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 Co
and 139 Bagley, Detroit, Michigan
and any Unknown, or Unnamed Claimants, Owners,
Spouses of Owners, Lienholders, Devisees, Heirs, or
Assignees, or Successors/Subsidiaries/Affiliates in
Interest, of 139 Bagley, Detroit, Michigan
individually, jointly and severally,

Defendants,

and

TRIPLE-A VENTURE LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company,

v.

THE CITY OF DETROIT, the DETROIT
ECONOMIC GROWTH CORPORATION, a
Michigan corporation, and the DETROIT
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a
public body corporate

Counter- and Third-Party Defendants.

Case No. 14-008057-CH
Hon. Robert J . Colombo, J r.















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 Department
By: Melvin B. Hollowell (P37834)
Charles Raimi (P29746)
Stanley L. de J ongh (41462)
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2 Woodward Ave., Suite 500
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 237-5031
jongsl@detroitmi.gov
Schafer & Weiner, PLLC
Daniel J . Weiner (P32010)
Michael R. Wernette (P55659)
Attorneys for Defendant
Triple-A Venture, LLC
40950 Woodward Ave., Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
(248) 540-3340
mwernette@schaferandweiner.com

{00524636.1}

FILED IN MY OFFICE
WAYNE COUNTY CLERK
7/23/2014 8:22:27 AM
CATHY M. GARRETT
14-008057-CH
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

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 approval
1
in 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.
1
The DDA, acting for and in concert with the City, authorized the DEGC in late March, 2014 to
negotiate a development agreement with VG Holding for the Statler City project.
2
The City-approved plan also provides that the City will give all of its Statler Site parcels to VG
Holding for one dollar ($1).
{00524636.1} 3


(b) In early J une, 2014, the City threatened to use an illegal City Council
hearing
3
to 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 a June, 2011 inspection 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 J une 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 parte order from this Court to
appear for a hearing on Friday, J uly 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 J uly 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 on Monday, 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).
3
Including without limitation MCL 125.540(3) and (4), MCL 124.541(1) through (4), and
City ordinance 12-11-28.4(a), (c) and (d).
4
See, e.g. letter to Mayor Duggan and City Council Members, Exhibit 3, especially at pp. 3-5.
{00524636.1} 4


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. 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

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 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
(248) 540-3340
mwernette@schaferandweiner.com


