View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
1/42
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE WAYNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
CITY OF DETROIT,A Michigan Municipal Corporation
Plaintiff
v.
TRIPLE-A VENTURE LLC,A Michigan Limited Liability Coand 139 Bagley, Detroit, Michiganand any Unknown, or Unnamed Claimants, Owners,Spouses of Owners, Lienholders, Devisees, Heirs, orAssignees, or Successors/Subsidiaries/Affiliates in
Interest, of 139 Bagley, Detroit, Michiganindividually, jointly and severally,
Defendants,
and
TRIPLE-A VENTURE LLC, a Michigan limitedliability company,
v.
THE CITY OF DETROIT, the DETROITECONOMIC GROWTH CORPORATION, aMichigan corporation, and the DETROITDOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, apublic body corporate
Counter- and Third-Party Defendants.
Case No. 14-008057-CHHon. Robert J. Colombo, Jr.
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-
PLAINTIFF TRIPLE-A VENTURE,
LLCS RESPONSE TO MOTION
FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND FOR ENTRY OF ORDER
REQUIRING IMMEDIATE
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
/City of Detroit Law DepartmentBy: Melvin B. Hollowell (P37834)
Charles Raimi (P29746)Stanley L. de Jongh (41462)Assistant Corporation Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2 Woodward Ave., Suite 500Detroit, MI 48226(313) 237-5031jongsl@detroitmi.gov
Schafer & Weiner, PLLCDaniel J. Weiner (P32010)
Michael R. Wernette (P55659)Attorneys for DefendantTriple-A Venture, LLC
40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 100Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304(248) 540-3340mwernette@schaferandweiner.com
{00524636.1}
FILED IN MY OFFIC
WAYNE COUNTY CLE
7/23/2014 8:22:27
CATHY M. GARRE
14-008057-CH
mailto:jongsl@detroitmi.govmailto:jongsl@detroitmi.govmailto:mwernette@schaferandweiner.commailto:mwernette@schaferandweiner.commailto:mwernette@schaferandweiner.commailto:jongsl@detroitmi.gov8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
2/42
DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF TRIPLE-A VENTURE, LLCS RESPONSE TO
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND FOR ENTRY OF ORDER
REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Triple-A Venture LLC (hereafter Triple-A), states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
The instant motion must be denied because Plaintiff, the City of Detroit (the City) has
failed to meet its heavy burden to demonstrate that the subject property, consisting of land and a
five-story building (the Building) located at 139 Bagley Avenue, Detroit, Michigan (together,
the Property) is a nuisance, and has failed to show why, even if some aspect of the Property
could be considered a nuisance, the draconian abatement remedy of demolition of the Building
is necessary or appropriate. It is not, as demonstrated by the professional engineers building
inspection report attached as Exhibit 4.
FACTS
1. The subject real property, owned by Triple-A (the Property), is located at 139
Bagley Avenue in the heart of a triangle of land (the Statler Site) which is one of the most
prime real estate development areas in downtown Detroit. The Property is half a block from
Grand Circus Park, directly across the street from the Columbia Park neighborhood to be built as
part of the new $650 million dollar Red Wings Arena District, and is within walking distance of
everything else in Detroits entertainment district -- Comerica Park, Ford Field, the new Red
Wings arena site, the Fox Theater, Fillmore Theater, and the Opera House and Music Hall. See
maps, Exhibit 1.
2. Triple-As Property is the only remaining privately-owned parcel in that valuable
Statler Site triangle of land, because the City, over time, has acquired all of the other Statler Site
parcels. See portion of VG Holdings proposal to the Counter-Defendants, Exhibit 2.
{00524636.1} 2
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
3/42
3. Triple-A seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages to redress a
scheme of illegal threats, illegal City Council hearings, and other harassment by the City and the
other Counter-Defendants which is designed to forcibly take the Property or coerce Triple-A into
selling it to a private developer for less than Triple-A considers fair value so the developer can
increase its profits on a proposed $40 million dollar apartment and retail complex (dubbed
Statler City) that the developer wants to build on Triple-As Property.
4. The developer, Village Green Holding LLC (VG Holding), received
preliminary City approval1in late March, 2014 of a plan for Statler City which shows the
project being built over the entire Statler Site, including Triple-As Property-- in other words,
the City-approved plan requires that Triple-A be divested of its ownership of the Property.2
Neither the City nor VG Holdings ever notified Triple-A of their intentions to build on Triple-
As Property before announcing to the public that the Statler City project would be built on
Triple-As Property.
5. Shortly after approving VG Holdings Statler City development plan, the City
moved rapidly to take the Property from Triple-A with improper strong-arm tactics:
(a) In late April, 2014, the City demanded (through its primary development
agent, the DEGC) that Triple-A (which subsequent to the announcement of the proposed
project, had been negotiating with VG Holding for a possible sale of the Property) lower
its asking price for the Property-- and threatened economic retaliation against a Triple-A
affiliate if Triple-A failed to comply with the Citys pricing demand.
1The DDA, acting for and in concert with the City, authorized the DEGC in late March, 2014 tonegotiate a development agreement with VG Holding for the Statler City project.2The City-approved plan also provides that the City will give all of its Statler Site parcels to VGHolding for one dollar ($1).
{00524636.1} 3
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
4/42
(b) In early June, 2014, the City threatened to use an illegal City Council
hearing3to declare the Property dangerous and order the five-story building on the
Property (the Building) demolished at Triple-As expense. The hearing was
purportedly based on aJune, 2011inspection of the Building, but there was no
inspection -- at most, a drive-by viewing -- as no City inspector ever asked to access
the Building and the Building was surrounded by a locked security fence. The City
withdrew that threat after Triple-A pointed out how the City Council hearing would have
violated both state law and the Citys own ordinances.4
(c) Then on June 27, 2014, the City filed this lawsuit against Triple-A seeking to
demolish the Building (as an alleged public nuisance) at Triple-As expense and to
appoint a receiver to sell the Property without Triple-As consent (to VG Holding). On
the same day it filed this lawsuit, the City obtained an ex parteorder from this Court to
appear for a hearing on Friday, July 25, 2014, purportedly to show cause why the City
should not be granted an order requiring the Building to be demolished within 20 days.
(d) Next, on July 16, 2014, before Triple-As time to even respond to this
lawsuit, the City threatened yet another illegal City Council dangerous building hearing
to order the Building demolished at Triple-As expense, to take place onMonday, July
28, 2014. That hearing is also illegal, for the same reasons and under the same state law
and City ordinance as the first attempted City Council hearing was illegal, and it also
purports to be based on a drive-by rather than any actual inspection of the Building
(which the City has never requested or performed).
3Including without limitation MCL 125.540(3) and (4), MCL 124.541(1) through (4), andCity ordinance 12-11-28.4(a), (c) and (d).4See, e.g. letter to Mayor Duggan and City Council Members, Exhibit 3, especially at pp. 3-5.
