My husband and I were married a year ago and planned to raise a family in this home. It has it's been stated that my opinions are not valid because I've only been in the neighborhood for 18 months, but I don't believe that is fair. More emphasis is being placed on potential renters in the area, when people like me as a young homeowner, are the future of the neighborhood, I do want to state that I'm not against renting. I think renters are just the same as homeowners, but I think the reason why property values are so high right now is because everybody's buying up properties and making them into rentals, and then that doesn't allow someone like me to buy a home. That's why we paid as little as possible. Bought a non inhabitable home, and we are putting our own sweat equity into that home, making it livable. That's the only way we could afford our house. Now that you know a little bit about me, I hope you'll put yourself in my shoes and understand the adverse effects these variances will have on my quality of life, my privacy, my future children, and my right to have a garden in my own backyard. My first grievance is with the requested population density, or bar as they're saying, the density is much higher than the allowable in r3 and there's no benefit to increasing the population density, as there have been many developments that have met the guidelines, that have been profitable. If this company is unable to integrate into the neighborhood and meet the requirements, then perhaps a different location should be considered. I never expected that this land would not be developed. I truly hope that this land is developed in some capacity. However, I would expect that the development would fit within the Master Plan and within the zoning ordinance. When considering the develop development as a whole, the variances are severely outside of the current plan. These plans are in place to protect residents and give some insight into the direction of the neighborhood, to improve all of these variances that are not necessary to develop on the land. It goes against the protections that have been put in place. I know it was brought up that we shouldn't move in expecting vacant land to not be developed. That wasn't what I expected. I did really hope something went in there four stories with such high populous population density is is fairly extreme. We never expected something of that magnitude to be on that property. Like I said, my husband and I plan to raise a family here, no matter what we we do to put no matter what we do on our property, we will not be able to protect our privacy with a four story building directly next to us. So we may be able to build a fence, but no fence is tall enough to protect us from that tall building. We plan to enjoy our yard with our children and grow vegetables, and I hope my children will be granted the privacy and comfort in their own home. I'm not meaning to imply that all tenants will be criminals or creeps, but unfortunately, if you put 71 units with a direct view into my backyard, it is safe to assume that all sorts of people are moving even if people are looking into our backyard, not with malicious intent. That does not reduce the fact that I have a right to privacy, and this building will encroach on that right. They're suggesting that the 10 story 18 AT T building sets precedent for the four story buildings because we moved in knowing that this building is there. The undeniable difference is that the building is not occupied by almost 150 people. It is unclear whether or not there's a variance needed for parking. However, it was said that they lowered the requirement since it is Senior Living and near public transit, and I don't believe this to be an appropriate for this application. Therefore, my second grievance is with the lack of parking. Our neighborhood already lacks street parking due to the popularity of the car. The reason there is not enough parking is due to the far that is also being requested. The building plan is simply too large to fit on a lot that is being built on by expecting renters to park in the street that is taking away parking that's already used. They claim that that the building is for elderly people, that they will not have cars. That statements kind of silly. Elderly people may not have the ability to walk to public transport, transport which is much further away than they make it sound. As a healthy young person, I don't even like walking to the queue line, especially in the winter, I can't imagine an old person would opt to walk to the queue line instead of driving. Thank you. Okay, I have a lot more to say, so I object. Thank you. Thank
you. Next person. Next person, okay, well, for
a moment, just briefly, I just wanted if you could please restate your address, because I didn't catch that. 240,
Chandler Street. I'll point it out real quick. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Next person,
I'll say it's not fair that we didn't get to state all of my grievances, because based on next person,
hello. My name is Calvin krumpets. I reside at 240, Chandler Street, Detroit, Michigan, 42 02, you
can proceed, sir.