J uly 23, 2014.
{00524636.1} 7


{00524636.1} 8

EXHIBIT1
FILED IN MY OFFICE
WAYNE COUNTY CLERK
7/23/2014 8:22:27 AM
CATHY M. GARRETT
14-008057-CH
Page 1 of1
/i'ri
r^J I r* IL
( ' 7 : . ' y 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<~^ri^^siijiasajSSSBMWBMBB
V . -. .
\% C ASSPAKK
V A ARIA
Vt
\. - . v,,: ,
\^ . . i,
BRUSHPARK
AREA
C OMtKi
PARK
A'iRA'WOc fRO'l^V''
st&'i. PARk' j'-iXj"
PARK
u
^assS--
U Ui . |i " '
Mrir^f
V^riv
. . . Ji
v
http: //c dn. c static . net/images/gridfs/53c c 6066f92eall0e9017 be9/Detroit-Mi. . . 7 /21/2014
GoogleMaps
Page 1 of1
&
- \t
% . -s
>^
-r - ' -
\r'm* -s . ^ ^av m -
v !?. 4 . . $- " -imm
' "& " \"' ' ^ ~ i"" * ^,Tr -
* %
V %: '"1^. V ^
' <&. "
_H -fit. itiySP' Jl\t; '" ' '<--*
-izSttr - I* * * ' >
';. . . iTV. ^. '
u ^^\\l": lj: -,: '"v-""->-!Sjr <^v 5/' A - . ^S'> ' ^
!mager>' ,S2014 DigitaIGic be, t-irstBase Solutions, Sanborn, U. S. Geologic al Survey, USDA FarmServic e Agenc y, Mapdata 2014 Google 200it
https: //www. google. c oni/maps/@4 2. 3365309,-83. 04 6121 6,803m/data=!3ml ! 1 e3 7 /21/2014
EXHIBIT2
'i .
A
ER C
APAR
DtTROIT. MiC HiSAf
NTS
A PRESENTATION TOTHEDETROITEC ONOMIC
GROWTHC ORPORATIONANDDOWNTOWr
DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY
REQUESTFOR PROPOSAL:
DDA BOARDMEETING:
500GR1SWOLDSTREET
DETROIT, Ml 4 8226
>. ML
, ov
c C 1 ,
f
f
o
-3
S
A
L".
r-
;;;; a
P
v nn
Z
J. : -A
3 A
A R
T
W'
i 3
C -
S I
S '3
z S '
A
-
C ;
p;
'O
f
s
PRESENTED BY
VILLAGEGREEN
Is
0
f s
< X
W
1 3
to
H
?
n
o
x
159. 67
PRIVATE
OWNER
* ^
^ &
DBA AUTO
a
1/ Vi L lA GEfift1. EN
We are submitting forreview and approval the c onc ept renderings forStatler C ity Apartments
based on our previous meetings and feedbac k fromthe Oc tober2013 tourof ourapartment
projec ts in Minneapolis.
As stated in ourJanuary 2014 presentation, we are proposing tomove forwardwith the
ac quisition and developmentof the Statler hotel site. We have desc ribed the parc els we
propose toac quire and developattac hed hereto.
PURC HASEC ONSIDERATION
We propose toac quire the four parc els ov/nsd by the C ity of Detroitand amliates: 1501
Washington Boulevard, 155: and163 Bagley -owned by the Downtown DevelopmentAuthority
( DDA); and 1539 and 1565Washington Boulevard and 167 Bagley owned by the C ity of Detroit.
The primary c onsideration forthe c onveyanc e of the parc els will be the developmentof a
200-250 unit apartment c omplexwith the assoc iated amenities. The total deyelopmsntc ost is
estimated between $35-4 0 million.
RESPONSIBILITYOF VILLAGEGREEN:
? VILLAGEGREEN will be responsible for paying for the c lean-up of the site whic h inc ludes
the removal of the foundations and underground struc tures left in plac e with site demotion.
In addition, funding will be required to handle c lean-up of expec ted environmental
c ontamination and remediation of other soil c onditions as nec essary topermit c onstruc tion
toproc eed.
The site c oasMs of five parc els and one of the parc els is privateiy-ownec l. Village Green has
made a formal offer and intends tonegotiate in. good faith and ac quire the private parc el for
a market value pric e. Village Green has retained Friedman Real Estate as its broker
representative.
W". . v ' ! .
u w-.
Mill Distric tC ity Apartments, Minneapolis MM
EXHIBIT3
SC HAFER WEINER, I'LLC
LAWOFFIC ES
ARNOLDS C HAFER <194 8-aoo7 >
DANIEL J. WEINER*
MIC HAEL E. BAUM* *
HOWARDM. BORIN
LEONN. MAYER
JOSEPHK. GREKIN
MIC HAEL R. WERNETTE
KIMK. HILLARY
JOHNJ. STOC KDALE, JR.
BRENDAN G. BEST
JEFFERYJ. SATTLER
JASONL. WEINER
* ALSOADMITTEDINELOB. IDA
* * BOAR. DC ERTIFIED-BUSINESS BANKRUPTC YLAW
AMERIC ANBOARDOF C ERTIFIC ATION
4 0950WOODWARDAVENUE
SUITElOO
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MIC HIGAN 4 8304
TELEPHONE( 24 8) 54 0-334 O
www. sc haferandweiner. c om
June 12, 2014
DetroitC ity C ounc il Members ViaEmail andFederal Express
BrendaJones, George C ushingberry, Jr. ,
Saunteel Jenkins, James Tate, Sc ottBenson,
AndreL. Spivey, Mary Sheffield,
Raquel C astenada-Lopez, andGabe Leland, and
The HonorableMayorMikeDuggan
Re: "Notic eofRe-Hearing" forJune 16, 2014 regardingreal property loc atedat
139 Bagley, Detroit, Mic higan
DearC ounc il Members andMayorDuggan:
This firmrepresents the ownerofthereal property loc atedat 139Bagley inDetroit,
Mic higan( the "Property"). TheProperty is ownedby Triple-A VentureLLC , aMic higan
limitedliability c ompany ( the "Owner").
The C ity ofDetroit( the "C ity") Offic e ofthe C ity C lerk rec ently issueda "Notic e ofRe
Hearing" to"S L S 1 C ORP" ( c opy attac hed, tab 1), datedMay 27 , 2014 , statingthata 're
hearing' c onc erningthe Property will beheldonJune 16, 2014 . The Ownerobjec ts inthe
strongestpossible terms toany suc hhearing oc c urring onJune 16, 2014 , oratany timeifbased
onthe "Notic eofRe-Hearing. "
Foratleastthefive( 5) independentreasons setforthbelow, noere-hearing' or
proc eedingc onc erningtheProperty may lawfully be heldonJune16, 2014 , andthe Owner
respec tfully submits thattheNotic e ofRe-Hearingmustbe withdrawnandany hearing
c anc eledorresc heduled. Shouldthe C ity see fittoc onvene any hearings regardingthe
Property, itshouldataminimumc anc el the 're-hearing' setforJune 1 6, issue aNotic etothe
Owner, addressedas providedbelow, andsetany hearing fora newdatenotless thanten( 10)
days afterservic e ofthe newNotic e. Any attempttoproc eedonJune 16 would, among other
things, c onstitute aviolationofthe Owner's due proc ess andequal protec tionoflaws rights as
guaranteedby the C onstitutions oftheUnitedStates andthe State ofMic higan.
{005184 56. 1}
SC HAFER^v/WEINERp^c
BtVJy LAWOFFIC ES
DetroitC ity C ounc il andMayorDuggan
June 12, 2014
Page 2of6
First, theNotic e ofRe-Hearingwas notissuedtoorserveduponthe Owneras required
by law. C ity ofDetroitOrdinanc eNo. 12-04 , C h. 9, Art. II, sec tion12-ll-28. 4 ( a) ( attac hed, tab
2) c learly requires notic es suc has theNotic e ofRe-Hearingtobe serveduponthe ownerofthe
subjec tproperty, andfurtherrequires the C ity tofirstbefore serving suc haNotic e ~determine
thewhothe ownerofthe property is by examiningtherec ords ofthe Wayne C ounty Registerof
Deeds andthe Wayne C ounty andC ity ofDetroittaxassessmentrec ords. TheNotic e ofRe
Hearingwas direc tedtoandservedupon SLS 1 C orporation, whic hhas notbeenthe ownerof
theProperty sinc e 2006. The C ity failedtomaketherequiredexaminationofrec ords andfailed
toissue andserve the Notic e ofRe-Hearing inac c ordanc e withthe requirements of12-1 1-
28. 4 ( a). TheNotic e ofRe-Hearing does notc omply withthe requirements oflawandc annot
