Board of Zoning Appeals

If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, email documenters@outliermedia.org with “Correction Request” subject line.

The meeting starts at 9. If you are joining by zoom, you can access the link at the top of the agenda.

Today’s agenda relates to developer Ronald K. McDonald’s requests for dimensional variance for the development of North End Landing.

According to the Michigan Chronicle: “The 180-rental-unit structure would be housed on Smith Street/Delores Bennet Park area of the North End and is proposed as a mixed-income project located in a federally designated opportunity zone.”

“The project would be anchored by two senior housing buildings that will be constructed at John R and Smith with a combination of market-rate and affordable units.” Michigan Chronicle

Developers Ron McDonald and Darryl Carter have ties to Detroit and enthusiasm about mentoring other Black developers in the city.

They cite the need for infill housing, the affordable rental rates for their development, increased amenities which come from increased population density, and offers of $3,000 to fund external repairs to nearby homes.

The project met opposition from North End neighbors, however. (This background from Detour Detroit, June 2021.) Neighbors wondered why they were not consulted throughout the process but had it presented to them as a fait accompli.

Neighbors’ concerns included the drastic change in the character of the neighborhood which would come from the introduction of so many rental units to a neighborhood which is currently mostly owner-occupied.

In April 2021, the Detroit Land Bank sold to the developers 26 plots for $398,140 for use in North End Landing Phase 3, in spite of neighborhood opposition.

The meeting began at 9:01, but there was no quorum to approve minutes, so it adjourned until the board member arrived.

Additional background: In April 2021, the Detroit Land Bank sold to the developers 26 plots for $398,140 for use in North End Landing Phase 3, in spite of neighborhood opposition.

A quorum was present, in spite of Weed, Watson, and Sherman’s absence.

Minutes were approved. A court reporter mentioned that he could not hear responses due to an issue with microphones.

At 9:16, a case was started, but I could not hear the audio. Inspector Purofoy was speaking.

Inspector Purofoy began speaking but was muted. Began again with echoes due to microphones. Began again with Case 29-23 202 Smith. Read the background with the variances needed. (These are on the agenda.)

Case 29-23 202 variances were read. These are on the agenda.

Photos shown of the property in question from various angles.

Ron McDonald speaking. He was sworn in to affirm his testimony as true.

Detroit Law Department representative questioned McDonald to see if he has ownership of the property. According to documentation, the property is owned by North End Landings LLC.

McDonald explained that his company (Avanath) is in a joint venture to develop property under name of North End Landings LLC. He is the Avanath authorized agent to represent them in these proceedings.

Ron McDonald has an overview to present. He introduced Bishop Edgar L. Vann as the founder of Vanguard CDC to give opening remarks. Pastor of Second Ebenezer Church.

Vann appealed to the body to give full consideration to the development. Re-introduced McDonald for presentation.

North End Landing presented overview of partners (many minority-owned) and team leaders.

https://t.co/HbRggqR9Oq

McDonald says Avanath is rated among top 6 of providers of affordable housing nationwide.

North End Landing footprint map: https://t.co/8PAjudQZJo

$43 million dollar investment for 177 units, with 20% affordable at 80% AMI. Will actively recruit Section 8 vouchers.

McDonald says that community engagement effort has been extensive, especially over the past year, led by Sheila Cockrel.

Sheila Cockrel, former Detroit City Council member, overviewed the community engagement process, 2021-2022.

https://t.co/3WQuSRNzz3

Cockrel emphasized that there have been many meetings in which people have expressed support for the project, and that even those who do not agree have still had their voices heard.

At most recent, July 6th meeting, the vote of residents was 33 in favor of the project and 18 opposed.

McDonald resumed speaking, remarking that this has been one of the most extensive community engagement efforts he has ever been involved with. There will always be people who are opposed no matter what, but others will come on board once certain changes have been made.

McDonald commented on the changes to greenspace in the plan. The original plan contained 5% greenspace, but community asked for more, and now it is at 30% greenspace.

The neighborhood already has a parking problem, and this was the genesis of including senior apartments in the plan. Also, many seniors in the North End want to remain in their neighborhood.