So a quick background on myself, my wife and I recently married one year ago, and have been Detroit residents going on five years now, we had started in downtown Detroit and wanted to get out of the city find a home to call our own, so we searched for years for a neighborhood that had adequate space and start a family and be able to raise children at After two years, we learned about North End and that we found a home there that had was abandoned, at least not lived in. So the past two years, my wife and I have put literal blood, blood, sweat and tears restoring this home by ourselves and to bring it back to its original beauty, and also to mention the huge financial commitment into that. So we were excited when we got the opportunity to purchase the lot next door to 230 Chandler, because my wife and I have always wanted a dream of creating a green space with a large garden and full of fruit trees. We want our future kids to learn the value in growing your own but even more important, to be able to relax outside and privacy, which was a huge part in choosing the location. I enjoy being social, but my home is my sanctuary, and I want to go to come back to and relax with my family. When we first purchased our home, we did not have neighbors, but in the last just in the last one year, four of the five adjacent houses around us have all been purchased and are actively or have back, have been restored and lived in currently. So for example, the house next door was converted into a three unit, and now six people lived there. I was worried about privacy, but knew I always had a backup plan of putting a fence up because it's only a two story home, and making privacy against that is totally manageable. So moving forward, all of us is in jeopardy, post four story building and result in high population density. The structure under review is directly sell to my home and share. Here's the alleyway. It appears the structure is about 50 feet from my property. So my main concerns are one, privacy. Just learned that there's going to be a terrace part of that building that's available for all of the 60 or 70 units part of that building, and that terrace would have direct view into my backyard and into all the windows of my home. And there's no privacy fence that you could build that high to build some sort of privacy for myself and my family to sunlight. I think to some degree I don't fully trust the shadow study presented by the developers. Unfortunately, I don't have means to conduct my own shade study, but I do believe there will be some. A cast into my house and with vexed my plans and doing fruit trees, gardening and all such the noise. Really don't love the idea of all these 71 units, plus the other units present. In other cases, are all going through this one alleyway. There's just no way on earth you're gonna get two cars through there, like, go back there, check it out. There's Natalie was tiny. I get two cars. So how can you have 71 units, plus the other cases that we talked about, all that traffic, and it's one way streets, another side. You're gonna have congestion. You're gonna have problems. You're gonna people hitting their horns, and it's gonna happen all throughout the night and throughout the year. And just figure out my shoes like this is terrible. So again, I love development needs to happen. The area of the vacant needs to be built. But still, but in a appropriate means, not four story build live, not 60 plus units all in a giant, congested area and then trying to funnel them all through an alleyway, like there's got to be a different solution, or a mixture of solutions, have another entrance to the front or come up with something
the dumpsters, yeah, they're gonna come through the alleyway to, I don't know how they're gonna get that truck through there. That's gonna create a lot of noise, all the trash and pollution with that many of people parking again, I thought it was a variance, but now it may not be, but I'll just talk to it that how can you provide enough spaces for that number of units? I don't fully trust what's been presented just based on the issues we've seen so far, and being truthful or not. And lastly, property value, giant rental units have shown studies that they decreased property value. Obviously, we need some development that'll help property value, but not a four story building, high density, all renters. We chose this neighborhood based on the single family homes that were there, and that was the intent understanding that we had moving in there, then also this got sprung onto us. It's like bullet crap. We would not have moved here knowing that this was going in. That is a lot to say. Thank you for hearing me out.
Thank you very much. Okay, Mr. Woman,
yeah, just a one clarification, sir. Come back your wife had already mentioned the matter of possible privacy issues on the view through the window from one building to another. And I'm wondering which of the properties currently in discussion, 203259267271, or 277, which one do you believe would create such a problem?
So this is
the two cases in question. These are the two cases in question. This is my home and my lot that I own. And so here's all the windows points into my home. Here's the terrace that all of these units go out and just stand out there and slip straight into my home property. So there's no way I can build a fence to block that path, and by so much.
Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right, next person you just come down state your name and address, sir.
I'm Keith booth 312, Chandler,
okay, other end of the block from the eye rises. I'm not adverse to I don't want to get it twisted. I'm not adverse to renters, because that has always been something of a rental neighborhood. I got renters across the street from me right now. One of my main concerns, though, is with these rental kind of projects is trash. We have coral like, like like, everybody in Detroit, we have the coral hands, but the these places are going to have dumpsters. We're already pretty much overrun with cocoons, possums, needless to say, groundhogs. I am not looking forward to the days when the rats and I have to keep a brick on top of my core Bill can to keep the raccoons out of it so whatever else is happening, not saying that the garbage dumpsters usually are as effectively and efficiently. Used as they could Okay back to the parking I still see that there's going to be some parking problems. I and other impacted property owners have detailed further claims of protected interest and rights, as well as further details of our special damages in the 520 slide presentation that was submitted as evidence with my testimony today. At this time, that's that's what I have today. Thank
you very much, sir. Okay, next person you
Okay, ma'am,
I don't know you came up first, so if you want to take a seat and the next person come up, that's fine. I and interim, can you state your name and address for the record?
Name and address. Now,
my name is Joanne Warwick. I live at two six for Smith, thank you, that house which would be surrounded by the development, okay?
