Planning commission recommends denying rezoning for 3301 Davison Road after public odor concerns

The Lapeer City Planning Commission on April 9 voted to recommend denial of a rezoning request for 3301 Davison Road, a parcel whose owner and applicant was identified in the hearing as Honey Kasab Jr. Planner Wade Burkholder told the commission that staff review found the proposal — a shift from B2 general business to I1 industrial — failed to meet the city’s two rezoning standards: consistency with the master plan and demonstrating that the property cannot reasonably be used as currently zoned.

The public hearing drew multiple residents who said odors from existing marijuana-related businesses have become pervasive in parts of the city. Stuart Getty said he saw no need for another marijuana processing facility in Lapeer. Geraldine Carson, who said her family has lived in the Lapeer area for more than 100 years, said nearby grow and processing sites have left persistent smells she cannot tolerate because of asthma and that the proposed rezoning would add another odor source near senior housing and other residences.

Resident Tim Denton told commissioners the city already faces repeated marijuana odors and warned that rezoning to industrial could allow cultivation that would worsen the problem; he urged the commission to “stop approving marijuana odor generators that can’t keep their odors on site.” Commissioners repeatedly returned to the staff finding that the parcel’s designated future land use is general business and that a return to industrial zoning would be inconsistent with the master plan.

Jason Abro, a partner for the property, said the current proposal is for a processing center and not a cultivation operation, and that the team expects to bring more than 100 jobs to the facility and will implement odor-control measures under applicable ordinance provisions. Abro said previous plans for the site had included an arena tenant that later fell through, and he asked the commission to consider economic benefits and the owner’s prior investments in site improvements.

Commission discussion focused on legal standards for rezoning and the risk of approving changes contrary to the master plan. Citing the staff analysis, commissioners said they were not persuaded that the parcel could not be reasonably used as B2 or that the rezoning was consistent with the city’s future land use map. One commissioner moved to recommend denial under section 7223.06; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.

Because the Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation, the denial will be forwarded to the City Commission, which will take final action on the rezoning. The applicant and staff discussed next steps, including whether a future application could be considered along with or after the master plan update.

The commission’s minutes record the staff recommendation and the motion to recommend denial; vote tallies were taken by voice and no roll-call counts were recorded in the transcript. The City Commission will receive the Planning Commission recommendation at its next eligible meeting.