Community concerns and responses: https://t.co/i6PzbWETvE

Jason Jones, local Detroit developer who will deliver for-sale component for North End Landing, invited to speak.

Jones is part of Tekton Development and Detroit resident. There will be 8 for-sale town homes to the corner of Smith and Brush. Hope to bring them to market for $150,000, which is difficult to do for new development.

McDonald gave project timeline. Timeline is to start construction in Oct/ Nov 2023. First building complete Sept/ Oct 2024. Last building complete Q1 2027. Could do faster, but want to move in new building and residents more gradually to minimize impact on neighborhood.

Estimate 200 construction jobs and 3-4 permanent jobs. Will maximize Detroit based and minority owned contractor participation.

Tricia DeMarco called up to run through technical requests for variances.

Jason Jones interjected to emphasize that there are several buildings but the development is looked at as one community. The higher density buildings are loaded toward John R for transit reasons with lower density toward the neighborhood.

DeMarco highlighted that the development would have easy walking routes to transit stops. Senior citizens’ units would be the close to transit.

Variance related to parking: Parking has been met on a number of sites. On some of the sites close to main transit, there is more parking than required by zoning. Any resident can park in any of the spots for the development.

Parking for the development would be accessed through the alley, whereas parking for Delores Bennett Park is accessed through the street.

Next variance was on contextual setbacks. The focus was on 202 Smith.

The required setback for 202 Smith is 20 feet, and the proposed setback is 8 feet.

Parking requirement for 202 Smith (senior citizen housing) is 27, and proposed is 15. Rationale is that this is close to other transportation choices. Also used the example of senior citizen housing of Cameron Court in North End in which much parking is not used.

Rationale for diminished setback at 202 Smith is to activate the corner of John R and Smith. Setbacks align with context.

Building and Safety’s Jayda Philson said that they did do a site plan reviews on some of the sites and approved that the waivers as long as the petitioners came before the board with their request.

Zoning board asked whether variance requests are consistent with the city’s master plan. McDonald indicated that they are.

Next question was for McDonald to explain why the project can’t meet the zoning expectations and need the variance, particularly regarding parking.

McDonald responded that this is due to affordability. Need a certain density to provide affordable housing. Also relates to Transit-Oriented Development principles in which provision of parking is tied to transit options.

Board member Watson asked about how any adverse aspects of the development will be addressed. McDonald said the developers will take steps to address these swiftly.

Board member Roberts asked if any other business will be conducted from this property. McDonalds indicated that it will not.

Council chairman Thomas asked about whether other residents of the neighborhood will benefit from the project.

Board member Sherman asked whether the alley behind 202 will be completed. There are 3 homes next to the development. Will the alley restoration stretch behind those homes as well? Response was that the alley restoration will only extend along the boundaries of the project.

Sherman asked whether the greenhouse across the street will be affected by the construction fo 4 story buildings. Response was that shading and lighting studies indicate that there will be no adverse affects.

A question from the board about whether parking will be free. The answer was that there will be a nominal fee for residents for parking with a discounted rate for the some units.

At 10:37, moving to community testimonials.

First called up anyone in support of project.

Comment from 10 year resident of North End said he is impressed with all the development in the neighborhood and thinks this project will be a good thing.

Boston Edison resident who owns barbershop and coffee shop in North End expressed support.

North End resident commented on multi-generational and diverse nature of the neighborhood. Feels that this project lines up with that character and is the culmination of a long-term dream for the community.

Resident whose property abuts the planned development feels good about recent changes in the city but has reservations about changes in lighting and traffic.

Moving to virtual participants in support. Former resident who is involved in North End community recalls when the neighborhood was vibrant and believes this project will help return the neighborhood to this state.

Resident states that she was formerly opposed but believes that developers have been responsive. Now she is supportive and would consider moving into one of the units.

Lifelong North End resident and block club president in full support. Recalls the neighborhood being vibrant. The opposition of neighbors is more personal and not based on what is good for the neighborhood.