Thank you and your testimonial,
right? Well, first of all, when I just wanted to say procedurally, the judge ordered the hearings to be remanded and heard consistent with due process, what due process requires is adequate notice, which we had a problem with last time because we didn't have the material ahead of time, sufficient to study, not like opposing the petitioners. Council had about eight weeks to prepare, so that wasn't fair and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, which is being violated here right now, because it is under the case Muskegon County Treasurer V Beman. That's B, as in, boy, E, E, M, a, n, 2023, it says mishap, 7760, that might have been Lexus. It didn't have a site. It says that one size fits all does not meet due process. It has to be tailored to the situation, because this isn't just any public comment. These are the for the people who are impacted. So you got to give us the opportunity to say that the third part of due process is to be heard before an impartial tribunal or decision maker. So I would like to ask, I asked this question last time, I didn't get an answer. Did any of the board members speak with petitioner or their agents prior to this hearing?
Okay, let the record reflect I'm not getting an answer, although I did see member, Osborne shake his head, no. I didn't see any indication from anyone else. I'd also like to know, did you get a chance to review the material that was submitted by October 31 at 5pm I saw one night. Is that member? Bowman? Member Bowman, we've got one member who reviewed the material. It sounds like okay, I also had asked the question before. I didn't get an answer whether the board of zoning appeals forwarded BCA records to the Honigman attorneys for petitioner. Let the record reflect I'm not getting an answer. And then I did ask send an email to attorney, how? And he did not answer that. Neither did people from the board now, oh, shoot, I just lost the email dog on it. I sent an email on October 18 to your attorney, Sherry white and Mr. Demers, asking about what I said? I don't see any rules. I got to show you something about who I represented. The person who has who could complain about it is the person I represented. So if they said I didn't have authority, that's the person to object. Now back to my own testimony. I object to the front yard. Setback, the increased floor area ratio, the reduced side setback. The reasons are because, and I'm not sure what's going on with the parking because that seems to be changed from the documents before, but overall, since they. Discussed about the overall deficient recreational space. We've got an overall deficient parking for this. Now, why do I oppose these setbacks? The front yard setback increased floor ratio side, but because the building's too big for this spot. Now, none of us have said we all agreed, hey, let's have some more people. But I think you all know, the North End is hot. This isn't needed to encourage more development, but specifically to me, the congestion is a problem. I ride a bicycle, and I go through the alley a lot, so the alleys, you know, that's going to be a problem to me. It's also going to be dangerous for my animals. I'm also my invisible disabilities are that I suffer from depression, anxiety, PTSD, sleep deprivation, so things like light are very, very important to me, and not just light in my house, but light in the yard. So when you allow these buildings to go closer, and not just in my area, just the whole street like I don't even understand why this would be done. The at&t building is not residential, by the way, so the step down, whatever doesn't matter. It sat there for years with two to three story buildings next to the 10 story, and that is commercial, not residential. But excuse me as I go get some evidence.
And so as you can see, this has been enormously stressful. I've had the race card played against me, and it happened again today, very disappointing, given that I worked with Congressman John Conyers. Thank you, ma'am, and I'm not done your honor. I mean that to the board. So these are some of the medications most recently they had to take. I object. You are not allowing me. I have evidence to present, which you are not allowing me to do. So you are violating order now, Chair Thomas, and I don't think you're being fair. Okay? Thank you. You're an attorney, sir. I think you should know that one size fits all does not. Thank you very much. Due process.
Thank you. I appreciate you. Closer Do you state your name and address for the record?
Hi, Tyson Gersh, on behalf of myself, property owner at 252254, and 246, Smith Street, and in my capacity as an authorized agent of the North End landing impact community incorporated the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative, Holly craft LLC in the Lower North End block club, Also known as the Lower North End Neighborhood Association.
