Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents allege altered report, call for review of Sheetz rezoning
Summary
Multiple residents told the Royal Oak City Commission Oct. 27 that staff documents tied to the recent Sheetz rezoning were altered to remove language describing a nearby intersection as dangerously congested. Speakers asked the commission to rescind or revisit the approval and demanded an investigation into how agenda attachments were handled.
Several residents urged the Royal Oak City Commission on Oct. 27 to revisit a recent rezoning approval for a Sheetz convenience store, alleging the staff memo relied on by the commission was altered before public hearings.
Resident Charles Semcina said he used an original link to the staff memo and found the original document missing; he claimed the version available to the public was a deceptively similar document that omitted a description of the site as “one of the most dangerous and traffic congested intersections in the city.” Semcina called for the approval to be rescinded and a legitimate process to be restarted, saying the alteration rendered the planning and commission votes and resident testimony “flawed.”
Bill Harrison, representing the Woodward Side Subdivision, said he had heard from multiple residents that agenda attachments on public-safety matters had been altered and that originals were deleted prior to the meetings. He described the pattern as an ethics concern and asked the commission to investigate who removed or replaced the documents.
Neighbor Kaye Thomas, who lives on Robinwood and said she represents neighbors near the Sheetz site, said construction has not begun and that residents remain concerned about pedestrian safety near an elementary school and about whether a proposed left-turn lane is feasible given fences and narrow rights-of-way. She asked where residents can find the engineering and traffic-safety work and was told the city’s community development and engineering departments can provide status and analysis.
The commission did not take formal action on the allegations during public comment. Commissioners and staff advised residents to contact Community Development and the engineering department for status and technical questions; staff said records and department contacts would be used for follow-up. No staff representative provided a contrary account during the public comment period, and the claim that documents were altered was not adjudicated or resolved at the meeting.
Next steps: Residents asked the commission to investigate the document-handling and to provide written findings. Officials directed residents to Community Development for permit and approval status and said staff would follow up on any specific requests for documentation.