District 6 resident is in support of the project. Likes black developers investing in the neighborhood. Would be interested in purchasing one of the townhouses.

Farmington Hills resident likes the project. Sees the neighborhood needs development and supports this.

North End resident in support of project. It has been divisive in the neighborhood, but many of the opponents are not involved in positivity in the community. They need to pitch in and help rather than opposing positive development.

Moving to participants who are opposed to the project.

Resident of Chandler Street is not totally opposed but feels that there has been insufficient attention to current issues in neighborhood (rodents, alleys too small to move through, inadequate parking for events in Delores Bennett Park).

Resident of Chandler Street echoed concerns about alleys, rodents from dumpsters, parking.

Resident in North End likes some development in neighborhood but is concerned about the variances requested for this project, particularly for parking.

Resident who has been in Detroit 10 years after living in Portland, OR and in Texas comments on the problems which came from rapid growth. This kind of project is the problem– too big, too fast, rentals.

Resident expressed concern about parking which is already a problem with the park.

Resident expressed concern about so many new residents. So many units will be 600-800 residents walking all over the neighborhood with their pets. Inadequate parking. This is a peaceful area, and it will no longer be peaceful. Impacted residents were not addressed properly.

New resident wants a fence behind her house because the alley will receive more traffic.

Resident feels that the increased use of Delores Bennett Park will add to overburdening of park.

Resident feels that the process has been non-inclusive. Bothered that opponents have been characterized as newcomers to the neighborhood and disproportionately white. Bought house to live in a low-density residential neighborhood. We should plan together.

Resident and block club president says that neighborhood needs more neighbors– more houses for sale, fewer developers. Park is too congested and people try to park on her lawn and in her driveway. Parking is a huge problem.

Resident said that project is inconsistent with zoning of the neighborhood. People who bought homes believed that zoning would be upheld and will now have tall buildings staring into their homes. Alleys are too narrow for two cars, so cars will be driving on residents’ property.

Resident spoke of sinkholes and water main breaks. Infrastructure can barely withstand current residents.

Long term, elderly resident said she supports the project.

Resident echoes concerns about alley traffic, lighting, rodents from dumpsters. Supports development but not on this scale.

Southfield resident whose elderly mother lives near the proposed development is concerned about the height of the buildings and the lack of parking.

Resident concerned about the location. The location does not accommodate this many people. To a long term resident, having all these buildings put up all at once feels like being in the middle of a volcano.

Resident concerned that getting a parking variance based on having senior citizen housing could be a bait-and-switch. Is there a deed restriction? And wouldn’t need a variance if the density were lower. Also, all profits will be going to an out-of-state developer.

Royal Oak resident and volunteer at urban farm feels that this is too much population density for this neighborhood.

Petitioner called back to address some concerns.

McDonald addressed concern about rodents. Said that his developments have been in urban areas all over the country and have been effective with dealing with rodents.

Concern about alleys address. Extent of alley being restored is in accordance with city right-of-way requirements. Alleys will be 20 feet wide. They are not a new road. They are wide enough for 2 cars to pass. Residents expressed that they did not want a new road.

Board member Knott clarified whether all traffic must go through the alleys to access parking for building at 202 Smith. Developer confirmed and added that the developer will be responsible for maintenance and liability of alley.

Board member Moore asked how the developers contacted the residents who are close to the proposed development. McDonald said that this was done through door-knocking, community meetings, small meetings, handing out phone numbers and emails.

McDonald said that many of the people who are still in opposition contributed ideas (more greenspace, e.g.) which improved the plan.

Question about the parking fee. McDonald clarified that there is a $35 fee which entitles residents of the development to park in the lots behind any building in the development.

Board member Sherman asked about crowd funding initiative. McDonald said that this will allow anyone who is a resident of the North End to invest directly in the project. This is in response to criticism that this is all out-of-state investors.

The crowd-funding initiative is an unusual arrangement but addresses some concerns about the project.

Council member Knott asked whether parking will be gated to prevent outside cars from parking there. McDonald indicated that it will be.

