Eastpointe planning commissioners rescind May recommendation, vote to recommend denial of Common Citizen special land use

On June 10, 2025, the Eastpointe Planning Commission voted to rescind its May 22 recommendation to City Council to approve a special land use and site plan for a proposed Common Citizen medical marijuana provisioning center at 24525–24545 Gratiot and then voted to recommend denial of the special land use to City Council.

The action followed public comment from neighboring property owner Michael Andrew Omachinski and a drawn-out commission discussion after commissioners viewed a video they said had not been available to them before the May 22 vote. Commissioners said the video and other new information showed major changes to the approved project scope — notably the removal of demolition, remediation and redevelopment of the parcel at 24545 Gratiot — and that those changes would have affected how some members scored the applicants during the city’s earlier licensing scoring process.

Chair DeHunt opened the meeting by saying the commission’s role is to “do due diligence” and to present council with full information. DeHunt told the room, “WE ARE HERE TO DO DUE DILIGENCE.” Several commissioners later said they felt misled about the project scope and timeline and that they would have voted differently if they had seen the video earlier.

During the public comment period, Michael Andrew Omachinski, who said he owns 24545 Gratiot and operated a longtime car lot there, said the project’s proposed adjacent use and traffic would prevent him from returning to his prior business. “With the marijuana dispensary next to me, that’s not gonna be possible because of all the traffic,” Omachinski said. Other residents and business representatives urged the commission to rescind the previous recommendation and to require the applicant to negotiate in good faith with property owners.

Representatives of Common Citizen, including legal representative Will DeSessa and principal Chad Zaki, told the commission the company had followed the proper procedures for amending its site plan and special land use and said market conditions had forced the change in scope. Zaki said Common Citizen had paid Omachinski “approximately $600,000” and had committed a $500,000 community contribution; he also said the project “still looks exactly the same, but minus the parking lot on the corner.” Will DeSessa repeatedly framed the question before the commission as whether the amendment satisfied the narrow legal factors the zoning ordinance requires for a special land use.

Planner Noah Bustle (filling in for the regular planner) read a proposed motion to recommend denial to City Council and listed the findings of fact the motion relied on: the project was not harmonious with the master plan and not an improvement that warranted special land use approval; the modification from the previously approved plan removed demolition/site remediation/redevelopment of 24545 Gratiot and thereby reduced compatibility with adjacent uses; and that the modification could render the project ineligible for a marijuana establishment license per the city’s medical-marijuana application committee proceedings on 11/02/2022.

Commissioner Richard Sasek moved to rescind the May 22 recommendation; Commissioner Hall Raiford supported the motion. After a roll call the commission voted to rescind (Sasek — yes; Hall Raiford — yes; Moody — yes; Stokes — yes; DeHunt — voted after initial abstention; motion carries). The commission then moved on to the motion to recommend denial of the special land use for the medical marijuana provisioning center; the motion was made by Sasek, supported by Hall Raiford, and passed on roll call (Sasek — yes; Hall Raiford — yes; Moody — yes; Stokes — yes; DeHunt — yes).

Commissioners repeatedly framed their votes as recommendations for City Council, which is the ultimate decision-making body. Several commissioners urged the applicant to take the record and present its case to City Council; others said the commission had no legal basis under the ordinance’s narrow factors to do otherwise but that the facts presented had changed their view. Chair DeHunt closed the meeting after the votes and the commission adjourned.

The commission’s formal findings and the record of the rescind and denial motions will be transmitted to City Council for final action; the applicant may present arguments to Council or seek to remedy the identified scope changes before Council acts.