Dearborn Heights study session examines rezoning on Ann Arbor Trail amid wetland and stormwater concerns

At a Dearborn Heights study session, city officials, the property owner and scores of residents discussed a rezoning request for a vacant lot on Ann Arbor Trail that the owner says would be developed for multifamily housing, and residents raised concerns about wetlands, stormwater and neighborhood fit.

The session matters because a zoning change from single-family to RM (multi‑family) would permit types of development — from condominiums to apartment buildings — that some neighbors say could alter traffic, drainage and neighborhood character. City staff said rezoning is only the first step; detailed engineering, stormwater and site-plan reviews would follow.

Mr. Nader, the property owner and prospective developer, told the council the immediate obstacle is rezoning and that he is not yet certain whether the project will be condominiums or rental apartments. “Our intention is to have a multifamily property there,” he said, adding that the team conducted soil testing during due diligence and “confirmed that the soil is suitable for construction.” He said formal renderings have not been completed because he does not want to pay high design costs before the rezoning decision.

George Deeb, the city engineer, said the city evaluates rezoning requests under a nine‑point guideline set out in the city zoning ordinance and identified the ordinance citation during the meeting: “these are the 9 point guidelines, that are specified in the current zoning ordinance,” and he referenced section 36 5 23 c as the applicable standard. Deeb also told the group that stormwater impacts are a required part of any later technical review: “One of the most important things that we look at for every development ... is impact of that development on our stormwater system,” and that stormwater and other infrastructure issues will be evaluated after rezoning when a site plan and engineering are submitted.

Rick Wolland, the city’s building and engineering director, noted that most parcels surrounding the site are already zoned RM and described the process that follows a rezoning approval: if the site is rezoned, the developer must then present site plans and engineering (including detention/retention or underground storage as required) to the planning commission and return to council as part of final approvals. “If you look at the zoning map, everything around this property is RM already,” Wolland said.

Residents who spoke at the session urged greater clarity. John Kent, a neighbor on Ann Arbor Trail, said he was “not opposed to them actually building” but opposed to a change to multifamily because he feared it would bring transient occupancy and reduce neighborhood stability: “I don’t want to see a change to a multifamily,” he said. Nadia Kent, who lives across the street, cited the city’s master plan (a planning document last renewed in 2007) and asked that the parcel remain R‑1 single‑family as shown in older planning materials.

Several residents pressed the developer and staff on whether the lot is a wetland. Mr. Nader and others said they had checked during due diligence and that an engineering firm performed soil sampling prior to purchase; Nader told the council he did not close on the property until due diligence, including soil work, was complete. Multiple speakers — including residents and council members — requested an explicit, documented wetland determination and asked the city to provide or confirm any formal wetland delineation rather than relying on informal statements.

On infrastructure, residents asked whether water detention would be handled with a surface pond, underground tanks or other measures. The developer said engineers had told them “it’s a requirement, and we would be compliant with that,” but that the specific detention/retention approach would be determined by civil engineering design. Wolland explained the difference in practical terms and noted that infrastructure upgrades (sewer, water, transformers) are typically paid for by the developer or the utility when triggered by the project.

Speakers repeatedly urged more visual information. The owner said he could produce an informal rendering to help neighbors visualize options, but that formal architectural drawings are a significant cost the developer does not want to incur before rezoning is decided.

No vote or formal action was taken at the session. City staff said they will document the questions raised, confirm whether a formal wetland delineation has been requested or completed, and that any rezoning approval would be followed by required planning‑commission review, engineering review and conditioned site‑plan approvals.

The council did not set a public hearing date during the session; next formal steps, according to staff comments, would follow the city’s normal rezoning and site‑plan sequence if the owner files an application.