Thank you attorney demos,
thank you chairperson, Thomas. I did have a chance to review the documentation that Mr. Gersh provided. I apologize I did not find it previously was buried in the slide deck, but I was able to go through the documents that were provided. They were copies of the articles of incorporation for these entities, which I think only complicated the situation further. So the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative was formed in 2012 it's a nonprofit corporation. There are many directors and officers listed. Mr. Gersh is listed as one of the directors of the organization. There are at least nine. So it's not clear to me that he's been authorized by the organization, I would be happy to receive a letter from him with that respect, as it relates to the lower north end block club that was formed in April of 2021 it's also a nonprofit corporation. Mr. Gersch is listed as the secretary for that organization. There are other officers and members of that nonprofit. Again, if this were a normal VCA hearing, we would ask for some kind of letter or resolution from that nonprofit to establish the individual standing polycraft LLC was formed in March 2019 there are no details listed on the large site, except that it was formed in 2019 it's not currently in good standing with the state of Michigan. That would normally not be acceptable as a form of standing for this board and then for North End landing impact community, that was actually formed on october 14, 2024 so the same day as the last hearing, that is a nonprofit corporation as well. Mr. Gersten list is one of several incorporaters. There aren't actually directors or officers listed on the large site. Same thing. It's not clearly he has the authority to act. I do think your compromise of 10 minutes is reasonable in this case, but I just don't have documentation that we would have expected to see from someone acting as agent or attorney. He is clearly linked to all of the entities. But I have real questions about, okay,
I'm with you. Five minutes. How many five
I could not object stronger. All of those documents do specifically have my name and the word authorized agent in them, and I could easily provide the letters Mr. Demers is referring to before the end of this hearing today, as I am the primary agent in a number. Of them, and I'm in good communication with everybody else. Again. Object to the time limit. I'm anyways. First and foremost, I oppose all of the variance requested in this hearing, on behalf of myself and on behalf of the entities. I'm testifying as an authorized agent of person to Section 54 193, of the Detroit zoning ordinance, which states testimonies at hearings. The board of zoning appeals staff report shall be entered into the record. The Board shall allow an opportunity during the hearing for the appellant and any member of the public to offer either written or oral testimony regarding the proposal under consideration. I am submitting this binder submitted in a few minutes ago, which contains a 520 page slide deck as evidence to support to those testimonials, additional participants who contributed to this document and on whose behalf This is collectively submitted are listed on slide 129 of the slide deck. Given the limited time available for me to speak today, I want to state on the record that the evidence of the our claimed protected interests and rights, as well as our evidence of special damages are detailed in the 525 page slide deck presented as evidence to you today, as well as in the 1000 plus pages of materials that have been submitted to the Busey and numerous times, sorry, Director Rober on he's been doing a great job. Please excuse me if I'm also a little flustered while speaking. I'm literally in the middle of passing a kidney stone, which I do have a documented medical history of. And I'm not making that up. It is just really obnoxious to me in this moment. All right, there are so many things I want to clarify regarding all of the comments Mr. Howe made, which all deserve clarification. I'll just do what he did in the 1014 hearing, which was make reference to the election, and I would urge him to not contribute to fake news. Just because somebody says something does not make it true. And over and over and over and over again, the petitioner team has stated untrue things, and then we spend all of our time trying to clarify all those untrue things which are influencing the decisions of the board and disabling us from actually speaking to our damages here, like it is such a broken system, anyways, regarding this massive structure, and I've detailed this extensively, but not fully, because of the time limits in The 520 page slide deck, one. I just want to say that from my house, as you can see, well, let's see, as you can see here, the developer always says scaling up density towards Woodward, the building that is directly in line with Woodward from this is was just built, and it's three stories, not four stories. Why would density be scaling up towards the neighborhood? That doesn't make any sense. Also, there is a rooftop patio overlooking my property. And from this vantage point of standing in my front yard, which is also my place of work, by the way, I have oh, you can see here. And in the slide deck, slide 344, there is the rooftop patio overlooking right into me, and I can't legally construct a screen to give myself that privacy back from working in my yard standing directly in front of it. There are this building alone, 62 units, one rooftop terrace, 19 balconies, 128 windows, 22 doors. Some of these units are multiple bedrooms, right? Like we talk about, what would happen if they followed the laws, the zoning laws, if they adhere to the existing r3 designation, it wouldn't be this level of density. Far along with our recreational space, those are our de facto metrics to regulate building size and congestion. I also you can see like I've got between the three buildings collectively surrounding my property, there's 104 units directly in line, one rooftop terrace, 26 balconies, 146 windows, 42 doors, 16 parking spots, and those are all right in view of my place of work that I can't escape from. Right like this is a clear violation of privacy. We also, and I'm like running out of time. Slide 375, shows an actual parking simulation, if all of those bedrooms were occupied and every person that slept in a bed had a vehicle, that would add 430 cars to the neighborhood, and only what is it? 148 parking spots are provided. 282 additional cars looking for parking on the street. One, it won't fit two even if it did, it would prevent any other land owners from developing their property, because there would never be street parking for anybody ever again. This is why zoning exists, to limit one person from hogging all of the public resources, and like this, it's so difficult to be able to do. All of this in this context, I really wish that you guys would look at this presentation, specifically the one in that book, because all my slide numbers refer to the binder itself and the one that you may have been sent to those a lot of order.