Knott asked for more details about how resident engagement took place. McDonald said that Vanguard CDC had long-term relationships with residents whom it reached out to. There was also a lot of communication with the Lower North End Block Club.

A resident wanted to interject, but Chairman Thomas indicated that this was not a time for back-and-forth.

McDonald said that some residents remain opposed, but there were exhaustive efforts to address the concerns of the community, including for-sale housing.

Question regarding 8 town homes for sale at $150,000 or less. McDonald acknowledged that residents wanted more for-sale housing, but for-sale housing is not something Avanath has done anywhere else in the country, and an exhaustive effort was made to provide it for Detroit.

Board member asked about parking. Developer said that there are 2 buildings with a parking deficit, 2 with a surplus, and 2 that are even. Jones clarified that the development has 135 requested spots and 130 provided. If a lot is full, a resident can drive to an adjacent lot.

The board moved into discussion. One board member wanted to make known that she was contacted by a few people who worked on the project. She was in listening mode only.

One board member said that she had initially felt positive but is moved by the opposition of residents and has reservations now regarding parking and the alleys.

Council member Roberts remarked that community engagement was significant. It was not required, but the developer undertook it and responded to many community objections.

Roberts would like a condition put on that there is no charge for parking because this could lead to residents not paying and parking other places in the neighborhood, adding to the parking problems.

Roberts is overall in favor and very impressed with the developer’s community outreach and responsiveness to community concerns.

Board member believes that parking is the sticking point for him.

Chairman Thomas is in favor. This is minority-owned and has been a long development plan. They are providing 130 parking spots for 177 units. They have engaged the community with a long, multi-year process. They have been approved by City Council, BSEED, PDD.

Roberts motion to approve the variances for 202 Smith Street. Looking at variances for parking, recreational space, screening. Put forth a condition to have no $35 parking fee. Thomas seconded.

In favor: 4 (including Roberts, Thomas, Knott). Opposed: 2 or 3 (including Moore and Watson). The motion carries.

(audio was not clear for a few of the board members)

Voting on variances for the next buildings were called up together. (Specific addresses and buildings are listed on agenda.)

Case 30-32 for 309-331 Bethune, on Bethune between Brush and John R. Pictures displayed of site from many directions. This is for a 10 unit proposed development.

Case for 299-325 Smith and 7719 Brush. This is for a 16 unit building with 20 spaces of off-street parking.

Correction: This is for two buildings– one with 6 units and one with 10 units. The buildings are 3a and 3b.

Hearing request for variances for 10 unit building to be built at 203-277 Smith on the corner of Smith and John R.

Hearing case 32-23 for 404-410 Chandler. This is building 6, a 10-unit development at the corner of Chandler and Brush.

Hearing case for 501- 561 E Bethune. Building 7a is 14 units and 7b is 10 units.

Hearing case 35-23 for 282-312 Smith, on Smith between Brush and John R. This is for a 10 unit proposed development.

Photos from multiple angles were shown for each of the subject properties.

There must be a motion for each case and then community input.

Petitioner making comments on 31-23, buildings 3a and 3b on 299-325 Smith and 7719 Brush. Petitioner emphasized that the entire alley on the property would be resurfaced as well as new sidewalks put in.

Council member Knott asked whether the variances are consistent with the city’s master plan for development and why the developer needs variances. McDonald replied that these are needed to achieve density for affordability.

Knott asked why so many variance requests involve recreational space. McDonald explained that this is because the footprint of the buildings was shrunk to incorporate more greenspace in accordance with community wishes.

Question about trash enclosures on building 5. Jones said that they will not need a variance for the trash enclosure because it will be addressed administratively during the BSEED review process.

Council member Knott asked about greenspace. She also asked where visitors to residents in the development will park.

Jones displayed map of greenspace in the project. https://t.co/skf6hmQDZ7

Developer clarified that the senior housing will be only for residents 55 and older. It will not be multigenerational. It is anticipated that this will reduce the need for parking at this building.

Sheila Cockrel came down for community comments. She expressed that the people who spoke in support of 202 are supporting all the projects, not just that one. The meeting has now run until almost 1:00, so many people could not stay.

