City Commission Meeting - June 1, 2026

The meeting of the Lapeer City Commission on June 1, 2026, is dominated by a debate regarding the Brookwood North preliminary site condominium plan. Residents and commissioners express significant concerns over increased housing density, the scale of the development compared to existing Brookwood neighborhoods, and whether the proposal adheres to the city's zoning and master plan. The debate becomes increasingly personal, involving accusations of lack of transparency, procedural errors, and character attacks between commissioners and members of the public.

The meeting also addresses administrative matters, including budget amendments and various zoning ordinance changes. A significant portion of the session is dedicated to procedural disputes, specifically regarding the 30-minute discussion policy and the legitimacy of certain motions. The session concludes with a failed attempt at a motion to censure the chair and a heated discussion regarding the legality of certain actions taken during the meeting.

• Brookwood North Development: Controversy over the density and aesthetic compatibility of a proposed 112-unit site plan.
• Zoning and Ordinance Compliance: Legal debates regarding Chapter 7 (Zoning) and Chapter 10 (Condominium) of the City Code.
• Procedural Integrity: Discussions on Robert's Rules, the 30-minute discussion policy, and the authority of the chair.
• Transparency and Governance: Public concerns regarding decision-making processes and communication between officials.

• Jeramy Hing: Mayor of Lapeer.
• Joshua C. Atwood: City Commissioner.
• Stefan Brady: City Commissioner.
• Linda Glisman: City Commissioner.
• Melissa Petrie: City Commissioner / Mayor Pro-Tem.
• Lynne McCarthy: City Commissioner.
• Mike Womack: City Manager.
• Wesley Weber, Jr.: City resident and advocate against the Brookwood North plan.
• Bernadette Treese: City resident.
• Heidi Helper: City resident.
• Mr. Francis: City Attorney.
• Rappel Vanway: Engineer from Boss Engineering.

• Brookwood North Site Plan Review: The Commission deliberated on a preliminary site plan for 112 homes 18:17. Despite arguments regarding density and character, the motion to approve the plan passed 54:35.
• Budget Amendments: The commission moved to approve budget amendments for the 2025-2026 fiscal year 16:21.
• Zoning Ordinance Amendments: The commission held first and second readings for various ordinance changes, including a PUD concept plan amendment 2:27:07 and a rezoning request 2:37:27.
• Procedal Dispute: A significant conflict arose regarding the 30-minute limit on agenda items, leading to an appeal of the chair's ruling and a motion to censure the chair 1:03:53.

• June 1, 2026: The date of the meeting 0:00.
• Fiscal Year 2025-2026: The period covered by the budget amendments 16:21.
• February 12, 2026: Date of a previous Planning Commission public hearing mentioned during discussions 18:40.
• June 15, 2026: Scheduled date for the second reading of an ordinance 2:27:28.

• Density Concerns: Opponents of the Brookwood North plan argue that the proposed housing density is too high and lacks the character of the existing Brookwood neighborhood 3:45.
• Legal Justification: Commissioners argued that while they have discretionary authority regarding neighborhood character, the developer is meeting the minimum legal requirements of the current ordinance 45:46.
• Policy Enforcement: The Mayor enforced a 30-minute discussion limit per agenda item to maintain order, which triggered a series of procedural challenges 1:03:53.

• Brookwood North Density vs. Character: A central debate was whether the 112-unit plan constitutes an appropriate "expansion" of the existing Brookwood neighborhood or an inappropriate density increase 23:36.
• Zoning vs. Condominium Ordinance: A debate occurred regarding whether the commission is reviewing a "site plan" (governed by Chapter 7) or a "preliminary condo plan" (governed by Chapter 10) 31:59.
• The Validity of the 30-Minute Rule: Commissioner Brady challenged the Mayor's enforcement of the 30-minute discussion limit, arguing it silenced legitimate debate 1:03:53.
• Transparency and Accountability: Public speakers and commissioners debated whether the board is acting as stewards of the community or as a "rubber stamp" for developers 11:57.

• Budget Implementation: Proceed with the approved budget amendments for the remainder of the fiscal year 16:21.
• Developer Follow-up: The developer is expected to address the specific concerns regarding lot size, building design, and traffic impact in future phases of the project 1:12:24.
• Documentation: The City Clerk is tasked with recording the specific "out of order" instances and the outcomes of the various motions and appeals 1:10:22.

Overall Sentiment

The overall tone of the comments is highly critical and dissatisfied. Viewers expressed frustration regarding the conduct of the Mayor and the inclusion of religious elements during the meeting.

Recurring Themes

• Criticism of the Mayor's conduct during speaker interactions
• Opposition to prayers and sermons during official proceedings

Notable Comments

"Oh, but it was about what the speaker was saying. And you, Mr. Mayor, were causing A BREACH OF THE PEACE!" — @SusanHough-f5o

"Stop the ridiculous prayers." — @RANDYLAWRENCE-p3h

Overall Sentiment

The audience sentiment is overwhelmingly hostile toward Mayor Hing and certain commissioners, while being highly supportive of Commissioner Atwood and City Manager Womack. The chat is characterized by intense political friction, with viewers frequently calling for the mayor's recall and criticizing the conduct of the meeting as a "circus" or "dysfunction."

Chat Timeline

[00:00 – 53:32] Initial reactions to the meeting proceedings, with early criticisms directed at the Mayor's leadership style and the perceived lack of understanding from Commissioner Petrie.

[53:33 – 113:08] Tensions rise as the chat reacts to procedural disputes. Viewers express frustration over the Mayor's use of the clock to silence certain members (specifically Commissioner Brady) and debate the legitimacy of the meeting's conduct.

[113:09 – 212:16] The conversation shifts to discussions of development and legalities. Viewers cheer for Commissioner Atwood and express skepticism regarding the city's adherence to regulations and the Mayor's authority.

[212:17 – 259:43] A heated period involving discussions of First Amendment rights and public comment. The chat reacts to interruptions during public comments, leading to accusations of bias and calls for legal accountability.

Notable Messages

56:35 "Atwood is a boss!" — @mundanethings8515

1:07:27 "what a convenient clock he has" — @mundanethings8515

1:34:22 "If a teacher addressed their students in this manner…... Mayor Hing Ding needs to be recalled." — @SusanHough-f5o

[213:38] "policies DON'T TRUMP THE 1ST AMENDMENT" — @mundanethings8515

[257:32] "mayor, you are the dysfunction" — @mundanethings8515

Community Sentiment on Key Moments

• The "Clock" Incident: Much of the chat expressed outrage when the Mayor ended a speaker's time, viewing it as a tool to silence dissenting voices (specifically Commissioner Brady).
• Leadership Style: Many viewers perceived Mayor Hing as condescending and biased, frequently contrasting his behavior with the professionalism of Commissioner Atwood and City Manager Womack.
• Legal/Constitutional Debates: Significant engagement occurred regarding the First Amendment, with viewers arguing that city policies were being used to illegally suppress free speech during public comments.