Thank you. Let's turn to our virtual participants. If you'd like to provide a virtual V
Stewart, I'd like to represent other people here.
Option plus y by MAC device, or plus y by keyboard. Ma'am, you step away from the police,
but Sir, you're denying the other my neighbors the opportunity to present through me. If so, let's discuss the representation issue, because that your attorney was unwilling to discuss with me before you please take a seat.
Thank you.
I object. Your honor. You are disallowing Josh COVID, Samantha, Myers, Don Fisher, Michael Franklin and Robert Victoria bogo COVID, Maureen zadia and Keita Richardson from speaking and presenting in this hearing today. Thank
you very much, ma'am. As we turn to our virtual participants, if you'd like to provide a virtual testimonial, please do so by pressing star nine by phone, option plus y by MAC device, or plus y by keyboard. V Stewart B, Steward, V Stewart B, Steward, yes, yes. Address for record,
yes. My name is Susan Stewart. I'm at 290 Chandler Street. I'm one of the impacted African American 40 year residents.
You can proceed now.
Thank you. The alleyways, first of all, the alleyway between Chandler and Smith streets will accumulate unworth parking, parting, noise and congestion. The developers appear to offer inadequate partitions for our property borders. If you are going to open up these alleys, they will encroach upon our property. So I don't see how they can expand the alleys in any way. Video simulations have been emailed as examples of alleyway congestion and potential property damage. Has anyone taken a look at those videos that were sent just a question, how many directors,
Mr. Chairman, knows I'm here. We have received those, but they came in Friday and Saturday. I have not had the opportunity to process those. Thank you.
Okay, those, those videos were sent october 14. They've been sent several times, even to the initial to the initial hearing last year. So has anyone had a chance over the year to look at those simulations? They were actually done in 2023
Mr. Chairman, we did show videos at the previous hearing.
Those were interviews. They were not the simulations for the alley. Thank you. Okay, the four story building will block light to my trees, flowers and gardens. It will eradicate much of the light and peace I currently have access to I don't see why it's necessary to have a four story building. It it diminishes my privacy, and I have no doubt that these structures and over population of one city block will devalue my property. The over population will be to lack of privacy as those tenants seek outdoor space walking through the neighborhood, and I'm still not clear about recreational space, because other apartment complexes have been built in, people are sitting in lawn chairs outside of the building because they don't have adequate space to sit or relax. So I'm still not I would like clarification on the recreational spaces. Also, I oppose all of the requested variances requested by the petitioner, violation of privacy, and as I say, property values will decrease. I would like a very clear understanding, which I still do not have, of how they're going to widen these alleys and make parking available for approximately four to 600 people, as Mr. Gersh said, of all the apartments in that area are occupied, how do they reconcile enough parking spaces for all of the apartments, not just some of them. The requested far, is objectionable. I don't feel, I feel that this is a grievance, and I don't feel I really have enough time to express all of my thoughts, because I have some things written out which would go a little bit longer, but I've tried to keep this also. Rasan Turner's video was sent in at the last BCA hearing, and it was not played at all. And 90% of the videos that were played were not played to their full extent. And those videos. Videos are five minutes or under timed perfectly, so you have cut a lot of the video sequences out of the videos that were presented at the last time, and I feel it. And Rahsaan video was there, and you have not played that. He is a property owner, and everyone has the right to be heard. It's called due process.
Quincy Jones,
I wasn't quite finished. Why is it necessary to have a four story building? A two story building is within city code. And also, I wanted clarification. They're supposed to be breaking ground spring 2025 But how long will this actual project take to complete? And I'm just talking about not if there are further pushbacks, but the time that it would encompass to to finish this project? Those questions were never answered. No one is let's see inaccurate renderings do not provide enough information for us. The light that will not that we're being denied. We're being denied light and privacy from this building. And I don't feel that is fair, and it is a grievance recreational space is deficient, and I wanted more clarification on that. And once again, how are they going to expand the alleyways without encroaching upon our property? And I noticed that there's a line of trees behind there. How are they going to put a line of trees right there at the alley? Those just seem like pretty decorations. Very
much. Now,
thank you for German
born. Board Member Sharma had a question for
Miss V Stewart, yes. Okay, Miss Stewart, you have a question.
I noticed in the neighborhood there, there are some properties with garages and they do have access only through the alleyway,
as my does,
and that was one of the things that I could not address in this short five minutes.
Miss Stewart, he's trying to ask a question, okay, but I just want to reference
that I do have an alleyway garage entry which might be blocked, newly noted, excuse me go.