{00524636.1} 4
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
5/42
6. The threats of retaliation, illegal City Council hearings, and this lawsuit, are
nothing more than a shakedown of Triple-A by the Counter-Defendants to force a sale of a
portion of the prime, developable Statler Site for a low-ball price. The Counter-Defendants
know the Building on the Property is neither dangerous nor a nuisance. It is fully secured from
trespass, completely surrounded by a locked eight-foot security fence, the windows are boarded
on the first floor and in the process of being boarded on all upper floors, and there are no falling
bricks or other hazards present at the Property. See Report of Titus Associates, P.C., an
architecture, structural engineering, and construction management firm, Exhibit 4. The Property
is structurally sound and poses no danger. Id. In fact,the City itself leases its adjacent Statler
Site parcels to third parties to park their vehicles within less than ten feet of the Building . See,
e.g. photos included in Exhibit 4.
7.
Furthermore, as alleged in detail in Triple-As Counterclaim and Third Party
Complaint, filed today, the City is responsible for the damage which currently exists at the
Building. The Citys demolition contractor, when demolishing the City-owned Statler Hilton
Hotel which abutted the Building, dropped sections of steel beams onto the roof of the Building,
destroying the elevator penthouse, breaking off part of the parapet wall around the roof, and
breaking through a section of the roof itself. The Citys contractor also rained sparks and hot
slag from cutting torches down onto the roof of the Building, starting a fire which further
damaged the Building. The Citys contractor was required to take specific steps to protect the
Building from damage during the demolition of the Citys Statler Hilton Hotel, but the City
failed to require its contractor to take any such steps. The City never offered to repair or pay for
the damage to the Building, and now seeks to use the damage for which it responsible as a
pretext to take the Property.
{00524636.1} 5
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
6/42
8. The City has engaged in a scorched-earth campaign of harassment and violations
of Triple-As rights in an attempt to work an unlawful taking of the Property or coerce Triple-A
to sell it cheaply to VG Holding.
LAW and ARGUMENT
The City cannot have the Building demolished as a nuisance of any kind, or otherwise,
on the basis of conditions for which the City is responsible. See, e.g. 6A McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations(3d ed), 24:64 (Nor can a city cause or create a nuisance on one's property and
then abate it at the property owner's expense or require him or her to abate it), City of Mason v
Buchman, 49 Mich App 98; 211 NW2d 552 (1973). Here, the City is responsible for the damage
that currently exists at the Building, and it has never offered to repair the damage or compensate
Triple-A. The City cannot rely on that damage now to force demolition of the Building, especially
when the Building is structurally sound and not dangerous, see Exhibit 4.
Furthermore, both the Citys Verified Complaint and its Motion consist almost entirely of
boilerplate statements and legal conclusions. At a hearing on an order to show cause why
injunctive relief should not issue, the party seeking the injunctive relief bears the burden of
establishing that it should be issued, regardless of the form of an order stating that the other party
must show cause. MCR 3.310(4). The City has never actually inspected the Building, because
the Building is secured from unauthorized entry by a locked, eight-foot security fence and the City
has never requested access. The Citys inspections are essentially curbside viewings. Titus &
Associates, P.C., performed a detailed inspection of the Building, with testing for structural
integrity, and strongly disagrees with the Citys curbside assessment that the Building is in any
{00524636.1} 6
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
7/42
way dangerous. Exhibit 4. The City has not, and cannot show that the Building must be
demolished right away (as the City asks this Court to impose) under the guise of abating a nuisance.
Moreover, Triple-A has filed a detailed Answer and Affirmative Defenses, as well as a
Counterclaim and Third Party Complaint, in this action and the parties have already commenced
depositions. Triple-A is entitled to discovery and a trial on all disputed material facts before any
attempt should be made to determine whether any abatement is necessary. There is no hurry
because as shown in the Titus & Associates report, the Building poses no danger to the public.
In the final analysis, the City is simply strong-arming Triple-A to try to effect an unlawful
taking or coerce Triple-A into selling on the cheap to VG Holding.
Triple-A has rights as the owner of the Property. It is willing to negotiate with VG Holding
and is interested in development of the Property and the surrounding City parcels, but not at the
point of a gun.
WHEREFORE, Triple-A respectfully requests that this honorable Court deny the instant
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHAFER & WEINER, PLLC
_/s/ Michael R. Wernette________Daniel J. Weiner (P32010)Michael R. Wernette (P55659)
Attorneys for Defendant
Triple-A Venture, LLC
40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 100Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304(248) 540-3340mwernette@schaferandweiner.com
July 23, 2014.
{00524636.1} 7
mailto:mwernette@schaferandweiner.commailto:mwernette@schaferandweiner.commailto:mwernette@schaferandweiner.com8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
8/42
{00524636.1} 8
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
9/42
XH
I IT
FILED IN MY OFF
WAYNE COUNTY CLE
7/23/2014 8:22:27 A
CATHY M. GARRE
14-008057-C
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
10/42
Page
1 of 1
/i'ri
r^J I r * IL
( ' 7
: .
'
i : ij
' J .
li
4
iiMf.-i
a
C
l
v 4 ,
//
H
j
;'S8S^'/ :
ij
it
v > I:.,,.
? ste- i- ^3^aWiW3iT-& f;afa^gigE
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
11/42
Google Maps
&
-
% .-s
>
^
r
- -
\rm
-s
. ^
av m
-
v
? .
4.. -
-imm
'
\ ' ' ^
~
i * ^ , T r -
*%
V
% :
' 1 . V ^
'
- S j r ' ,S2014DigitaIGicbe, t-irst Base Solutions,
Sanborn, U.S Geological
Survey, USDA
FarmServ
https://www.google.coni/maps/@42.3365309,-83
.04612 1
6,803m/data= 3ml 1
e3
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
12/42
EXHIBIT2
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
13/42
i
E
R
C
A
P
A
R
DtTR
OIT
. MiC
HiSA
f
N
TS
A
P
RE
SE
NTA
TIO
N T
O
TH
E D
ET
RO
IT
ECO
N
OM
IC
GROWTHCORPORATION
AND
DOWNTOWr
DE
VE
LO
PM
EN
TA
UTH
O
RIT
Y
REQ
UES
T FOR
PR
OPO
SAL:
DDA
BO
ARD
M
EET
ING:
50
0GR1
SWO
LD
STR
EET
D
ETR
OIT
Ml
48
226
>
M L
ov
cC 1
f
f
o
3
S
L
;;;;
a
P
v
nn
Z
J: A
A
R
T
W
i 3
S
S
z
S
A
p;
O
s
PRE
SEN
TED BY
VI
LLAG
E GREE
N
I
s
f s
X
W
1 3
to
H
?
n
o
x
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
14/42
159
67
P
R
IV
A
T
E
O
W
N
E
R
D
B
A
A
U
T
O
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
15/42
a
V
AG
E
fi
ft
N
We are
su
bmitting for
review
an
d
appro
val th
e conc
ept renderin
gs
for
Statler City
Apar
tments
base
d on
our
pre
vious
meetin
gs and feed
back f
rom
the Octo
ber 2013
tour
of our apartm
ent
p
rojects
in
Minn
eapolis
.
