The Eastpointe City Council voted 3-2 on June 17, 2025, to deny a proposed modification to a previously approved special land use for a medical marijuana provisioning center at 24545 Gratiot (Parcel IDs: 02-14-30-251-068-069-070-071-035). The motion to deny, adopted after extended public testimony and presentations by the applicant’s team, was based on two findings that the council read into the record: that the modification was not harmonious with the master plan and that removing planned demolition and remediation reduced the project’s compatibility with adjacent uses and its improvement to the community.

The decision matters because the site was one of the properties the city previously approved under its medical-marijuana licensing process, and applicants argued the changes were a financial response to a collapse in the medical marijuana market. Opponents — including planning and licensing committee members — said the revised plan significantly reduced the scope of redevelopment that won the project points in the original scoring.

Council members and staff spent more than an hour on the item, hearing from the applicant’s attorneys and design team, the property owner, and planning and finance officials. Attorney Will DeSessa, representing Common Citizen (the applicant), said the firm had submitted an amended site plan and argued the revised proposal satisfied the city’s special land use factors. “We do not believe this video should impact the council’s decision today in any regard,” DeSessa said, referring to a recording presented to the planning commission that prompted a later recommendation to deny. Architect Harold Rommlinger (Design Team Plus) described design changes that move active building frontage away from the corner and add a “62-foot buffer” and landscaping, saying the revised plan improves pedestrian sight lines and safety: “We are actually pushing the building or reusing a building that is center on the block … allowing us to provide a 62-foot buffer with our parking lot and landscaping.”

Planning and licensing committee members and the city’s finance representative, however, said the revised proposal removes key demolition, remediation and stormwater improvements that were central to the original proposal that earned points in the competitive review. Finance director Randy Blum told councilors that his original scoring reflected substantial site remediation and redevelopment promises and that the new plan would have scored far lower: “I guarantee you they would have got 35 or less out of me with the current site plan that they're proposing.”

Council members debated whether the council must limit its review to the zoning ordinance special land use factors or also consider the earlier licensing process and the representations applicants made to obtain points. City Attorney Richard Albright advised that revocation of an existing permit is governed by a separate section of the city code and was not before the council that night; he also noted that, even if the modified special land use is denied, the applicant retains the right to proceed under the previously approved special land use if it meets the previously set deadline. The council’s denial motion cites the City Medical Marijuana Application Committee meeting of Nov. 2, 2022, and the removal of demolition and remediation scope as primary bases for the findings the council adopted.

The vote was recorded as follows: Councilmember Curley — yes; Councilmember DiMonaco — yes; Councilmember Baker — yes; Mayor Kleinfeld — no; Councilmember Schadlick — no. The motion on the record denied the modified special land use; the denial does not automatically revoke the applicant’s earlier approval, and the city attorney told councilors the applicant still can proceed under the prior approval and the deadlines established by council (including the December 31 rollover timeframe described during the meeting).

Applicant representatives said the amended plan was driven by a steep decline in the medical marijuana market between their initial application and the present. In council presentations, the applicant’s team supplied statewide sales figures to show medical product sales had shrunk dramatically (figures presented in the hearing: 24.4% of sales in December 2021, 3.3% by April 2023 and 0.19% by April 2025) and said the change made the original scope financially untenable. The city’s contracted planner (McKenna) had previously issued a memorandum (Feb. 6, 2023) finding the original use satisfied special land use criteria; the planning commission initially left intact its site-plan approval but later recommended denial of the modified special land use after viewing a video and additional discussion.

Ending: The denial closes the immediate path for the applicant’s modified plan; councilors and staff said the council would review ordinance language and administrative processes going forward to better align competitive licensing expectations and special land use review. The applicant may pursue construction under its previously approved special land use, or apply for adult-use licensing opportunities should it not meet any administratively set deadlines.