serve as thebasis fora 're-hearing' orotherproc eeding againstthe Property.
Tothe extentthe C ity may inthe future seek toissue any notic e c onc erning the Property,
suc hnotic e shouldbe addressedtoandserveduponthe Owner as follows:
Ms. Wendy Grenlc e
Triple-A Venture, LLC
27 390Floral
Roseville, MI 4 8006
Sec ond. theNotic e ofRe-Hearingfails toidentify the allegeddaneerous c onditionthat
purports tobe the subjec tofthe 're-hearins. ' TheNotic e ofRe-Hearing states thatonJune 16,
2014 at 10 a. m. ahearing will be held"as indic atedinthe Dangerous BuildingNotic esenttoyou
regardingthe dangerous c onditionofthe above dangerous struc ture( s)" ( italic s added) andthat
SLS 1 C orporationis "requestedtobepresentandshowc ause" why "saidstruc ture( s) shouldnot
be ordereddemolishedorotherwisemade safe. " NoDangerous BuildingNotic ewas inc ludedor
attac hed, andnoDangerous BuildingNotic ewas eversenttothe Owner, oruponinformation
andbelieftothe entity thatis supposed"showc ause" ( SLS 1 C orporation). What, spec ific ally,
is the alleged"dangerous c onditionofthe above dangerous struc ture( s)"? The sec ondpage of
theNotic e ofRe-Hearingmakes obliquereferenc e toaninspec tionpurportedly made onJune 17 ,
201 1 -nearly threeyears ago-andc laims thatsuc hinspec ted"revealedthatN10. " Whatis
V/O? Noexplanationhas beenprovided. Howc ouldOwneroranyone else have a fairand
properopportunity topartic ipate ina hearing c onc erning analleged"dangerous c ondition,"
muc hless "showc ause," whennonotic e has beenprovidedas towhatthe allegeddangerous
c onditionis?
{005184 56. 1}
S C HAFER a^rWEINERp^o
fiTvy LAWOFFIC ES
DetroitC ity C ounc il andMayorDuggan
June 12, 2014
Page 3 of6
EvenifthepurportedJune 1 6re-hearinghadbeenproperly notic ed, itc ouldnotproc eed
lawfully bec ausethe Ownerhas notbeenapprisedofthe substanc e ofthe allegations c onc erning
the c onditionofthe Property.
Third, ifthe subjec tofthe Notic e ofRe-Hearineis a three-yearoldinspec tion, the
hearinghas nobasis. As notedabove, the only c lue as tothebasis forany hearingis the oblique
referenc e onthe sec ondpage oftheNotic e ofRe-Hearingthatthe "lastinspec tionmade onJune
17 , 201 1" allegedly "revealedthatV/O. " Ifthatis thebasis forthehearing, thenevenifV/Ohad
beenexplainedindetail ~whic hithas not~Ownersubmits thataninspec tionthattook plac e
three years agois notaproperbasis forahearing now.
Fourth, the Notic e ofRe-Hearingpurports toc onvene a hearingthatc learly violates the
proc edures andsafeguards c odifiedinC ity Ordinanc esec tion12-11-28. 4 . C ity ofDetroit
Ordinanc eNo. 12-04 , C h. 9, Art. II, sec tion12-1 l-28. 4 ( a) ( attac hed, tab2) provides that
" [n]otwithstanding any otherprovisionofthis ordinanc e," whenabuildingis foundtobe a
dangerous building, the proc eedings mustoc c urinspec ific steps, none ofwhic hhave been
c ompliedwithby the C ity here:
( 1) First, servic e ofanotic etoappear, onthe ownerofthe subjec tbuilding, whomthe
C ity shall identity hy examiningc ertainpublic rec ords.
( 2) Sec ond, aninitial hearingbefore a"hearing offic er," appointedby the Mayor, who
shall notbe anemployee oftheBuildings andSafety EngineeringDepartment( "BSED"), at
whic hthe Owneris entitledtoappear. 12-1 l-28. 4 ( a).
( 3) Next, "/fthe hearing offic erdetermines" thatthe building shouldbe demolished,
repairedorotherwisemade safe, then"thehearing offic er" shall soorderandfixatime forthe
ownertoc omply withthe order. 12-1 l-28. 4 ( c ) ( italic s added).
( 4 ) Next, ifthe ownerfails toc omply withthe orderissuedby thehearing offic er, then
"thehearing offic er" shall filea reportofhis orherfindingwithC ity C ounc il andrequestthat
thebuildingbe demolished, repairedorotherwise made safe, anda c opy ofthe hearingoffic er's
dec ision, "inc ludingthe findings andorderofthe hearing offic er, shall be servedonthe owner
. . . . " 12-ll-28. 4 ( c ).
( 5) Then, aftersteps ( 1) through( 4 ), the "C ity C ounc il shall holda showc ause hearing
notless than30days after" theinitial hearingrequiredunderstep ( 2) above, and"shall give
notic etothe owner" ofthe C ity. C ounc il hearing. 12-1 1-28. 4 ( d). The owner"shall be giventhe
{005184 56. 1}
PX-X-C SC HAFER Sv/WEINERr
flc Vy LAWOFFIC ES
DetroitC ity C ounc il andMayorDuggan
June 12, 2014
Page 4 of6
opportunity toshowc ause" atthe C ity C ounc il hearing why the orderofthe hearing offic er,
resultingfromthe initial hearing desc ribedinstep ( 2) above, shouldnotbe enforc ed. Id. The
C ity C ounc il may approve, disapprove, ormodify the orderofthehearing offic er. Id.
( 6) Ifthe C ity C ounc il determines, aftersteps ( 1) through( 5), thattheorderofthe
hearing offic ershouldbe "enforc edormodified" ( as opposedtodisapprovingthe order), the C ity
C ounc il shall take steps toenforc ethe orderofthehearing offic er. 12-11 -28. 4 ( d).
( 7 ) "Anowneraggrievedby afinal dec isionororderofthe C ity C ounc il under
Subsec tion( d) . . . may appeal the final dec isionorordertothe c irc uitc ourtby filingapetition
foranorderofsuperintending c ontrol withintwenty ( 2) days fromthe date ofthe dec isionor
order. " 12-ll-28. 4 ( h).
The foregoingproc ess andproc edure is the only onethatthe C ity may employ: "[a]ll
ordinanc es, orparts ofordinanc es, thatc onflic twiththis ordinanc e are repealed. " 12-1 1-28. 4 at
Sec tion2. The C ity has notc ompliedwithany ofthe requiredproc esses andproc edures c odified
inthe ordinanc e andis attempting toviolatethe express language ofthe ordinanc e.
TheNotic e ofRe-Hearingwas notproperly issuedorservedonthe Owneras
disc ussedabove ( step ( 1)).
TheNotic e ofRe-Hearingpurports toskipsteps ( 2), ( 3) and( 4 ) c ompletely and
gostraighttostep( 5), a C ity C ounc il hearing ( seetab 1, p. 1). Beforethe matterc anbe
referredtoC ity C ounc il, however, the Owneris entitledtoaninitial hearingbefore a
hearing offic erappointedby theMayorwhoc annotbe aBSEDemployee. Thathas not
oc c urred, andc annotoc c uronJune 16 bec ause ofall ofthe defec ts disc ussedinthepages
above.
Moreover, theNotic e ofRe-Hearing appears toindic atethatwhatthe C ity
C ounc il intends toc onsideratthehearing is arec ommendationby the BSED-whic his
expressly prohibitedby the ordinanc e. As notedabove, the C ity C ounc il mustonly
c onsiderthe findings andorderof"thehearing offic er" who"shall not" be aBSED
employee.
The Owneris entitledtoa c opy ofthehearing offic er's findings andthehearing
offic er's orderfromthe initial hearing. Nosuc hhearinghas oc c urredandOwnerhas