As stated
in
o
ur
Janua
ry 2014 pres
entation
we
are
p
roposin
g to
move
forw
ard
with the
a
cquisitio
n
a
nd dev
elopme
nt of the Sta
tler h
otel
site. We h
ave descri
bed the
parcels w
e
propo
se to ac
quire
and dev
elop atta
ched
hereto.
PU
RCHAS
E C
ONSID
ERAT
ION
We propos
e
to
a
cquire t
he four
p
arcels
o
v/nsd
by the C
ity of
Detroit
and amlia
tes: 150
1
Washington Boulevard
155: and
163
Bagley -owned by the
Downtown
Development
Authority
DDA
);
and
153
9
and 1565
Wa
shington
Bouleva
rd and
167 Bagley own
ed
by
the
City
of
De
troit.
The
primary
consid
eration fo
r the
co
nveyan
ce
of th
e
p
arcels
will be the
dev
elopme
nt of a
200-
250 un
it apartm
ent comp
lexwith
the as
sociated
ame
nities.
The t
otal deyelo
pmsnt cost
is
estima
ted betwe
en
35-40 millio
n.
R
ESPO
NSIBILI
TY OF V
ILLAGE
GRE
EN:
VILL
AGE
GREEN
wi
ll
be
respon
sible for p
aying f
or the
clean
-up of t
he
site
wh
ich inclu
des
the
rem
oval of th
e foundati
ons a
nd
u
ndergro
und s
tructure
s left
in place
with site
dem
otion.
In
add
ition,
f
unding
will
b
e requi
red
to hand
le clean u
p of
exp
ected
environ
mental
co
ntamin
ation and re
mediati
on o
f other soil co
nditions
as n
ecessar
y to perm
it const
ruction
to proceed.
The
site co
asMs
of
five
pa
rcels and
on
e
of
the parce
ls
priv
ateiy ow
necl Vil
lage Gre
en
h
as
m
ade a
formal o
ffer and
intends
tonegoti
ate
in good faith and
acqu
ire the private
par
cel for
a
market value
pric
e. Villag
e
Green has
retai
ned
F
riedman
R
eal Estate
as i
ts b
roker
rep
resenta
tive.
W
.
u
w-
.
Mill Dist
rictCity
Apartme
nts
M
inneapolis
MM
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
16/42
EXHIBIT3
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
17/42
SCHAFER
WENER
I LLC
LAW
OFFCES
ARNOLDSCHAFER
DANELJ.WENER
MCHAEL
E.
BAUM
**
HOWARD
MBORN
LEONN
MAYER
JOSEPHK.
GREKIN
MCHAELRWERNETTE
KIM
K.
HLLARY
JOHN.STOCKDALE
JR
BRENDAN
GBEST
JEFFERYJSATTLER
JASONL.WENER
*ALSO
ADMITTED
INELOB.IDA
**BOAR.D
CERTIFIED-BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY
LAW
AMERCAN
BOARD OF CERTIFICATION
40950
WOODWARD
AVENUE
SUITE
lOO
BLOOMFELDHLLSMCHGAN48304
TELEPHONE(248
5403
34O
www.schaferandweiner.com
June 12, 2014
Detroit
City Council
Members
ViaEmail
and
FederalExpress
Brenda Jones,
George Cushingberry, Jr.,
Saunteel
Jenkins, James Tate, Scott Benson,
Andre
L.
Spivey,
Mary Sheffield,
Raquel
Castenada-Lopez, and Gabe
Leland,
and
The
Honorable
Mayor
Mike
Duggan
Re:
Noticeof
Re-Hearing forJune
16,
2014 regardingreal
property located
at
139
Bagley, Detroit,Michigan
Dear Council Members andMayorDuggan:
This
firm
represents
the
owner of
the
real property
located
at
139
Bagley in
Detroit,
Michigan
(the Property ). The Property is
ownedby
Triple-AVenture LLC, a
Michigan
limited liability
company
(the Owner ).
The
City
ofDetroit
(the
City )
Officeof
the CityClerk
recently issued
a Notice
of
Re
Hearing to
S
L S 1 CORP (copy attached, tab
1),
dated May27, 2014,
stating
that a 're
hearing' concerning the Property will be held on
June 16,
2014. The Owner objects inthe
strongest
possible
terms
to
any
such hearing occurring on
June 16,
2014, or at any
time if
based
on the NoticeofRe-Hearing.
Forat
least
thefive (5) independent reasons
setforth
below, no ere-hearing
'or
proceedingconcerning
the Propertymay lawfully
be
heldon June16, 2014, andthe
Owner
respectfully
submits that the NoticeofRe-Hearingmustbe withdrawnandany
hearing
canceledor
rescheduled.
Should
the City
see fit
to convene any hearings
regarding the
Property,
it
should
at
a
minimum
cancel the
're-hearing'
set
for
June
1
6,
issue
a
Notice
to
the
Owner, addressed as provided below, and set any
hearing
for a new date not less
than
ten
(10)
days
after
service
ofthe newNotice. Any
attempt
to proceed
on
June 16 would, among other
things, constitute aviolationofthe Owner's
due
process and equal protectionof
laws
rights
as
guaranteedby the Constitutions of the United
States
and
the
State of
Michigan.
{00518456.1}
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
18/42
S
CHAFE
R v/W
EINERp
c
B
tVJy L W OFFI
ES
Detroit City C
ouncil
and Mayor Du
ggan
Ju
ne 12,
20
14
Page2 o
f
6
First, theNo
tice ofR
e-Hearingwas
not
i
ssued
to or
se
rved u
pon the Owner
a
s required
by
law. C
ityofDetroit
Ordinance
No. 12-04, Ch.
9, Art.
II, section 1
2-ll-28.4(a) (
attached, tab
2) cle
arly
req
uires notices
su
ch as the
NoticeofRe-He
aring
to
be s
erved
up
on th
e
ow
ner ofthe
subject property
, and furth
er
r
equires the
City to
first
b
efore serving
such a No
tice~ de
termine
thewho t
he
owner
of
the
pro
perty is
by exam
ining th
e records oftheWayne Cou
ntyRegis
ter of
De
eds
an
d
t
he Wayne County
and
CityofDetro
it tax
assessment records. The
Noticeo
fRe
H
earing was directe
d
to
and served
upo
n SLS Corpo
ration, w
hichhas not been
the owner
of
the
Pro
perty
since2006.
