Residents urge Mount Clemens commissioners to block proposed marijuana-related use at 142 Northbound

Several Mount Clemens residents used the public-comment period to urge the City Commission to halt a zoning/permitting path they said would allow a marijuana-related operation at 142 Northbound.

“I'm not going to listen to the voices of the people in this community being moved off general business to the consent agenda,” Ruthie Stevenson said, identifying herself and her address, and criticizing the commission for what she described as sidelining public input on the item. “If they're going to put a grow operation in her community … her community would be raising a whole bunch of hell.”

Faye Van, who said she lives at the corner near the proposed site, told commissioners “point blank” she did not want the use in her neighborhood and said she would take further action if necessary.

George Kale, who identified himself as the owner of property adjacent to the Thomas Edison Depot, distributed a packet to commissioners and asked for a procedural review. Kale said a commissioner (named in his remarks as Commissioner Metzger) had referenced several applicants at a prior meeting and asked whether that foreknowledge required recusal; Kale asked the commission to address the potential conflict at the next meeting.

Raymond White, another resident, raised a separate concern about nuisance Canada geese and said he had received incorrect information from the acting city manager about legal options; he said he had obtained state training and a license related to egg removal and offered to share information with the city.

City staff and the chair responded during the meeting: an official clarified that a second reading is customarily placed on the consent agenda and that the zoning language at issue “doesn't allow grow operations,” seeking to allay some commenters' concerns about the specific use.

Why it matters: zoning and permitting decisions affect neighborhood character and public safety perceptions. Residents pressed the commission both on substance (siting of a marijuana-related business) and on process (placement on the consent agenda and possible conflicts of interest). The commission did not take a final vote on the rezoning during the public-comment period; commenters asked the commission to reconsider procedural handling and to review potential recusals at a future meeting.

Next steps: The item was discussed at public comment and will remain subject to normal agenda and permitting procedures; commenters asked for a formal response on recusal and procedural questions at an upcoming meeting.