Neighbors oppose Mary's Mantle plan as Planning Commission fails to back rezoning

A divided City of Southfield Planning Commission on April 29 declined to forward a unanimous recommendation to City Council for a residential unit development district (RUDD) sought by Mary's Mantle to expand its expectant-mother housing and add 16 townhouses on a 7.52-acre parcel on Inkster Road.

The commission considered a proposal that would rezone the wooded property to allow a maternal house (a supervised residence for expectant mothers), a community center with daycare, and clustered townhouses intended as transition housing. Dr. Ken Kernan, board president of Mary's Mantle, said the nonprofit aims to expand from a four-bed home to housing for about eight mothers plus supportive transition units, and described the program as structured with background checks, curfews and drug-free rules. "We have had exactly zero incidents" with the existing facility in 15 years, Kernan said in response to neighbors' safety concerns.

Why it matters: Neighbors pressed the commission for more study and safeguards, arguing the project would change the character of a largely rural-residential stretch of Inkster Road and strain local infrastructure. Scores of residents testified that Inkster is a two-lane road with no sidewalks, limited sight lines and significant wildlife; they warned of increased traffic, light spillover, tree removal and potential groundwater/runoff issues. Several speakers said the proposed institutional use reads as commercial and urged Mary's Mantle to seek a commercially zoned site instead.

What the record shows: Planning staff recommended a favorable recommendation to City Council, noting the developer clustered buildings toward the center of the parcel to preserve perimeter woods and that the RUDD rules allow small institutional uses that can be consistent with the master plan. Staff recommended conditions including development consistent with submitted plans and execution and recording of a development agreement within six months if the council approves.

The vote: Commissioner Martin moved to endorse the planning department's recommendation; after a roll-call the motion failed. The roll call recorded Commissioners Bernudi and Goodwin as opposing and Commissioners Griffith and Martin supporting; the motion did not carry. Because the Planning Commission is an advisory body, the item will still be heard by the City Council at a public hearing on May 18, 2026.

Claims and responses: Neighbors repeatedly said the development would cause traffic and safety problems on Inkster Road; the project team said many residents would not have vehicles, staff would be limited (the petitioner estimated six to eight full-time staff at most), and that cluster development would displace less wildlife than a higher-density subdivision. Residents raised water-table and drainage concerns; the project engineer said soil borings had been done, the design locates a detention basin at the site's low point, and stormwater must be kept on site in accordance with city engineering standards.

What comes next: Because the commission vote failed to produce a majority recommendation, City Council will hold the public hearing and make the final decision; the council hearing is scheduled for May 18, 2026. Neighbors were told they may submit written comments for the council record in advance.

The meeting record shows robust public opposition, repeated requests for traffic, lighting and ecological studies, and staff assurances that design conditions (photometric plans, tree surveys, development agreement) would be required if the council approves the rezoning.