The City
failed to make the requir
ed examina
tion
of
r
ecords
and failed
to issue an
d ser
ve theNoti
ce
ofRe-He
aring
inaccorda
ncewith
the
req
uirements of 12-1
1
-
28.4 a .
Th
eNo
tice ofRe-Hearing
does n
ot com
ply with the requirement
s
of law an
d
cannot
s
erve as
the basis
for a re-hearin
g or other
proceeding
against the P
roperty.
To
theextent
the
C
itym
ay inthe future seek
to issue
any
notice
concer
ning
the
Prope
rty,
such
notice
should be
address
ed
to
and served up
on theOwner as
follow
s:
Ms
. Wendy Grenlce
Triple-AVentu
re, LL
27390Floral
Roseville,
M
I
48006
Secon
d
the
Notice ofRe-Hea
ring f
ails
to
identify
the alleged daneer
ous co
ndition
that
pu
rports to b
e
the
subjectofthe
re-hearins
. TheNoticeof
Re-Hea
ring states t
hat onJune 16,
2014
at 10 a.
m.
a hea
ringwill
be
held
as
in
dicated in the Dange
rous
uildingNo
tice se
nt toyou
regarding the dangerous
condition
ofthe abo
ve
dangerous structure(s)
(italics
added) an
d that
SLS Corporation is
req
uested
to
bep
resent an
d
show
ca
use
why
said structure
(s) sho
uld not
be o
rdered demolished or
otherwise
made safe. No
Dange
rous B
uilding
No
tice wa
s included or
attached,
and
no
Dangerous Building
Notice
was eve
r
sent t
o
the
Owner,
or upon inform
ation
and be
lief to the
entity
t
hat is
suppos
ed
show
ca
use (SLS
Cor
poration).
What,
specifica
lly,
is the alleged dang
erous cond
itiono
f
the
above
dange
rous
struc
ture(s) ? The
seco
nd pageof
t
heNotice
of
R
e-Hearing
makes ob
lique
refer
ence to
an inspec
tionpurp
ortedly made on
June 17,
201 nearl
y
threeyears ago
an
d
cl
aims t
hat such
inspec
ted
re
vealed that
N
10. Wh
at is
V/O? No expla
nation has
been provided
. Howcould Own
er or
anyone else
have a
fair and
proper opport
unity
to
pa
rticipate
in
a hearin
g concern
ing analleg
ed dangero
us condition,
much less
show
cause, w
henno
no
tice has
been
pro
vided
as to wha
t the alleged da
ngerous
con
dition is?
{00518456.1
}
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
19/42
S CHAFERa rWEINERp o
fiTvy
L AW
OFFICES
Detroit
City
Council
and Mayor
Duggan
June 12, 2014
Page
3
of6
Evenif
he purported
June 1 6 re-hearing had
been
properly noticed, it could not proceed
lawfully because the
Owner
has
not
been
apprised
ofthe substance ofthe allegations concerning
the condition ofthe Property.
Third, ifhe
subjectof
the
Notice
of
Re-Hearine is a
three-year
old inspection, the
hearing
has
no basis. As noted above, the
only
clue as to the basis
for any
hearing
is
the oblique
reference
on
the secondpage
ofthe Notice ofRe-Hearing that the last inspection
made
on
June
17 ,
201
1
allegedly
revealed
that V/O. If
hat is
the
basis for
the
hearing, then evenif
V/O
had
been explained
in
detail ~
which
it has not ~Owner
submits
that an inspectionthat took place
three years
ago is not a proper
basis for
a
hearing
now.
Fourth, the Notice ofRe-Hearing
purports
to
convene
a
hearing
that
clearly
violates
the
procedures and
safeguards
codifiedin City Ordinance section
12-11-28.4.
CityofDetroit
Ordinance
No. 12-04, Ch. 9, Art. II,
section
12-1 l-28.4(a) (attached,
tab
2)
provides
that
[n]otwithstanding any other
provision
of
this
ordinance, when abuilding is
found
to be
a
dangerous building, the proceedings must occur
inspecific steps,
none ofwhichhave been
compliedwith
by
the Cityhere:
(1) First, service ofa
notice
to
appear, on the owner ofthe subjectbuilding, whom the
City shall identity
hy examining certainpublic
records.
(2)
Second, an initial
hearing before
a
hearing
officer,
appointed
by
the
Mayor, who
shall notbe anemployee of
the
Buildings
and Safety Engineering Department ( BSED ), at
which the Owner is entitled to appear.
12-1
l-28.4(a).
(3)
Next, /f he hearing officerdetermines that the building should be
demolished,
repaired
or otherwise
made
safe, then the hearingofficer
shall
so order
and fix
a
time
for
the
owner
to comply
withthe order. 12-1l-28.4(c)
(italics added).
(4) Next, if
he
owner fails to comply with
the order issuedby
the hearing officer, then
the
hearing officer
shall file
a report ofhis
or her
finding withCity
Council
and
request
that
the
buildingbe demolished, repaired or
otherwise
made
safe,
and a
copy
of
the hearing
officer's
decision, including the
findings
and order of
the hearing officer,
shall
be
served
on
the
owner
....
12-ll-28.4(c).
(5) Then, after steps (1) through (4), the CityCouncil
shall
hold
a
show
cause hearing
not
less than 30
days after
the initial hearing required under
step
(2)
above, andshallgive
notice to the owner
of
the
City.
Council
hearing.
12-11-28.4(d). The owner
shall
be given
the
{00518456.1}
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
20/42
PX-X-C
CHAFER Sv/WEINERr
flcVy
LAW
OFFICES
Detroit
City
Council
andMayorDuggan
June
12, 2014
Page 4 of6
opportunity to
show
cause at the City
Council hearing why the
order
ofthe
hearing
officer,
resulting
from
the initial
hearing
described in
step
(2)
above,
should
not be
enforced.
Id.
The
City
Council may approve, disapprove, or modify the order ofthe
hearing
officer.
Id.
(6)
If
he
CityCouncil
determines, after steps (1) through
(5),
that the order ofthe
hearing officer should be enforcedor modified (as opposed to disapproving the order), the City
Council shall take
steps
to
enforce the order ofthe hearing officer. 12-11 -2
8.4(d).
(7)
An
owner aggrievedby
a
final decision or order ofthe City
Council
under
Subsection (d)
... may appeal the
final
decision
or order
to
the
circuit court
by
filing a petition
for
an
order ofsuperintending
control
within
twenty (2)
days
from
the
date
ofthe decision or
order. 12-ll-28.4(h).
The
foregoing
process
and
procedure is the
only
one that the Citymay
employ:
[a]ll
ordinances, or partsof
ordinances,
that conflictwith
this
ordinance are repealed. 12-1 1-28.4
at
Section
2.
The
City
has
not complied
with any
of
the required
processes and
procedures
codified
in the ordinance
and is
attempting
to
violate the express
language of
the
ordinance.
