Publication select ▼
ST. CLAIR SHORES — At the June 5 meeting, the St. Clair Shores City Council approved a land sale for a vacant city-owned parcel located east of Jefferson Avenue and south of Masonic Avenue in a unanimous vote.
The plan is to sell the parcel of land to Triangle Land LLC for $850,000. Condos are reportedly planned for the site.
This agenda item was previously brought to council at the May 1 City Council meeting, but it was tabled in a 6-0 vote with Councilwoman Candice Rusie excused for the meeting.
The original issues brought up at the meeting had to do with last minute changes in the agreement that were not present in the document before the council that night. One of the paragraphs that reportedly caused concern said the opposite of what it was supposed to say about the earnest money put forth by the buyer in the deal.
City Attorney Robert Ihrie said the question involving the earnest money has been answered. Ihrie said once the document is signed, the purchaser has 90 days to do their due diligence and would then make a decision whether or not to proceed with the project. That process could involve environmental issues and questions about the number of residential units they can get in the development plan, Ihrie said.
“And then once they propose their proposal and the city approves it, if they choose not to proceed, then they will forfeit the $50,000,” Ihrie said.
The city cannot keep the earnest money if the purchaser decides not to go forward with the project and not submit a proposal, Ihrie said.
Ihrie also said the purchaser tried to remove a piece of language that is standard for these types of agreements.
“I had indicated that I wanted language in this agreement which indicated that this agreement may not be assigned by (the) purchaser without the agreement of the city of St. Clair Shores, which agreement will not be unreasonably withheld,” Ihrie said. “Which is standard language.”
Ihrie said he told the purchaser he would not recommend that the City Council agree to the terms without the language being put back in. Eventually, the purchaser agreed to that stipulation.
More issues arose with the agreement at the meeting, regarding what the word “approval” meant in the document. Along with pointing out a few other errors within the document, Councilman John Caron said the word “approval” was an issue previously and it wasn’t clarified in the document.
“I think our understanding is that if they go through planning, their plan gets approved, comes to council, council approves site plan for it, that’s, I think, we all believe is approval,” Caron said. “It doesn’t say that in here.”
Ihrie said “approval” meant when the city issues building permits to the purchaser and they can proceed with the project. Caron rebutted by saying building permits are issued six months later and that the City Council doesn’t approve building permits, they approve site plans.
Caron, as well as City Manager Dustin Lent, Councilwoman Candice Rusie and Councilman Ron Frederick said they would like to see the word “approval” defined a bit more. Frederick added he would like to see it defined for reasons not already specified.
“In that this is waterfront property and this is going to involve other entities who have to approve this, including EGLE (the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy), and who knows if there’s any kind of environmental or whatever,” Frederick said.
Other errors were brought up by other council members and Frederick asked Mayor Kip Walby if they would be able to resolve them at the table. Walby said there were too many to resolve at the table that night and that they would have to bring it back.
Councilman and Mayor Pro Tem Chris Vitale said they have a good offer at the table and he understands everyone’s caution considering previous experiences.
“I understand everyone’s cautious because we had a developer that couldn’t bring it home, but I don’t think that’s the case this time,” Vitale said.
Walby said he is concerned if everything is not in writing and that he is worried that the project won’t materialize.
“There is a counter argument to this, though, that says the longer we drag this out, the more we risk losing it,” Vitale said.
Lent said the discussion boils down to what they agree the full approval process means.
He said the City Council can direct him and Ihrie to say that full approval means once it is passed the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Commission and the council, then they have full approval.
“I think that’s the only hold up, and I do agree with Mr. Vitale. The market is changing rapidly, and we have a full price offer on the table that we wanted,” Lent said.
Vitale made the motion to approve the project adding what Lent said and it was seconded by Peter Accica.
The project was approved by a vote of 7-0.
The buyer was not represented at the meeting and could not be immediately reached at press time.