So my question is, if they if it's currently garages using the alleyway, why is it that you think that it'll be an endurance using the alleyway with this apartment complex?
Miss Dorton, uh, uh, Director Brown, I
believe I was muted. Can you hear me? Now?
Hear you now.
Okay. Thank you. Currently, we have about eight to 10 people who may be entering the alleyway to enter into their garages. Let's multiply that up to about four to 500 and that will be 24/7 people coming through the alley, and I don't know whether or not there will be enough room for two cars. I don't think so. We've done simulations. There will not be enough room for two cars to pass, and will I have to wait in line to get to my garage, especially with the number of anticipated residents, we're looking at four, maybe four or 500 residents, and if they have guests, then that will add to the congestion. There's going to be a lot of congestion in the alleyway for those people who use the alleyway for parking, we're going up to that.
Thank you. Director Brock. Quincy Jones. Quincy Jones, state your name and address for the record.
Yes, yes. How you doing today? My name is Quincy Jones. I am a resident 405, Chaplain street direct Michigan, once again, I am in full support of the project. I think the project once again represents the mission of the city of Detroit, growth, home ownership, residency, the project has been vetted, once again, by some of the city's great boards department heads to ensure that this is not a bogus development. Development is happening all over the north end. In the north end, develop Detroit, similar project where they built apartment buildings and home in the and and have the alley, the alley, it was approved. And this project is similar once again, so and the board has seen it, looked at it, and know that the residents are not as an adverse effect on them. So this project is a great project in full support of it, so that our city can be once again, really. Enhance really shine, so that the world can seem and once again, this is the best practice project that can be duplicated across the city, and a case study for the board as well too. Knowing all of the hard work that you put into this to make this project happen, I'm therefore supporting the project.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Carla Phelps. Phelps, Miss Phelps,
good afternoon again. Carla Phelps, for the record. Carla Phelps, 216 Euclid and 231 Inglewood, again, as I stated in the last one, the history prevails itself. I feel for the young lady that says that she's been there eight and the husband has been there 18 months. However, if this development has not kept getting pushed back and pushed back and pushed back, it's been and being pushed back since 2018 she when it first started, she wasn't even there. Maybe she might not have moved there at that time. But again, as History States, the same property that we're looking at used to be apartment complex double the size of the one that's trying to be put up. Again, I am in total support of this development. I just wish that we can move forward and stop going back and forth. Thank
you very much. Ma'am. Reagan.
Reagan,
state your name. Hello, hi, yep. Reagan. 2911, West Grand Boulevard. You
can proceed now.
Thank you, sir. Just want to add, well, I really just want to say again, I am in full support of this, this development, and I do want to say to the family who was concerned about the green space, there is, you know, a lot of space dedicated to farming in the neighborhood. There's acres on acres on acres. So this could be a great opportunity to turn to the community farms and apply your skills there. Also, you know, when you're moving to a developing city and neighborhood, you know it should be almost expected to have a little bit of adaptation to your attitude towards this. And also, you know, again, a few with, like, a great example of like a good flow between, like a shared alley. Check out the alleyway behind the boulevard apartments. They share their alleyway with deep PD, and there's never really any issues. And that apartment has six floors, over 20 people per floor. So I mean, that's a lot more people than this development. So again, I am in full support of this development. Thanks to the developers, and I wish a very smooth process ahead. That's
the last column. Thank
you Chairman. Thank
you Director Brown, okay to the petitioners. You address some of the concerns from the community, and then Ms Filson, she's still on,
Yes, Chairman, okay, but
before we go to the petitioner Council. Council, hold on for a second. I want to see if Ms Filson came up with that report,
yes, sir. So the parking I found the site plan. So they are providing 54 parking spaces with the 71 units provided, and we can reduce the parking because there they are within a half a mile of public transit. They only need 54 parking spaces for the 71 proposed units.
Okay, so 54 are truly required near doing 56 yes to the petitioner. Gotcha. Okay, and the deficiencies are the setbacks the front and side. Setback there,
right and then the rec space was ratified because they added balconies to the proposed multi family units, so that counts as recreational space. Thank
you very much. Okay, we do have a question from from board member, Bowen, yes,
I saw a part about the, the sort of the, sorry, the area ratio deficiency, but I didn't see numerically how far away. How far is it deficient? In other words, I mean, how or how much is the ratio in excess of the requirement? I don't see any information about that.
I do not have that information in front of me. Board Member Bowman at this time.
