Publication select ▼EASTPOINTE — The Eastpointe City Council voted 3-2 June 17 to reject a special land use permit for one of three businesses granted marijuana licenses in the city due to its scaled-back site plan.
At a May 22 special meeting of Eastpointe’s Planning Commission, the commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of a scaled-down site plan for a marijuana facility proposed by Common Citizen LLC. The company had originally committed to a full redevelopment of a block on Gratiot Avenue, including demolishing several buildings and cleaning up several parcels.
However, the revised plan limited demolition to three buildings and focused on renovating the former Joe’s Music. An attorney for the company cited shifts in the cannabis market as the reason for the changes.
The revised plans also dropped the cleanup of an abandoned oil change facility, which raised concerns about a reduced investment.
Due to the new plans falling short of what was initially promised and scored, the Planning Commission voted to reverse the decision to recommend to approve the plans at a June 10 meeting and instead recommended to deny them.
When the issue came before City Council at its June 17 meeting, Councilman Cardi DeMonaco asked if the scaled-back plans were a last-minute effort by the company to meet the Dec. 31 deadline that council gave the city’s three recreational marijuana licensees to be open and operational.
Will DiSessa, a lawyer representing Common Citizen, said the reduced plans were due to a reduction in the medical marijuana industry in the time between when the company first filed for its license and now. All three recreational marijuana licensees were originally granted medical marijuana licenses a few years ago, but never opened.
“Medical marijuana is effectively dead,” DiSessa said.
When Councilman Harvey Curley asked why the company hadn’t begun construction when the license was first approved in April 2023, DiSessa said the idea that any of the companies that had been granted licenses would begin construction at that time was “misinformed.”
“In the year and few months between the beginning of the application process and our original special land use approval, medical sales have evaporated to less than a third of their original glory,” DiSessa said. “So to suggest that we, or any of the successful applicants, should have moved forward with construction right away after obtaining our initial approvals, respectfully, seems somewhat misinformed.”
City Finance Director Randy Blum and Assistant City Manager Kim Homan, both of whom were on the committee that approved the original license, said the company would have been scored much lower and possibly not granted the license with the current plans.
“These are bait and switch activities of, ‘I’m promising you this but we really don’t want to do it,’” Blum said. “I do not believe that they would have got the license in the first place.”
Shadi Zaki, who owns the license, said accusing Common Citizen of a bait and switch is far-fetched.
“As responsible business owners, we are always keeping an eye on the macro-level economics, as that’s what drives development,” he said. “But to say that this is a bait and switch, that’s a bit far-fetched, with all due respect. We have all of the same elements that we were scored and achieved those points for.”
Eastpointe Mayor Michael Klinefelt said he felt that while he could understand the frustration behind the change of plans, nothing new was presented at the June 10 Planning Commission meeting that affected whether or not Common Citizen met the requirements for the special land use permit, and that made him feel that the motion to deny the permit should be rejected.
“I’m kind of struggling with it,” he said.
Before City Council could vote, DiSessa argued that council can’t vote based on a hypothetical scoring.
“There’s the statement that has been made that perhaps the scores would have been different had we presented this plan the first time. I would submit, however, that is a hypothetical,” he said.
DiSessa also argued that it’s routine for businesses to change their site plans, which is allowed by the city’s ordinances.
“We must concede that a request to abide by the city’s own code of ordinances, to follow the procedures set forth by this council to request an amendment cannot be equated with an admission that we were engaged in some kind of dishonesty before,” he said.
“It’s not indicative of foul play or deceit in any way,” he said.
In the end, City Council voted 3-2 to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the permit. Curley, DeMonaco and Councilman Rob Baker voted to support the motion to deny, while Klinefelt and Councilwoman Margaret Podsiadlik voted against it.