beenprovidedwithnopurportedfindings ororderofahearing offic er.
{005184 56. 1}
S C HAFER akrrWEINER, PULC
LAWOFFIC ES
DetroitC ity C ounc il andMayorDuggan
June 12, 2014 ,
Page 5 of6
Only anorderofthehearing offic er, afterthe initial hearing, c anbeplac ed
before the C ity C ounc il, andnosuc horderexists.
Fifth the "C ase" referenc edintheNotic e ofRe-Hearingwas dec idedanddisposedofin
2011. andthere are novrovisions in the ordinanc e allowinga re-hearins ofapreviously-
dec idedmatterafteralmostthree years, orany time.
TheNotic e ofRe-Hearingpurports toaddress C aseNumberDNG201 0-1 631 3. See tab 1 .
Itappears thatthatc ase was disposedofby the C ity as ofSeptember 8, 201 1 andtheproc eeding
againstthe Property was withdrawn. See tab3. Thatdispositionc ame several months afterthe
purported"lastinspec tion" ofthe Property made onJune 17 , 201 1 ( tab 1, p. 2). The C ity
C ounc il determinationis the laststepby the C ity inhandling analleged"dangerous building"
issue. See the steps setforthinthe ordinanc e, listedabove. There is nonewinspec tionandno
newproc eeding, andthe ordinanc e does notpermita "dangerous building" hearing, onc e
disposedofatthe C ity C ounc il level, tobe 're-heard,' nearly threeyears afteritwas dec idedor
atany time. Ifthe C ity sees fittoholdany "dangerous building" proc eedingc onc erningthe
Property, itmustbeginanewproc eeding andfollowthemandated, c odifiedproc edures,
beginningwithstep ( 1).
This letterdoes notaddress the substanc e ofany issuerelatedtowhethertheProperty
inc ludes a "dangerous building," inpartbec ause ofthe C ity's failuretoprovidethe appropriate
notic e andbasis forany attempttoc lassify theProperty as suc h. Ownerreserves all rights. To
the extentthe C ity attempts togoforwardwithany hearing orproc eeding c onc erningthe
Property, Ownerwill vigorously c ontestany attempttoc lassify theProperty as a "dangerous
building. " The C ity foundin201 1 thattheProperty was nota "dangerous building" andnothing
has c hanged. TheProperty is sec ure fromtrespass, is listedforsale by a lic ensedreal estate
broker, andis otherwisenotina c onditionthatmeets any ofthe c riteriaforbeing c lassifiedas a
"dangerous building. "
The Ownerquestions whetherthe "Notic e ofRe-Hearing," c omingnow, andbeing based
onnothingnew, is infac tanattempttoexertimproperleverage forthebenefitofaprivateparty
withwhomOwnerhas beennegotiating apossible sale oftheProperty. Ifthis matterproc eeds,
the Ownerwill assertall rights, c laims anddefenses, inc luding the several C onstitutional issues
andc laims whic hbarthe ac tionwhic hthe C ity appears poisedtotake. These C onstitutional
issues, ataminimum, will require legal briefingwhic hthe Ownerintends toprovide shouldthe
C ity move forwardonits c urrentc ourse.
{005184 56. 1}
PLLC
LAWOFFIC ES
S C HAFER SvrWEINER,
LAWOFI
DetroitC ity C ounc il andMayorDuggan
June 12, 2014
Page 6 of6
Inany event, please c onfirmimmediately thatthe 're-hearing' setforJune 16, 2014 is
c anc eledoradjournedandwill notgoforward. Ilook forwardtohearingfromyouandyoumay
reac hme at( 24 8) 7 03-6808 oratmwemette@sc haferandweiner. c om
Very truly yours
SC HAFERANDWEINER, PLLC
MvLJiz
Mic hael R. Wemette
MRW: tbm
Enc losures
c c : Anthony V. Pieroni
DilipPatel, C ity ofDetroit
{005184 56,1}
TAB1
Janic eM. Winfrey
C ity C lerk
S L S I C ORP
C ERTIFIEDMAEL - RETURNREC EIPTREQUESTED
C ITYOFDETROIT
OFFIC EOFTHEC ITYC LERK
NOTIC EOFRE-HEARING
C ase Number: PNG2010-16313
139BAGLEY BLDGID: 101. 00
Parc el No. : 2 315.
RobinUnderwood
Deputy C ity C lerk
May 27 . 2014
220 BAGLEY, 800
DETROIT, MI 4 8226
DearSirorMadam:
The DetroitC ity C ounc il has been informedthattheBuildings, Safety Engineering andEnvironmental
Departmentwill hold a hearing as indic atedinthe Dangerous BuildingNotic e senttoyouregardingthe dangerous
c ondition ofthe above dangerous struc ture( s). TheBuildings, Safety Engineeringand Environmental Department
will rec ommend if the struc ture( s) shouldbe removed andthec ostforsuc hremoval assessed againstthe property.
In-as-muc h as therec orded ownershipofthe property is inyourname, youarehereby notified, inac c ordanc e with
DetroitC ity Ordinanc e 290-Hthata DetroitC ity C ounc il hearingwill beheld inthe C ommittee Room,
13th Floor, C olemanA. YoungMunic ipal C enter, 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroiton June 16,2014 10: 00 AM
r : : =: *
atwhic h timeyouare requested tobe presenttoshowc ause why said struc ture( s) shouldnotbe ordered
demolishedorotherwise made safe.
Ifyouhavenooppositiontothedemolitionofthis struc ture( s), orifyouhavenofurtherinterest insaid
property, itis notnec essary foryoutoattendtheabove C ity C ounc il hearing. Ifyouhave additional questions
regardingthestruc ture^), youmay c all theBuildings, Safety Engineeringand Environmental Department at
( 313)224 -321 5 forinformation.
Very truly yours,
Janic e M. Winfrey
C ity C lerk
. UJLDINGS, SAFETYENGINEERING&ENVIRONMENTAL
>EPT.
OURTHFLOOR, C OLEMANA. YOUNGMUNIC IPAL C ENTEJune 16' 2014
kT* "^/-STT' Xyn/~TTTOATwT AO^niZ
NOTIC EOFRE-HEARING RE: DANGEROUS BUILDINGS
10: 00AM
HONORABLEC ITYC OUNC IL
C ase Number: DNG2010-16313
RE: 139 BAGLEY BLDGID: 101. 00
S BAGLEY25 EXC W12 FTTAKENFOR ALLEYPLATOF SEC 10 GOVERNOR &JUDGES ILANL34 P553 1
BETWEEN C ASS AND C LIFFORD
ON J. C . C . PAGES 999PUBLISHED , YOUR HONORABLEBODYRETURNE
JURISDIC TIONOF THEABOVE-MENTIONEDPROPERTYTOBUILDINGS, SAFETYENGINEERINGAND
ENVIRONMENTAL ,
DEPARTMENTTOREINVESTIGATEANDPROVIDEC OUNC IL WITHADDITIONAL INFORMATIONONSAID
PROPERTYFORFINAL DISPOSITIONBYYOUR HONORABLEBODY.
C une_17 , 20lT^>
THELASTINSPEC TIONMADEON REVEALEDTHAT: V/O.
ITIS RESPEC TFULLYREQUESTEDTHATYOURHONORABLEBODYAPPROVETHEORIGINAL
REC OMMENDATIONOF THIS DEPARTMENTPUBLISHED ( J. C . C .
PAGES 999), TODIREC TTHEDEPARTMENTOF BUILDINGS, SAFETYENGINEERINGANDENVIRONMENTAL T
HAVETHIS ( THESE) DANGEROUS STRUC TURE( S) BARRIC ADED/REMOVEDANDTOASSESS THEC OSTS OF
REMOVAL/BARRIC ADES AGAINSTTHEPROPERTYDESC RIBEDABOVE.
RESPEdTFULLYSUBMITTED,
DEPT.
DAVIDBELL
BUILDINGOFFIC IAL
BUILDINGS, SAFETYENGINEERING&ENVIRONMENTAL
ENG. UNSAFEBLDG. RPT.
C C : DEPTOF PUBLIC WORKS
BOARDOF ASSESSORS
LAWDEPARTMENT
PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT
S L S IC ORP 220 BAGLEY, 800
DETROIT, MI 4 8226
139BAGLEY BLDGID: 101. 00
TAB2
ORDINANC ENO. 02-07
ORDINANC ENO. 02-07
C HAPTER 9
ARTIC LEII
ANORDINANC ETOAMEND
C HAPTER 9, ARTIC LEII, OFTHE1984
DETROITC ITYC ODEBYAMENDING
ORDINANC ENO. 290-H, AS
AMENDED, THEADMINISTRATIVE