Resident came down for comment. He expressed frustration that the city does not seem to listen to residents but just listens to developer and takes developer at face value.

Same resident says that 30 separate letters were sent to Board of Zoning Appeals with specific harms that would be done to residents.

Resident said that Bethune and John R area has parking only on north side of street and many houses without driveways. Also, the park is heavily used, and there are often 20-30 people parking on one of the proposed sites. This shows that parking is already problematic.

Response from McDonald: Change is hard. But that’s what development is. This project, although not perfect, takes into consideration the character and needs of the neighborhood.

Council member Knott: Were any of the people attending community meetings required to sign a non-disclosure agreement? McDonald said that they were not for this project. He said that there are allegations of some NDAs as an origin of bad blood between residents and Vanguard CDC.

Knott questioned use of rooftop terraces. McDonald said that this is a management issue, but there will not be loud music or parties allowed. This is not a characteristic of any of the developments across the country.

Sheila Cockrel said that there have been no NDAs related to this project since Avanath got involved. There are allegations against Vanguard unrelated to this project about NDAs. This rumor has been spread by people who want to keep North End as agricultural neighborhood.

One of the residents in attendance has been corrected repeatedly for outbursts.

Opening board member discussion on 30-23, building 5.

Anonymously approved variances for BZA case 30-23, Building 5.

Um, I meant unanimously approved. 😅 Now opening discussion for Case 31-23, Building 6. Motion and seconding for vote. Unanimously approved variances for BZA case 31-23.

Motion and second to approve variances for BZA case 32-23. Unanimously approved.

Motion and second to approve variances for BZA case 33-23. One condition. Unanimously approved.

Motion and second to approve variances for BZA case 34-23, Buildings 7a and 7b. Unanimously approved.

Motion and second to approve variances for BZA case 35-23. Unanimously approved.

Chairman Thomas heavily recommended to McDonald that the developers meet with the neighbors who are opposed and work with the neighbors, particularly related to concerns with parking. Keep the community in mind and stay engaged with the community.

Final issue related to SLU case 2023-000014 of April 12, 2023. Vanessa Peete. Board took a 5 minute break because the meeting has already been 4.5 hours.

Meeting returning. Vanessa Peete sent a PowerPoint to the board this morning. Evidently she was asked to send it Friday, so they are attempting to find it.

Shelby Avery also present via Zoom as attorney for Vanessa Peete.

Attorney Demers interjected to set the stage for this meeting. Last meeting, Ms. Peete made the case that her organization stands as a Michigan Aggrieved Persons Standard. At a 4-3 vote, the board approved that the nonprofit does qualify under this standard.

Attorney Jonathan Demers represents Detroit Law Department.

Demers explained what the purpose of this particular hearing is, which is to determining whether BSEED made a correct decision regarding Vanessa Peete’s case.

Attorney Shelby Avery speaking on behalf of Peete’s organization. There are 15 factors in the code which must be met in order for BSEED to made a determination. Argues that case should go back to BSEED to make a determination in each of the 15 factors.

Attorney Demers recommends that Attorney Brian Coe of BSEED makes its case. Coe indicates that there has indeed been a determination on all 15 factors, although the factors were not listed individually in an April 12, 2023 letter to Peete.

Attorney Demers indicates that the BZA cannot send a case back to BSEED, so they should hear the case. The board will hear the case.

At this time, the meeting has been going for 5 hours and the case of North End Landing has been decided. The meeting has not yet concluded, but I will end my live tweeting here due to time reasons!

Once again, I have been live-tweeting today for the meeting of the Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals for DETdocumenters @DetDocumenters media partners: @BridgeDet313 @chalkbeatDET @freep @metrotimes @MichiganRadio @media_outlier @PlanetDetroit @wdet @wxyzdetroit.

@DetDocumenters @BridgeDet313 @chalkbeatDET @freep @metrotimes @MichiganRadio @media_outlier @PlanetDetroit @wdet @wxyzdetroit If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, email documenters@outliermedia.org with “Correction Request” subject line.