The
Notice ofRe-Hearing
was
not properly issued or served on the Owner
as
discussed above (step (1)).
The Notice ofRe-Hearing purports
to
skip steps (2), (3)
and
(4)
completely
and
go straight to step
(5), a
City Council
hearing
(see
tab 1, p.
1). Before the matter
can
be
referred to City Council, however, the Owner is entitled
to an
initial
hearing
before
a
hearing officer appointed
by
the Mayor
who cannot
be a BSED employee. That
has
not
occurred,
and
cannot
occur on June
16
because ofall of
the
defects
discussed
in the
pages
above.
Moreover, the Notice ofRe-Hearing appears to indicate
that what
the
City
Council
intends
to
consider at
the
hearing is
a recommendation
by the BSED
-
which is
expressly prohibitedby the
ordinance.
As noted above, the
City
Council
must
only
consider
the
findings
and
order ofthehearing
officer
who shall
not
be a BSED
employee.
The Owner is entitled to a copy ofthe
hearing officer's
findings
and
the hearing
officer'sorder fromthe initialhearing.
No
suchhearing
has
occurred and
Owner
has
been provided
withno
purported findings or
order
ofa
hearing
officer.
{00518456.1}
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
21/42
SCHAFER
akrrWENER
P U L C
LAWOFFCES
Detroit CityCouncil and Mayor Duggan
June
12,
2014
,
Page
5
of
6
Only anorder ofthe hearing officer, after
the initial
hearing, can
be placed
before
the City
Council,
and no such
order
exists.
Fifth the Case
referencedin
the Notice ofRe-Hearing
wasdecided
and
disposedofin
2011.
and there are no
vrovisions
in
the
ordinance allowinga re-hearinsof
a previously-
decidedmatter
after almost three years,
or any
time.
TheNoticeofRe-Hearing purports
to
address
CaseNumberDNG20 1 0- 1 63 1 3 .
See
tab 1 .
It appears
that
that case was
disposed
ofbythe City
as
ofSeptember 8, 20 1 1 and
the proceeding
against
the Property was
withdrawn. See
tab
3.
That
disposition
came
several months after
the
purported
last inspection
ofthe
Property
made
on
June
17,
201
1
(tab
1,
p.
2).
The
City
Council determination is
the
last step by
the
City inhandling an
alleged
dangerous
building
issue.
See the
steps set forthinthe
ordinance,
listed above.
There
is no new
inspection
and no
new proceeding, and
the
ordinance does
not permit
a dangerous
building
hearing, once
disposedofat
the
CityCouncil
level, to
be
're-heard,'
nearly three years
after
itwas
decided
or
at
any
time.
Ifhe City sees fit to
hold
any dangerous
building
proceeding concerning the
Property,
it
must
begin a
new proceeding
and
followthe mandated, codified procedures,
beginning withstep (1).
This letter does not address the substance ofany issue related to whether the Property
includes a dangerous
building, inpart because of
the City'sfailure
to provide the appropriate
notice
and basis forany attempt to
classify the Property as
such.
Owner
reserves
all
rights. To
the extent the City attempts
to go forward
withany hearing or proceeding concerning the
Property, Owner
will
vigorously
contest any
attempt
to
classify the Property as
a
dangerous
building. The
City found
in201
1 that
the
Property
wasnot a dangerous
building
and
nothing
has
changed. The
Property
is secure fromtrespass, is
listed
for sale
by
a licensedreal
estate
broker, and is otherwise
not
ina condition
that
meets
any
ofthe criteria
for
being
classified
as a
dangerous
building.
The Owner
questions whether the Notice
ofRe-Hearing,
coming now,
andbeing based
onnothing
new,
is
in fact an
attempt
to exert improper leverage
for
the
benefitofaprivateparty
with
whom Owner
has
been
negotiating
a
possible
sale
of
the Property.
If
his matter
proceeds,
the
Owner
will assert all rights,
claims
and defenses, including
the
several Constitutional issues
and
claims
which bar the action
which the
City
appears
poised to take. These Constitutional
issues, at
a minimum,
will require
legal
briefing
which the Owner
intends to
provide should the
Citymove forward on
its
current course.
{00518456.1}
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
22/42
PLLC
LAWOFFCES
S CHAFER SvrWEINER
LAWOF
Detroit
City
Council
and
Mayor
Duggan
June 12,
2014
Page
6
of
6
In
any event, please confirm
immediately
that
the
're-hearing' set for
June
16, 2014 is
canceledor
adjourned
andwill not
go
forward. I look
forward to hearing
fromyou and you may
reachme at
(248) 703-6808
or at
mwemette@schaferandweiner.com
Verytruly yours
SCHAFER
AND
WEINER PLLC
M v L J
iz
Michael
R. Wemette
MRW:tbm
Enclosures
cc: Anthony V
Pieroni
Dilip
Patel, City
of
Detroit
{00518456,1}
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
23/42
TAB1
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
24/42
JaniceM.
Winfrey
CityClerk
S LS I CORP
CERTIFIED
MAEL
-
RETURN RECEIPT
REQUESTED
CITY
OFDETROIT
OFFICE OF THE CITYCLERK
NOTICE
OF
RE-HEARING
Case
Number: PNG2010-16313
139
BAGLEY BLDG ID: 101.00
Parcel
No.: 2 315.
RobinUnderwood
Deputy
City
Clerk
May
27. 2014
220 BAGLEY, 800
DETROIT,
MI 48226
Dear
Sir
or Madam:
The Detroit
City
Council
has been informed
that th e Buildings, Safety
Engineering
and
Environmental
Department
will hold
a
hearing
as
indicated in th e Dangerous Building
Notice
sent
to
you
regarding
the dangerous
condition
of
t he a bove dange rous st ructure(s). The Buildings, Safety Engineering and Environmental Departm ent
will
recommend if the s t ruc ture (s ) should
be
removed and
the
cost for such removal assessed against
th e
property.
In-as-much a s th e recorded ownership of th e
property is
inyour
name, you
are hereby notified, in accordance
with
Detroit City
Ordinance
290-H
that
a Detroit City
Council hearing will be
held
in th e Commttee
Room,
13th Floor,
Coleman
A. YoungMunicipal Center, 2
Woodward Avenue,
Detroit
on June 16,2014
10:00 AM
r:=:*
at
which
time
you
are
requested
to
be
present
to show
cause
wh y
said
structure(s) should
not
b e o rd ere d
demolished
or
other wise made safe.
If
you
have
no opposition to
the demoli tion of this
structure(s), or ifyou
have
no fur ther
interest
in said
property,
it
is not
necessary
for you
to
attend
the
above City Council hearing. If
you have additional
questions
regarding thestructure ),
you may
call
the
Buildings, Safety
Engineeringan d Environmental Department at
(313)224-321
5
for
information.