RULES ANDREGULATIONS OFTHE
OFFIC IAL BUILDINGC ODEOFTHE
C ITYOF DETROIT, WHIC HIN
AC C ORDANC EWITHSEC TION1-1-7
OFTHE1984 DETROITC ITYC ODEIS
SAVEDFROMREPEAL INTHE1964
DETROITC ITYC ODEANDIS
INC ORPORATEDBYREFERENC E
INTOTHE1984 DETROITC ITYC ODE,
ANDORDINANC ENOS. 15-88, 9-91
AND12-04 , WHIC HINAC C ORDANC E
WITHSEC TION 1-1-7 OFTHE1984
DETROITC ITYC ODEARE
INC ORPORATEDBYREFERENC E
INTOTHE1984 DETROITC ITYC ODE,
BYAMENDINGSEC TION12-11-28. 4
TODELINEATETHEPROC EDURE
FOR DEFERRAL OR REC ISSIONOF A
DEMOLITIONORDER ISSUEDBYTHE
C ITYC OUNC IL, ETC .
AN ORDINANC Etoamend C hapter 9,
Artic le II, of the 1984 Detroit C ity
C ode by amending Ordinanc e No.
290-H, as amended. The Administra
tive Rules and Regulations of the
Offic ial Building C ode of the C ity of
Detroit, whic h in ac c ordanc e with
Sec tion1-1-7 of the 1984 DetroitC ity
C ode is saved from repeat in the
: 1964 Detroit C ity C ode and is inc or
porated by referenc e intothe 1984
Detroit C ity C ode, and Ordinanc es
Nos. 15-88, 9-91 and 12-04 , whic h In
ac c ordanc ewith Sec tion 1-1-7 ofthe
1984 Detroit C ity C ode are inc orpo
rated by referenc e into the 1984
Detroit C ity C ode, by amending
Sec tion 12-11-28. 4 to delineate the
proc edure for deferral or rec ission
of a demolition order issued by the
C ity C ounc il by inc orporating the
Revised Rules for Deferral and/or
Rec issionofC ity C ounc il Demolition
Orders for Private Properties that
were promulgated by the Buildings
and Safety Engineering Department
and bec ame effec tive on Oc tober7 ,
1996; toprovide that the failure of
the owner( s) of rec ord to c omply
withthe requirements fordeferral or
rec ission may result in the deferral
being resc inded at any time and in
the building demolished; and topro
videthatonly three( 3) deferrals may
be grantedtoany property ownerfor
eac h property unless extenuating
c irc umstanc es are rec ommended by
the Buildings andSafety Engineering
Department or determined by the
C ity C ounc il.
ITIS HEREBYORDAINEDBYTHEPEO
PLEOFTHEC ITYOF DETROITTHAT:
Sec tion 1. C hapter 9, Artic le II, of the
1984 Detroit C ity C ode be amended by
amending Ordinanc e No. 290-H, as
amended, whic h in ac c ordanc e with
Sec tion 1-1-7 of the 1984 Detroit C ity
C ode is saved from repeal in the 1964
Detroit C ity C ode and is inc orporated by
referenc e intothe 1984 DetroitC ity C ode,
and Ordinanc es Nos. 15-88, 9-91 and
12-04 , whic h in ac c ordanc e with Sec tion
1-1-7 of the 1984 Detroit C ity C ode are
inc orporated by referenc e into the 1984
Detroit C ity C ode, by amending Sec tion
12-11-28. 4 , toread as follows:
THEADMINISTRATIVERULES
ANDREGULATIONS OFTHE
OFFIC IAL BUILDINGC ODEOFTHE
C ITYOF DETROIT
Sec tion 12-11-28. 4 . Notic e of dan
gerous building; show c ause hear
ing at the Buildings and Safety
Engineering Department; show
c ause hearing before the C ity
C ounc il; demolitiondeferral orrec is
sion; lien; appeal:
( a) Notic e of Dangerous Building.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this ordinanc e, when the whole or any
partof any building orstruc ture is foundto
be a dangerous building, the Building
Offic ial shall issuea notic e totheowneror
owners of rec ord that the building or
struc ture is a dangerous building and to
appear before a hearing offic er, whoshall
be appointed bv and shall serve at the
pleasure of the Mayor, toshow c ause at
the hearing why the building or struc ture
should not be demolished, repaired, or
otherwise made safe. The hearing offic er
shall be a person who has expertise in
housing matters, lorexample, one whois
an engineer, arc hitec t, building inspec tor,
or members of a c ommunity housing
organization. An employee of the
Buildings and Safety Engineering
Department shall not be appointed as a
hearing offic er. The departmentshall file a
c opy of the notic e that the building or
struc ture is a dangerous building with the
hearing offic er. . All notic es shall be in writ
ing and shall be served upon the person
towhomthe notic e is direc tedby anagent
of the department, orshall be sentby reg
istered or c ertified mail, return rec eipt
requested, tothe last known address of
suc howner orowners. In determining the
mmm
a-*
last known address of tha ownerfsVtha
department shall examine Iha rarnrris nl
the last C itv of Detroit and C ounty of
Wayne taxassessment, and the rec ords
nf the C nnnty nf Wavne Registrar ot
Deeds. Where a notic e is served upon a
person by c ertified mail, a c opy of the
notic e shall be posted upon a c onspic u
ous part of the building or struc ture. The
notic e shall be served upon the owner or
party in interest at least ten ( 10) days
before the date of the hearing inc luded in
the notic e.
( b) ShowC auseHearingattheBuildings
andSafety Engineering Department. JThe
hearing offic ershall take testimony of the
building inspec tor, of the owner or own-
grs. andof any interestedparty. The hiaf-
ina offic er shall render his, or her, dec i
sion, not more than five ( 5) days after
c ompletion of the show c ause hearing,
either c losing the proc eedings, or order
ing the building or struc ture tobe demol
ished, repaired, orotherwise made safe.
( c ) Dec ision ofHearing Offic erWhere
the hearing offic er determines that the
building or struc ture should be demoP
ished, repaired or otherwise made safe.
tRe hearing offic er shall soissue an order
that spec ifies tne ac tion( s) tobe taken by
the orderand sets a date forthe ownerto
c omply with the order. Where the building
is a dangerous building as defined in
Sec tion 12-1 1-28. 2, the ordermay require
the owner tomaintain the exterior of the
building and adjoining grounds owned by
theownerof the building inc luding, but not
limited to, the maintenanc e of lawns,
trees, and shrubs. Where the owner fails
toappearorneglec ts orrefuses toc omply
with the order issued under this subsec
tion, the hearing oftic er shall file a report
of his, 'or her, findings with a c opy of the
orderwith the C ity C ounc il not more than
five ( 5) days after non-c omplianc e by the
owneTof owners, and reguest that C itv
C ounc il take nec essary ac tion toenforc e
the hearing offic er's order. A c opy of the
dec ision, inc luding the findings and order
of the hearing offic er, shall be served on
the owner in the manner presc ribed in
Subsec tion ( at ot this sec tion.
( d) Show C ause Hearing Before the
C ity C ounc il. The C itv C ounc il shall holda
show c ause hearing not less than thirty
( 30) days after the hearing presc ribed in
