The Dearborn Heights City Council considered a petition to rezone a parcel at Ann Arbor Trail (parcel listed in staff materials as 33‑008‑99‑009‑00) from R‑1 (single‑family) to RM (multi‑family) on May 27. The item generated extensive public comment and was not approved that night; the council voted to send the request to a study session for additional review.

Multiple residents opposed the rezoning during public comment, citing neighborhood character, existing density in the area (residents noted nearby condominiums, trailer parks and apartment complexes) and concerns about drainage and wetland status. One speaker said the parcel retains water through much of the year and asked for a DNR or independent drainage assessment; another resident said property cleanup on the parcel has been a recurring issue. The property owner (Yasmin Hajar) and a proponent (Nader Abuzeni) told the council the owners have studied soils and believe the site is buildable and that the project would increase housing choices and tax revenue.

Planning Commission testimony was recounted by the commission president, who said the commission vote on the rezoning was a 4‑4 tie (one commissioner absent) and therefore the commission issued no formal recommendation. The commission president also stated that the proposed RM use was consistent with the master plan language he cited.

Council members said the item arrived in council packets late in the previous week and that the volume of public concern, the commission tie and the technical issues raised (wetland/drainage status, DNR input and whether the site is a regulated wetland) warranted more detailed review. Councilwoman Bridal moved to approve the rezoning, but after discussion the motion was amended to refer the item for study‑session review and to ask staff to provide the outstanding technical information, including any DNR correspondence and a drainage assessment if available.

Why it matters: rezoning R‑1 land to RM would permanently change permitted uses and could alter neighborhood density, traffic and stormwater patterns; residents and council members asked for more engineering and regulatory input before deciding.

Ending: Staff agreed to collect and return with additional materials — including any DNR feedback, drainage testing and a clearer timeline — and the council scheduled a study session to revisit the request before taking a final vote.