Very truly yours,
Janice M. Winfrey
City Clerk
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
25/42
SAFETY ENGINEERING &
ENVIRONMENTAL
F L O O R , COLEMAN A. Y O U N G
MUNICIPAL
C E N T E June
16'
2014
-STT Xyn/~TTTO ATwT AOnZ
NOTICEOFRE-HEARING RE:DANGEROUS BUILDINGS
10:00AM
HONORABLE
CITYCOUNCIL
Case Number: DNG2010-16313
RE: 139 BAGLEY BLDGID: 101.00
S BAGLEY
25
EXC W 12 FT
TAKEN
FOR
ALLEYPLAT
OF
SEC 10 GOVERNOR
&JUDGES
I
LAN L34 P553 1
BETWEEN
CASS AND
CLIFFORD
ON J.C.C. PAGES 999
PUBLISHED
, YOUR
HONORABLE
BODY RETURNE
JURISDICTION
OF
THE
ABOVE-MENTIONED
PROPERTY TO
BUILDINGS,
SAFETY ENGINEERINGAND
ENVIRONMENTAL ,
DEPARTMENTTOREINVESTIGATEANDPROVIDECOUNCILWITHADDITIONAL
INFORMATIONON
SAID
PROPERTY FORFINALDISPOSITION BY
YOUR
HONORABLEBODY.
Cune_17,
20lT^>
THELAST
INSPECTIONMADE
ON
REVEALED
THAT:
V/O.
ITIS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTEDTHAT
YOURHONORABLE
BODY APPROVE
THEORIGINAL
RECOMMENDATIONOF
THIS
DEPARTMENTPUBLISHED (J.C.C.
PAGES 999),
TO
DIRECTTHEDEPARTMENTOF BUILDINGS,
SAFETY
ENGINEERNGANDENVIRONMENTAL
T
HAVE
THIS
(THESE) DANGEROUS
STRUCTURE(S)
BARRICADED/REMOVED ANDTOASSESS THE
COSTS
OF
REMOVAL/BARRICADESAGAINST
THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED
ABOVE.
R ESPE dTFU L L Y SU BM ITTE D,
DAVIDBELL
BUILDINGOFFICIAL
BUILDINGS, SAFETY
ENGINEERING&
ENVIRONMENTAL
UNSAFEBLDG.
RPT.
C:
DEPTOF PUBLIC
WORKS
BOARDOF
ASSESSORS
LAW
DEPARTMENT
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
S
L
S ICORP
220 BAGLEY, 800
DETROIT, MI
48226
139BAGLEY BLDG
ID: 101.00
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
26/42
TAB2
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
27/42
ORDINANCE NO. 02-07
ORDINANCE NO. 02-07
CHAPTER
9
ARTICLE II
AN ORDINANCE
TO
AMEND
CHAPTER
9, ARTICLE
II,
OF THE 1984
DETROIT CITY CODE
BY
AMENDING
ORDINANCENO. 290-H, AS
AMENDED,
THE
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES
AND REGULATIONS
OFTHE
OFFICIAL BUILDING
CODE OF THE
CITY OF DETROIT,
WHICH
IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 1-1-7
OF THE
1984
DETROIT CITY CODE
IS
SAVED FROM
REPEAL
IN
THE
1964
DETROIT
CITY
CODE AND IS
INCORPORATED
BY
REFERENCE
INTO THE 1984 DETROIT CITY CODE,
AND
ORDINANCE NOS.
15-88,
9-91
AND
12-04,
WHICH
IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 1-1-7 OF THE 1984
DETROIT CITY CODE ARE
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
INTO THE 1984 DETROIT CITY CODE,
BY AMENDING
SECTION 12-11-28.4
TO DELINEATETHEPROCEDURE
FOR DEFERRALOR RECISSION OF A
DEMOLITION
ORDER
ISSUED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL,
ETC.
AN ORDINANCE
to
amend Chapter 9,
Article
II,
of the
1984
Detroit
City
Code by amending
Ordinance
No.
290-H,
as amended.
The Administra
tive Rules and Regulations of the
Official BuildingCodeof the City
of
Detroit, which in accordance with
Section 1-1-7
of
the 1984 Detroit City
Code is saved from
repeat
in the
:
1964
Detroit City
Code
and
is
incor
porated
by
reference into
the 1984
Detroit City Code, and Ordinances
Nos. 15-88, 9-91
and
12-04, which In
accordancewith Section
1-1-7
of
the
1984
Detroit City
Code
are
incorpo
rated
by
reference into the
1984
Detroit City Code,
by
amending
Section
12-11-28.4
to delineate
the
procedure
for
deferral or recission
of a demolition
order issued
by
the
City
Council by incorporating
the
Revised Rules
for
Deferral
and/or
Recissionof
CityCouncilDemolition
Orders
for
Private Properties
that
were
promulgated
by the Buildings
and Safety Engineering Department
and became effective on October 7,
1996;
to
provide
that
the failure
of
the
owner(s) of record to comply
with the requirements
for
deferra or
recission may
result
in the deferral
being rescinded
at any time and
in
the buildingdemolished; and to
pro
vide
that
only
three
(3)
deferrals
may
be
granted
to
any
property owner
for
each property
unless
extenuating
circumstances
are
recommended
by
theBuildingsand
Safety
Engineering
Department
or
determined by the
City Council.
IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED
BY
THE PEO
PLE OF THE CITY OF DETROIT THAT:
Section
1.
Chapter 9,
Article II,
of the
1984
Detroit
City Code
be
amended by
amending Ordinance No. 290-H, as
amended, which in accordance with
Section 1-1-7 of the 1984 Detroit City
Code is
saved from
repeal
in
the 1964
Detroit City Code
and is incorporated by
referenceinto the 1984 Detroit City Code,
and Ordinances Nos. 15-88,
9-91
and
12-04, which
in
accordance with Section
1-1-7
of
the 1984
Detroit City
Code are
incorporated
by
reference into
the
1984
Detroit City Code, by amending Section
12-11-28.4, to read as follows:
THE
ADMINISTRATIVERULES
AND REGULATIONS
OF
THE
OFFICIAL BUILDING CODE OF THE
CITY OF DETROIT
Section
12-11-28.4. Notice
of dan
gerous building; show
cause hear
ing at the Buildings and Safety
Engineering Department; show
cause
hearing
before the
City
Council; demolitiondeferra or recis
sion;
lien; appeal:
(a) Notice of Dangerous Building.
Notwithstanding any other provisions
of
this ordinance, when
the
whole or any
part
of
any building or
structure
is found
to
be a dangerous
building, the Building
Official shall issue a notice
to
the owner or
owners of record that the building
or
structure is
a dangerous building and to
appear before
a
hearing officer, who shall
be
appointed
bv
and shall
serve
at
the
pleasure
of the Mayor,
to
show
cause at
the hearing why the building
or
structure
should not be demolished, repaired, or
otherwise
made safe.