Subsec tion fa) of this sec tion for a hear
ing on the findings and orderof the hear
ing offic er and shall give notic e to the
owner in the manner presc ribed in
Subsec tion fa) ot this sec tiorTof the time
and plac e of the hearing to approve, to
disapprove, or tomodify the order for the
demolition of, repairof, or otherwise mak
ing the building or struc ture safe. As pro
vided for in this subsec tion, the owner, or
owners, of rec ord shall be given the
opportunity tosnowc ause at tneTiearing
why the ordershouldnot be enforc ed. The
C itv C ounc il shall approve, disapprove, or
mnriify tha nrder Where the C ity C ounc il
approves or modifies the order, the C ity
C ounc il shall take all nec essary ac tion to
enforc e the order. Where the order is
approved or modified, the owner shall
c omply with the order within sixty ( 60)
days after the date of the hearing under
this subsec tion. In the c ase of an orderof
demolition, where the C ity C ounc il deter
mines that the building or struc ture has
beensubstantially destroyed by fire, wind,
flood or other natural disaster, and the
c ost of repair of the building or struc ture
will be greater than the state equalized
value of the building or struc ture, the
owner shall c omply with the order of
demolition within twenty-one ( 21) days
after the date of the hearing under this
subsec tion.
( e) Demolition deferral orrec ission.
( 1 ) Where, afterthe showc ause hearing,
the C ity C ounc il approves the order to
demolish the building or struc ture, the
owner of rec ord may file a request for
demolition deferral or resc ission, with the
C ity C lerk's offic e, within twenty ( 20) days
of the rec eipt of notic e that the C ity
C ounc il has plac edan ordertodemolish a
building orstruc ture, whic h shall c ontain:
( a) Proof ofownershipandorinterestin
the property;
( b) A statement that the building or
struc ture is sec ured from trespass, all
imminently hazardous c onditions have
been remedied and the premises is free
of litter andovergrown vegetation;
( c ) The purpose for whic h the property
will be used;
( d) The time frame forrehabilitation;
( e) A c ommitment to:
( 1) Pay delinquenttaxes or negotiate a
payment plan with the C ounty of Wayne;
( 2) C omply with all applic able laws
inc luding, but not limited to, pre-sale
inspec tion, rental registration, and other
applic able provisions of the 1 984 Detroit
C ity C ode as well as state c odes;
( 3) Pay all delinquent inspec tion fees
and otherc harges;
( 4 ) Obtaina rehabilitation permit; and
( 5) Obtain a C ertific ate of Oc c upanc y.
( 2) Within ten ( 10) days of rec eipt of
notic e of a request for deferral or resc is
sion, the owner of rec ord shall apply for
and pay the requiredinspec tion fee tothe
Buildings and Safety Engineering
Department for a spec ial inspec tion to
determine c omplianc e with Subsec tion
( e)( 1)( b) of this sec tion.
( 3) Upon c hanges in any of the c ondi
tions underwhic h a deferral or resc ission
is approved by C ity C ounc il, the owneror
interested party shall immediately notify
the Buildings and Safety Engineering
Department. Failure tomaintain the c on
dition of approval of a deferral, orobtain a
modific ation thereof, will result in the exe
c ution of the demolition orderwithout fur
ther notic e.
( 4 ) Withinten ( 10) days of the rec eiptof
a request and payment of the presc ribed
fee, the Buildings and Safety Engineering
Department shall c onduc t a spec ial
inspec tion of the property and c omplete
an inspec tion report, whic h shall c ontain:
( a) A desc ription of the property;
( b) The c ondition of the property as to
c omplianc e with Subsec tion ( 1)( b) of this
sec tion;
( c ) Feasibility for use as provided for in
Subsec tion ( 1)( c ) of this sec tion;
( d) Evaluation of the time frame for
rehabilitation as provided for in
Subsec tion ( 1)( d) of this sec tion;
( e) C omplianc e with c onditions listed in
Subsec tion ( 1)( e) of this sec tion; and
( f) A rec ommendation toC ity C ounc il.
( 5) Within five ( 5) days following the
spec ial inspec tion, the Department shall
advise the applic ant and the C ity C ounc il
of its rec ommendation. .
( 6) Upon rec eipt of the Buildings and
Safety Engineering Department's rec om
mendation, the C ity C ounc il shall
approve, disapprove or modify the
Department's rec ommendation. The C ity
C lerk shall advise the applic antof the C ity
C ounc il dec ision.
( 7 ) Where the owner( s) of rec ord does
not c omply with the requirements that are
c ontained in Subsec tion ( e)( 1) of this sec
tion, at the disc retion of the C ity C ounc il
or upon rec ommendation of the Buildings
and Safety Engineering Department to
C ity C ounc il, a demolition deferral may be
resc inded by the C ity C ounc il atany time.
Where the owner( s) of rec ord fail to
adhere tothe requirements that are c on
tained in Subsec tion ( e)( 1) of this sec tion,
the building shall be demolished without
further notic e.
( 8) The C ity C ounc il shall grantnomore
than three ( 3) deferrals to any property
owner, for eac h property, with the exc ep
tion of extenuating c irc umstanc es to be
determined by the C ity C ounc il or by rec
ommendation from the Buildings and
Safety Engineering Department.
( f) Assessment and Enforc ement of
Lien. The c ost of demolition inc ludes, but
is not limited to, fees paid tohearing offi
c ers, c osts of title searc hes or c ommit
ments used to determine the parties in
interest, rec ording fees for notic es and
liens filed with the C ounty of Wayne
Register of Deeds, demolition and dump
ing c harges, c ourt reporter attendanc e
fees, and c osts of the c ollec tion of the
c harges authorized under this ordinanc e.
The c ost inc urred by the C ity, of demol
ishing, repairing, making the building or
struc ture safe, or maintaining the exterior
of the building or struc ture or grounds
adjoining the building or struc ture, shall
be a lien against the real property and
shall be reported to the Board of
Assessors who shall assess the c ost
against the property in question. The lien
may be enforc ed in the manner pre
sc ribed in the applic able provisions of the
1997 Detroit C ity C harter or the 1984
Detroit C ity C ode whic h provide for the
enforc ement of spec ial assessment liens
or of unpaid property taxes. Where any
assessment pursuant to this sec tion is
found tobe unjustorerroneous, orwhere
the owner of the property would suffer an
undue hardship through nofault of his or
her own, the C ity C ounc il may waive the
assessment.
