A series of residents on Dec. 3 urged the Livonia City Council to correct the record and clarify what the city approved for a proposed Sheetz gasoline station and convenience store, saying promises the petitioner made at earlier meetings were not reflected in the minutes and that procedural errors may have undermined a rescission vote.

Patty Riggio told the council the site-plan vote in October ended in a 3–3 deadlock and described an exchange about who could move to reconsider that led to later votes. ‘‘If you review the videotape,’’ she said, ‘‘for at least an hour leading up to this exchange, you will see that Ms. Schiel was texting back and forth with someone on her cell phone.’’ Riggio said a FOIA request for the texts was denied because the messages were on a personal phone and asked Schiel to disclose the context.

Other residents cited comments by Sheetz representatives in prior meetings — documented in study-session minutes and planning commission packets — that they would ‘‘be willing to eliminate the drive-through’’ and that they ‘‘can agree to not play music outside.’’ Greg Ralco urged the council to amend the Nov. 5 minutes and delete any drive-through lane, menu boards or outdoor-music permission from the approved package.

Nick Lamaco, who said he drafted a letter on Nov. 13, told the council he and private legal counsel concluded that the council’s rescission motion and subsequent action did not comply with Robert’s Rules and the city charter because he said inadequate notice was given; a citizens’ group has filed a lawsuit against the Zoning Board of Appeals over related decisions. ‘‘In my opinion the original motion to deny the site plan prevails,’’ Lamaco said, adding that the rescinding motion ‘‘never occurred because it wasn’t done properly.’’

Council members acknowledged the public concerns and asked the city attorney to provide a high-level report for the Dec. 17 meeting so the council can ‘‘bullet point’’ what was approved. Council President McCullough said he did not want a lengthy report tonight but asked for a clear summary for residents at the next meeting.

What was in the record: residents cited the Oct. 6 study-session minutes and Sept. 16 planning-commission materials where Sheetz petitioner Alex Zwicky is recorded as saying the company would not consider restricted hours, would ‘‘be willing to eliminate the drive through,’’ and ‘‘we can agree to not play music outside.’’ Those statements were offered by commenters as evidence the final approved site plan did not reflect concessions discussed earlier.

Legal and procedural claims: commenters asked whether the rescission and reapproval sequence complied with Robert’s Rules and the city charter, and whether the council’s minutes accurately reflect commitments by the petitioner. A citizens’ lawsuit targeting prior zoning decisions is already pending, and commenters urged transparency in staff responses to FOIA requests about texting during meetings.

Council action and next steps: the council did not take new formal action on the Sheetz site plan on Dec. 3. McCullough said the attorney would be asked to provide a summary for the Dec. 17 meeting; residents also said they expect corrected minutes if concessions were omitted. The council said it will report back and post relevant materials for public review.

The council recesses and will reconvene the next scheduled meeting or a Dec. 17 session to follow up on outstanding procedural and record questions.