The hearing officer
shall
be a person who has expertise in
housing matters,
lor example,
one
who is
an
engineer, architect, building inspector,
or members of a community housing
organization.
An employee
of the
Buildings
and Safety
Engineering
Department
shall
not be appointed as a
hearing
officer. The
department
shall
file
a
copy of th e notice
that the
building or
structure is
a
dangerousbuildingwith the
hearing officer.
.All
notices shall be in writ
ing and shall
be
served upon the person
to whom the notice is directed by an agent
of
the
department, or shall be sent by reg
istered or
certified
mail, return receipt
requested, to the
last
known
address
of
such owner or
owners. In
determining the
mmm
a
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
28/42
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
29/42
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
30/42
The City
shall
have a lien on the property
for the
amount of a judgment obtained
under
this
subsection. The
lien provided
for in
this subsection shall
not take
effect
until
notice of the lien is filed or recorded
as provided by
law.
The lien
does
not
have
priority over prior filed or recorded liens
and encumbrances.
(i) Appea from City Council Action. An
owner aggrieved
bv
a
final
decision or
orcfer of
the
City
Council
under
Subsection
(d)
of
this section
may appeal
the tinal decision or order to the Circuit
Court
by
filing
a
petition to r
an
order of
superintending
control within twenty
(20)
days from
the
date
of the
decision or
order.
Section
2.
All ordinances, or parts
of
ordinances, that are in conflict with this
ordinance are repealed.
Section 3. This ordinance is
declared
necessary for the preservation
of
the pub
lic peace, health, safety,
and
welfare of
the People of the City
of
Detroit.
Section
4. In the event that this ordi
nance is passed by a two-thirds (2/3)
majority
of
the
city
council members serv
ing,
it
shall
be
given
Immediate
effect
and
become effective
upon
publication in
accordance
with
Section
4-116 of
the
1997 Detroit City Charter. Where this ordi
nance is passed
by less
than two-thirds
(2/3) majority of the city council members
serving,
shall become effective no
later
than thirty (30) days after
enactment in
accordance with
Section
4-115 of
the
1997 Detroit
City
Charter.
(J.C.C.
pg.
Passed:
Approved:
Published:
Effective:
)
January 31 , 2007
February
5,
2007
February
9, 2007
February
9, 2007
JANICE M. WINFREY
City
Clerk
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
31/42
TAB
3
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
32/42
Cttp of Jietrott
OFFICE
OF
TH E
CITY
CLERK
.
Janice
M.
Winfrey Vvian
A.
Hudson
City
Clerk Deputy
City
Clerk
September 8,2011
S LS ICorp., 220Bagley,
Ste.
800, Detroit, MI48226
Bagley Acquisition
Corp., 220Bagley,
800
MichiganBldg.,
Detroit,
MI48226
Dear Sir
or
Madam:
On
July
6,
2011, the
Detroit
City
Council returned
jurisdiction of
the
above-captioned
property
to
the
Buildings and
Safety EngineeringDepartment for the reason indicated:
? Property barricaded
? Owner/interested
party
giveneeks
to
properly barricade
?
New owner/interested
party involved
? Buildings &Safety Engineering
Departmentto
barricade
O City
/
HUD owned
? Removed,
no action
necessary .
? Return
to
jurisdiction ofthe Buildings
&
Safety Engineering Department
V Withdraw
? Withdraw, razed, occupied
or
maintained
?
JANICE
M. WINFREY
Detroit CityClerk
JMW/cf/mgw
200Colemon
A, Young
Municipa
Csnler
Delroll,
Michigan
48226-3400
(313)
224-3260
Fax
(31 3)
224-1
466
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
33/42
E
X
H
I
B
IT
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
34/42
TitusAssociates,
P.C.
Architecture, StructuralEngineering, Consulting, ConstructionManagement
BUILDING
CONDITION REPORT
139 Bagley
Street, Detroit, Michigan
48226
dD toaJ
uuuu
wm
m
WEST ELEVATION
Property
Owner:
Report Completed:
Triple-A Venture, LLC
220 Bagley Street
Detroit,
Ml 48226
21 July,
2014
St.
Clair
Shores, MI 313.516.8482
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
35/42
TitusAssociates,
P.C.
Architecture, Structural Engineering, Consulting, Construction
Management
July
21, 2014
BUILDING CONDITION REPORT
The
building
at
139 Bagley is a 5 story (includingmezzanine) masonry load-bearing
exteriorwallswith
steel main frame infill. There are
several openingson the front (west)
south, and the rear (east) elevations. There are no openingson the north
elevation.
There is a steel fire
escape
on
the
south elevation. The
building
is currently unoccupied.
We have observed
the building'sexteriorwalls,window
openings, and
structure,
as
well
as
the
roof. The
exteriorwalls
were inspectedvisually
and
throughmasonry
scraping
Qoints and
bricks)
and no problemswere
identified. We
observed the
exteriorwalls to
be
plumb
and
true, and
without
majordamage
to
suggest
any
impendingstructural failure.
This
structure
is
in
no way
in
immediate
dangerof collapse.
The masonrywalls
are
secure and braced by the remaining
floor
joists
and
roof
joists
as they
are.
All
door
and
window
openingson
the
first
two
floorshave
been
secured with plywood
that
has
been painted.
Windows
on the3rd through 5th floorshave
not
been
secured and
some
have
been damaged by
vandalism,
othersdamaged duringthedemolition
of
the
adjacent property.
The
window
units
aresecure in
their attachment
tothe
building.
It is our understanding
that
the
roof and
roofstructureof
139 Bagley
weredamaged by
the
City of
Detroit
or thoseunder its employ during
the
process
of
demolishingthe
adjacentStatler
Hotel
someyears
ago. Elements of
that
buildingwere
allowed
to
fall
onto the roofof 139
Bagley
and thuscause thecurrent visibledamage. No measures
were
taken
and
no offerswere
made by
the
City
torectifythe
damage caused by their
forcessince theywere incurred. While a portionof the roof is missing, the remaining
roof
and
floor
elements
provide
adequatestructureand bracing,
and
again
based upon
our experience, and
what
we have seen
on-site,
thisstructure is in no way in
immediate
dangerof collapse.
As the
building is
open
to
the
elementswe
do
recommendsecurely
enclosing
the
windows
on
the
upper
floors
to prevent
furtherdamagetothewalls
and
structureof the
buildingfrom
exposure to theelements.
It is our
understanding
that theOwner,
Triple
A Venture, LLC has retainedGrunwell-
Cashero Co.
of
Detroit
to
secure
all
windowson theupper floorsagainst
intrusion
by
the
elements.
St. Clair Shores,
MI TitusAssociates,P.
C. 313.516.8482
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
36/42
TitusAssociates,
P.C.
Architecture,
Structural
Engineering, Consulting, ConstructionManagement
Based upon
our
inspection
of
the building
at
139
Bagley
in Detroit
we
strongly
disagree
with
theallegations
containedwithin
thecurrent lawsuit, particularly thedangerous
building
allegations.