( g) Use andEffec tive Date ofLien. The
owner or party in interest in whose name
the property appears upon the last C ity
taxassessment rec ords shall be notified
by the C ity Assessorof the amountof the
c ost of the demolition, of making the
building or struc ture safe, or of maintain
ing the exteriorof the building orstruc ture
orgrounds adjoining the building orstruc
ture by first c lass mail at the address
shown on the rec ords. Where the owner
or party in interest fails to pay the c ost
within thirty ( 30) days afterthe mailing by
the C ity Assessor of the notic e of the
amount of the c osts, the C ity shall have a
lien for the c ost inc urred by the C ity to
bring the property intoc onformanc e with
this ordinanc e. The lien shall not take
effec tuntil notic e of the lienhas been filed
or rec orded as provided by law. A lien for
the c ost shall be c ollec ted and treated in
the same manneras provided for proper
ty taxliens under the Mic higan General
Property TaxAc t, being MC L 211. 1 to
211. 157 .
( h) Legal Ac tion by C ity. In addition to
other remedies under this ordinanc e, the
C ity may bring an ac tion against the
owner of the building or struc ture for the
full c ost of the demolition, of making the
building or struc ture safe, or of maintain
ing the exteriorof the building orstruc ture.
The C ity shall have a lien on the property
for the amount of a judgment obtained
under this subsec tion. The lien provided
for in this subsec tion shall not take effec t
until notic e of the lien is filed or rec orded
as providedby law. The lien does nothave
priority over prior filed or rec orded liens
and enc umbranc es.
( i) Appeal fromC ity C ounc il Ac tion. An
owner aggrieved bv a final dec ision or
orc fer of the C ity C ounc il under
Subsec tion ( d) of this sec tion may appeal
the tinal dec ision or order to the C irc uit
C ourt by filing a petition tor an order of
superintending c ontrol within twenty ( 20)
days from the date of the dec ision or
order.
Sec tion 2. All ordinanc es, or parts of
ordinanc es, that are in c onflic t with this
ordinanc e are repealed.
Sec tion 3. This ordinanc e is dec lared
nec essary forthe preservationof the pub
lic peac e, health, safety, and welfare of
the People of the C ity of Detroit.
Sec tion 4 . In the event that this ordi
nanc e is passed by a two-thirds ( 2/3)
majority of the c ity c ounc il members serv
ing, it shall be given Immediate effec t and
bec ome effec tive upon public ation in
ac c ordanc e with Sec tion 4 -116 of the
1997 Detroit C ity C harter. Where this ordi
nanc e is passed by less than two-thirds
( 2/3) majority of the c ity c ounc il members
serving, it shall bec ome effec tive nolater
than thirty ( 30) days after enac tment in
ac c ordanc e with Sec tion 4 -115 of the
1997 DetroitC ity C harter.
( J. C . C . pg.
Passed:
Approved:
Published:
Effec tive:
)
January 31 , 2007
February 5, 2007
February 9, 2007
February 9, 2007
JANIC EM. WINFREY
C ity C lerk
TAB3
C ttp of Jietrott
OFFIC EOF THEC ITYC LERK .
Janic e M. Winfrey VivianA. Hudson
C ity C lerk Deputy C ity C lerk
September 8,2011
S L S IC orp. , 220Bagley, Ste. 800, Detroit, MI4 8226
Bagley Ac quisitionC orp. , 220Bagley, 800Mic higanBldg. , Detroit, MI4 8226
DearSirorMadam:
On July 6, 2011, the Detroit C ity C ounc il returnedjurisdic tion ofthe above-c aptionedproperty tothe
Buildings andSafety EngineeringDepartmentforthereasonindic ated:
? Property barric aded
? Owner/interestedparty given weeks toproperly barric ade
? Newowner/interestedparty involved
? Buildings &Safety EngineeringDepartmenttobarric ade
O C ity /HUDowned
? Removed, noac tionnec essary .
? Returntojurisdic tionoftheBuildings &Safety EngineeringDepartment
V Withdraw
? Withdraw, razed, oc c upiedormaintained
?
JANIC EM. WINFREY
DetroitC ity C lerk
JMW/c f/mgw
200C olemonA, Young Munic ipal C snler Delroll, Mic higan4 8226-34 00
( 313) 224 -3260 Fax( 31 3) 224 -1 4 66
EXHIBIT4
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
BUILDINGC ONDITIONREPORT
139 Bagley Street, Detroit, Mic higan 4 8226
dD toaJ uuuu
wmm
WESTELEVATION
Property Owner:
Report C ompleted:
Triple-A Venture, LLC
220 Bagley Street
Detroit, Ml 4 8226
21 July, 2014
St. C lairShores, MI 313. 516. 84 82
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
July 21, 2014
BUILDINGC ONDITIONREPORT
The buildingat 139Bagley is a 5story ( inc ludingmezzanine) masonry load-bearing
exteriorwalls withsteel mainframe infill. There are several openings on thefront( west)
south, and the rear( east) elevations. There are noopenings on the north elevation.
There is a steel fire esc ape on thesouth elevation. The building is c urrently unoc c upied.
We have observedthe building's exteriorwalls, windowopenings, and struc ture, as well
as the roof. The exteriorwalls were inspec tedvisually andthrough masonry sc raping
Qoints and bric ks) and noproblems were identified. We observedthe exteriorwalls tobe
plumband true, andwithoutmajordamagetosuggestany impendingstruc tural failure.
This struc ture is in noway in immediate dangerof c ollapse. The masonry walls are
sec ure and brac ed by the remainingfloorjoists and roofjoists as they are.
All doorand windowopenings on thefirsttwofloors have been sec uredwith plywood
thathas been painted. Windows on the 3rd through 5th floors have not been sec ured and
some have been damaged by vandalism, others damaged duringthe demolition of the
adjac ent property. The windowunits are sec ure in theirattac hmenttothe building.
It is ourunderstandingthatthe roof and roof struc ture of 139Bagley were damaged by
the C ity of Detroitorthose underits employ duringthe proc ess of demolishingthe
adjac entStatlerHotel someyears ago. Elements of thatbuildingwere allowed tofall
ontothe roof of 139Bagley andthus c ause the c urrentvisible damage. Nomeasures
were taken and nooffers were made by the C ity torec tify the damage c aused by their
forc es sinc e they were inc urred. While a portion ofthe roof is missing, the remaining
roof andfloorelements provide adequate struc ture and brac ing, and again based upon
ourexperienc e, andwhatwe have seen on-site, this struc ture is in noway in immediate
dangerof c ollapse.
As the building is open tothe elements we dorec ommendsec urely enc losingthe
windows on the upperfloors topreventfurtherdamagetothewalls and struc ture of the
buildingfromexposure tothe elements.
It is ourunderstandingthatthe Owner, TripleA Venture, LLC has retained Grunwell-
C asheroC o. of Detroittosec ure all windows on the upperfloors against intrusion by the
