Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison Heights council denies conditional rezoning for proposed smoke shop on John R Road
Summary
The Madison Heights City Council on July 13 denied a conditional rezoning request (PRZN 26-01) for 31075 John R Road that would have allowed a Smoke and Bear Tobacco location, citing enforceability of offered conditions and proximity to public facilities; the applicant’s attorney said the tenant completed a build-out and was later denied a certificate of occupancy.
Madison Heights — The Madison Heights City Council voted July 13 to deny PRZN 26-01, a conditional rezoning request to allow a Smoke and Bear Tobacco business at 31075 John R Road, after staff and the planning commission found the applicant’s voluntary conditions failed to meet the city’s rezoning criteria and raised enforcement and land-use concerns.
City manager Marsh and city planner Matt presented the staff report and noted the planning commission, following a June 15 public hearing, recommended denial under section 15.07.3C of the Madison Heights zoning ordinance. Planner Matt told the council the conditions did not “further the goals and objectives of the city master plan” and were ambiguous in how they would apply to the remainder of the parcel.
Mark Burke, attorney for the tenant and lessee, said the tenant completed an interior build-out after obtaining building permits and was prepared to open, but was later denied a certificate of occupancy because the proposed use was not permitted in the B-1 district. "We just need a certificate of occupancy," Burke said, describing permits and approvals attached to the application. He added his client was prepared to seek any variance on distance requirements if necessary and emphasized the requested rezoning was limited to a single unit rather than the whole parcel.
Planner Matt and other staff explained that building permits and zoning verification are separate processes: while the building department can authorize work that meets building code, that approval "does not constitute approval of any other municipal approval or state approval," and zoning approval must be confirmed before a certificate of occupancy is issued for a use that requires it. The planner said the zoning board of appeals had upheld the decision to deny the certificate of occupancy and that rezoning was the next procedural step for the applicant.
Council members raised concerns about enforceability and public-policy implications. One council member cited distance limits under the zoning ordinance intended to prevent certain uses from locating near parks, libraries and child-care locations; another noted that students frequently visit businesses in the plaza at lunch. Councilman Fleming moved to deny the rezoning and read findings drawn from the planning commission and staff reports; the motion, as amended to reference conflict with distance requirements, passed by voice vote.
Resident Martha Covert had earlier urged caution about special-assessment financing for neighborhood street repairs, warning homeowners could face assessments and long-term interest if projects proceed; her comments were recorded during public comment but were separate from the rezoning debate.
The council’s denial means the applicant may pursue other options including seeking a variance, reapplying with revised conditions, or pursuing a different site. The record of the meeting shows the motion to deny carried by voice vote; individual roll-call vote tallies were not read into the record for this item.
