By: Brian Wells | Roseville-Eastpointe Eastsider | Published May 5, 2026
EASTPOINTE — Eastpointe City Council’s April 21 meeting opened with Planning Commission Chair John Dhondt apologizing for how long he expected the meeting to go.
“We’re not going to have a nice night, but we’ll probably have a couple beers at the end of the night,” he said.
The anticipated length of the meeting was caused by two proposed ordinance amendments — one that would have forced property owners to replace flat concrete including patios, garage slabs and driveways if any of a number of conditions were met, such as trip hazards, holes and water ponding; and one affecting residents’ ability to park commercial vehicles on their residential properties.
According to the agenda packet, the current ordinance “provides contradictory regulations regarding the parking of commercial vehicles in residential driveways.”
Originally, the agenda packet documentation states, the ordinance was intended as an exemption to allow residents to park commercial trucks in their driveways; however, it has become a loophole for people to operate businesses out of their homes and backyards.
“The exemption was not intended to cover box trucks, equipment and construction supplies, nor to allow businesses to operate out of a home without the proper home occupation license,” the agenda packet documentation states.
The amendment to the ordinance would have removed the exemption, prohibiting owners from parking any kind of commercial vehicles on their residential properties.
Most residents were there to speak on the parking ordinance.
Cory and Sharita Thomas, who own landscaping and catering businesses, said it would be cheaper and easier to move to a different city than store their trailers somewhere.
“It’s probably going to cost us $10,000 a year to store these trailers, so it’s cheaper for me to just move somewhere else and get me an acre of land and call it a day,” Corey Thomas said.
He added that they had never had a problem with the city until now.
Yvonne Lendeen said the amendment is likely going to make people leave the city.
“This is a lifeline for people, and these are people that have their own businesses. This is a blue-collar neighborhood. This whole city is blue-collar. You’re just going to run more people out of the city,” she said.
Initially, the City Council made a motion to send the ordinances back to the Planning Commission for further revisions. However, it was voted down 3-2, with Mayor Michael Klinefelt and Councilman Harvey Curley being the yes votes to send the ordinances back.
Councilman Rob Baker said he agreed with everything that was said during the public comment portion of the meeting, but he understood that the council might want more information.
“I agree with what was stated during our hearing of the public, but, if we want to hear further discussion from planning, it’s fine. … My recommendation was just to remove it, but if you guys are seeking further information, that’s a fair request,” he said.
Klinefelt said he had the same position as Baker.
“I know administration had some concerns, and I think it just gives them a place to raise them. I think if it comes back in the same form, I doubt it would have support here, but at least they could tease that out and see if there’s something different they want to recommend,” he said.
Curley said he had spoken extensively with residents, and if the amendments went back to the Planning Commission, he would be at the meeting to discuss it.
“I’ll be at the meeting, even though I’m on the council and going to make the final decision. I’m still going to speak up about how crazy they are,” he said. “Not the commissioners, the two recommendations.”
After voting down the motion to send the two amendments to the Planning Commission, Council voted unanimously to reject them both.
“All right, those items are both put to bed,” Klinefelt said.