elements.
St. C lairShores, MI Titus Assoc iates, P. C . 313. 516. 84 82
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
Based upon ourinspec tion of the buildingat 139Bagley in Detroitwe strongly disagree
withthe allegations c ontainedwithinthe c urrentlawsuit, partic ularly the dangerous
building allegations.
Based upon oureduc ation and over30years of design and c onstruc tionexperienc e, we
findthatthis buildingdoes not pose an immediate hazardtothe public . Further, we find
thatthe buildingc an remainstable andsafewithoutany additional measures beyond
our rec ommendations herein and normal maintenanc eforthe nextthreetofive years.
The Dangerous Building Ordinanc e was intendedtoquic kly rec tify hazardous c onditions
thathave immediate impac tuponthe public 's health, safety andwelfare. We believe
thatthis Ordinanc e should not be usedtoimproperly strong-armindividuals tosell their
property tootherdevelopers. While it's obvious thatthe buildingat 139Bagley in
Detroitwill needwork in thefuture, the applic ationofthe Dangerous BuildingOrdinanc e
is grossly premature.
St. C lairShores, MI Titus Assoc iates, P. C . 313. 516. 84 82
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
is*
T
ton 'Mtoy fr
gg gfg ^
IB SIS SI
7
SS'
lis m
KEi SBSa
is lor ^s:
I
1ilTffffWWWmmVB
m
FOR SALE
=--'4 S9 -. b-r
nstv; /* q
WestElevation - Doors and windows sec ured on firsttwofloors. Minordamageto
windows onthirdandfourthfloors. Missingglass in windowunits onfifthfloor. Parapet
c opingc omplete andsec ure.
Titus Assoc iates, P. C . St. C lairShores, MI 313. 516. 84 82
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
iiill
B8 9 3 i
* ( IIi
^\.
-
South Elevation - Doors andwindows sec ured on firsttwofloors. Windows on thirdfloor
partially sec ured. Windows on fourthfloorintac t. Missing glass in windowunits on fifth
floor. Parapetc oping c omplete andsec ure. Steel fire esc ape fromroof tothirdfloors -
sec ure.
St. C lairShores, MI Titus Assoc iates, P. C . 313. 516. 84 82
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
bp ftp-1SP-
mmm
i
mm
8
East Elevation - Doors and windows sec ured on firsttwofloors, as well as one half of the
windows on the thirdthroughfifthfloors. Windows missingglass instairwell. Window
on fourthfloormissingglass with missing bric k above and belowtobe sec ured. Parapet
c oping inc omplete. Bric k atstairtowerand northeastparapetc ornertobe sec ured.
St. C lairShores, MI Titus Assoc iates, P. C . 313. 516. 84 82
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
<"1
m
North Elevation -Parapetc oping missing. Damaged parapet - some loose bric k tobe
removed/sec ured.
St. C lairShores, MI Titus Assoc iates, P. C . 313. 516. 84 82
Titus Assoc iates, P. C .
Arc hitec ture, Struc tural Engineering, C onsulting, C onstruc tionManagement
AtTitus Assoc iates, an arc hitec ture and engineeringfirm, we are c ommittedtoproviding
ourc lients the high level ofservic es nec essary topreserve theirhistoric buildings or
c reate newstruc tures c ompatiblewiththe existing historic fabric . Ourextensive
experienc e allows us togobeyond a blind applic ation ofstandards, toac hieve a deep
understandingof a property's signific anc etoc reate solutions forc ontemporary living
that respec ta sense of plac e.
Ourextensive experienc e in designingnewlifeforexisting buildings throughthevarious
jurisdic tions and applic able ordinanc es and c odes translates intoeffic ienc y forour
c lients. Renovation, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation may sound like
interc hangeableterms; they are not. These are distinc ttreatmentapproac hes for
existingstruc tures. AtTitus Assoc iates we have used these approac hes on suc c essfully
c ompleted projec ts and c an use this experienc e tohelpyouselec tthe bestapproac hfor
yourprojec t. Our proac tive approac h and extensive bac kground has earnedTitus
Assoc iates rec ognitionfromthe Detroit Historic Distric tC ommission; we are on the listof
arc hitec ts it maintains foruse in the C ity's historic distric ts. We are well versed in the
Sec retary ofthe Interior's Standards forRehabilitation. We understandthe requirements
of various funding resourc es and c an aid in the applic ation proc ess. We exc eed the
Sec retary of the Interior's Professional Qualific ations Standards.
We provide a c omprehensive evaluation of the c urrent buildingc onditions. Ourservic es
inc lude:
Fa5ade EasementGrant Reports
Historic Struc tures Reports
National RegisterNominations
Historic TaxC reditand GrantApplic ationAssistanc e
Preservation, Restoration, Rehabilitationdoc umentation
Adaptive reuse design and doc umentation
Infill planning and design
Frominitial hands-on evaluation through c onstruc tion operations toprojec tc lose-out,
Titus Assoc iates provides professional arc hitec tural and engineeringservic es tomeet
and exc eed established expec tations.
Original signed and sealed,
RonaldTitus, A. I. A.
St. C lairShores, MI Titus Assoc iates, P. C . 313. 516. 84 82
Educ ation:
I have an arc hitec tural degree ( five-year bac helors - professional degree). I ama registered
arc hitec tinMic higanforover20years andhave my national c ertific ation( NC ARB).
Assistanc e:
I was assistedinmy analysis ofthe buildingby James Partridge, P. E. I was alsoassistedby Ed
Allison, whohas a degree inc onstruc tionengineering( University ofTennessee).
Sc oneofWork:
We madeseven ( 7 ) visits tothe Buildingovera two( 2) week period. Duringthose inspec tions,
weperformedthefollowingtasks, amongothers:
1. Tested samples of mortar ( between bric ks) in several areas - sc rape tests, both wet
anddry -anddeterminedthatthereis littleornodeteriorationofthebric k struc ture, whic his stable.
2. Used laser-sc ope toverify true plumbness of the masonry walls, the results of whic h
showed all walls are within ac c eptable toleranc es ( exc ept where noted, whic h may require some
remedial work ontheparapetwithinayearortwo).
3. Viewedtheinteriorofthe Building. Itwas notpossible togainac c ess tothe interiorby
the doorwithoutdamaging it, soall observations were made fromladders, through various windows.
Somefiredamagewas obviously evidentbutwe didnotobserve any damage likely toresultinstruc tural
instability.
4 . Wewere unabletogainac c ess totheroofbutweviewedvarious pic tures ofthedamage
frombelowand c onc lude there is a suffic ient area of the remaining portion of the roof tomaintain
struc tural stability by brac ingoftheexistingwalls.