Based upon oureducation
and
over 30 years
of
design and
construction
experience, we
find
that
thisbuildingdoes not pose
an immediate
hazard
to
thepublic. Further, we find
that
the
building
can remain stable
and
safe
without
any
additional
measures beyond
our
recommendations
herein
and normal maintenance
for
the next threetofiveyears.
The Dangerous BuildingOrdinance was
intended to
quickly rectify
hazardous conditions
that
have
immediate impact
upon
the
public'shealth,
safety
and
welfare.
We
believe
that
this
Ordinanceshould
not
be used
to improperly
strong-arm
individualstosell
their
property
tootherdevelopers. While it's
obvious
that thebuildingat 139 Bagley
in
Detroitwill need work
in
the
future,
theapplication
of the
DangerousBuilding
Ordinance
is grossly
premature.
St . Clair Shores,MI TitusAssociates,P. C. 313.516.8482
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
37/42
TitusAssociates, P.C.
Architecture,
StructuralEngineering, Consulting,
Construction
Management
is*
T
ton 'Mtoy
fr
gg gfg ^
IB
SIS SI
7
SS'
lis
m
KEi SB
Sa
is
lor
s:
I
1ilT
ffffWWWm
mB
m
FOR
SALE
=--'4S9 -.b-r
nstv; /*q
West Eevation-Doors
and
windowssecuredon first two floors. Minordamageto
windows
on
thirdand
fourth
floors. Missingglass in windowunitson fifth floor. Parapet
copingcompleteandsecure.
TitusAssociates,P. C.t. Clair
Shores, MI
313.516.8482
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
38/42
TitusAssociates,
P.C.
Architecture,
StructuralEngineering,Consulting,
Construction
Management
iiill
B
8
9
3
i
*(IIi
.
-
South
Eevation-Doorsandwindowssecuredon
first
two
floors. Windowson third
floor
partiallysecured. Windows
on fourth
floor intact. Missingglass in
window
unitson fifth
floor. Parapet copingcompleteandsecure. Steel fireescape
from
roof to third
floors
-
secure.
St. Clair
Shores,
MI TitusAssociates,
P.
C.
313.516.8482
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
39/42
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
40/42
TitusAssociates,P.C.
Architecture,
Structural
Engineering,
Consulting, Construction
Management
< 1
m
North Eevation -Parapet copingmissing. Damaged parapet -some
loose
brick tobe
removed/secured.
St. ClairShores, MI
TitusAssociates, P. C.
313.516.8482
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
41/42
TitusAssociates,
P.C.
Architecture, Structural Engineering,
Consulting,
ConstructionManagement
At
TitusAssociates,
an
architecture
and
engineering firm,
we
are
committed
to
providing
ourclients the high
level
of
services necessary
to
preserve their
historic
buildings
or
create
new
structurescompatiblewith theexistinghistoric
fabric. Our
extensive
experience
allowsus
to
go beyond
a
blind
application ofstandards, to achievea
deep
understandingof
a property's
significancetocreatesolutions
for
contemporary living
that respect a sense
of
place.
Our extensiveexperience in
designing
new
lifefor
existing
buildings
through
thevarious
jurisdictionsand applicableordinances and codes translates intoefficiency forour
clients. Renovation, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservationmaysound like
interchangeableterms; they are not.
These
are
distinct
treatment approaches
for
existingstructures. At TitusAssociates
we have used
theseapproaches
on
successfully
completedprojects
and
can
use
thisexperiencetohelp
you
select the best approach
for
your
project. Our proactiveapproach and extensivebackground has
earnedTitus
Associatesrecognition from theDetroit Hstoric
District
Commission;
we are
on the
list of
architects it
maintainsfor use
in
theCity's historic
districts.
We are well versed
in
the
Secretary
of
theInterior'sStandardsforRehabilitation. We understand the requirements
of
various funding resources
and can
aid in theapplication process. We exceed the
Secretary
of the Interior'sProfessional Qualifications
Standards.
We
provide
a comprehensive evaluation
of thecurrent building
conditions. Our
services
include:
Fa5ade Easement
Grant Reports
HstoricStructuresReports
National RegisterNominations
HstoricTax Credit and GrantApplicationAssistance
Preservation, Restoration, Rehabilitationdocumentation
Adaptive
reusedesignanddocumentation
Infill planning
anddesign
From
initial
hands-on
evaluation
through construction
operationsto project close-out,
Titus
Associates
provides
professional
architectural
and engineering
services tomeet
and exceed
established
expectations.
Original signed
and sealed,
Ronald
Titus, A.I.A.
St. Clair Shores, MI
Titus
Associates,
P.
C. 313.516.8482
8/11/2019 Def-Counter Pltf Resp to Mtn for ORder to Show Cause and Immediate Abatement of Nuisance(2014!07!23)
42/42
Ed
ucation:
hav
e an archite
ctural degree five-yea
r bac
helors profess
ional deg
ree.
am a registered
archi
tect in Michig
an for
over
2
0years and
have myn
ational c
ertification NC
ARB .
Assistance:
was assi
sted inmy an
alysis of the
buildin
g
by
James
P
artridge,
PE
was a
lso
assisted
by
Ed
All
ison,
who has a
degree inconstruc
tion enginee
ring U
niversityof
Tenness
ee .
Scone
ofWo
rk:
We ma
de seve
n 7
visits
to the
Building o
ver
a
two 2
week per
iod. During tho
se inspection
s,
w
e performed the
follow
ing tasks, amongothe
rs:
Tested samp
les of mo
rtar
between br
icks in several are
as scra
pe tests, both w
et
anddry
and
det
ermined
that th
ere
is litt
leor
no deteriora
tionof the
brickstruct
ure, whic
h
is
stable.
2.
Used lase
r-scope
to v
erify
true plumbness
of the
maso
nry walls,
th
e results
of
which
showe
d all walls are
wit
hin
accep
table
tolerances
except whe
re noted,
which
may
re
quire so
me
re
medial work
on the
p
arapet
withina
year
o
r two .
3.
Viewed the
interio
r
of
the Building
. Itwas not
possible to g
ain
access
to
the inter
ior by
the
door
without dam
aging it s
o
a
ll observ
ations wer
e
ma
de from
ladders, thr
ough various
windows.
S
ome f
ire
da
mage
was
ob
viouslyevident
but
we
didno
t obse
rve anyd
amage likely t
o
result
in
s
tructural
instab
ility.
4.
W
ewere unable to
gain access
to the roof
butwe
viewedvariou
s
pi
ctures
of the damage
fr
om belo
w and
conclude t
here is a suff
icient area of
the
remaining portion of
the roof
to maintain
structura
l stab
ility
by
bracing o
f the exi
sting
wall
s.
Recommended