Commission receives letters after trees cleared at Islamic Center site; petitioner to revise plans and meet with city

The Planning Commission received and filed correspondence July 28 after the recent clearing of a wooded buffer at and behind a property proposed for an Islamic Center on 13 Mile Road.

Petitioner representatives, including Zaid Arabo of ZA Design Build speaking for owner Tufazil Haq Amin, said they had sought guidance from the city property‑maintenance desk before removing trees and were told to stake property corners and avoid cutting trees off neighboring parcels. Arabo said the petitioner subsequently hired a surveyor, staked the corners and removed trees that they believed were within their property. “We hired a surveyor and staked the property and proceeded to remove the trees,” Arabo said.

Planning Director Ron Wirth and several commissioners said the cuts should have been coordinated with the planning staff rather than property maintenance, and they emphasized that the city had site‑plan conditions that called for retaining landscape buffers. Wirth explained that the planning staff was unable to locate a council resolution formally vacating a half‑width alley described in the legal description, and that the development approvals included requirements for landscape buffers and walls under the zoning ordinance.

Members of the public — including a written submission from Gerald Hespacher and oral remarks read from Roseanne Lafada — criticized the tree removal as a loss of mature canopy and urged stronger protections and remediation, including the planting of a “pocket forest” or other restoration measures. Hespacher’s letter framed the tree loss as a contribution to climate change and urged transparency and reporting in tree removals.

Arabo told commissioners the petitioner intends to revise the civil and site plans to reflect an 8‑foot landscape buffer along the site’s rear property line and to construct a 6‑foot simulated masonry screen wall where needed. He said some perimeter trees remain and that the revised drawings will reflect the proposed wall and buffer.

After hearing petitioner comments, the commission moved to receive and file the two letters presented to the commission and directed the petitioner to meet with planning staff and council representation to determine a path forward. The commission indicated the matter will return on a future agenda as a public‑hearing item after the petitioner and staff have met and revised plans are prepared.

Commissioners and the planning director emphasized that the tree ordinance and site‑plan requirements govern tree removal; planning staff said it will work with the petitioner and council staff to review the revised plans and to determine whether additional remedial measures (planting plans, greenbelt, or a screen wall) are appropriate.

The commission’s formal action on the correspondence was to receive and file the letters and allow the petitioner time to revise plans and meet with planning staff and Councilman Noonan before the item returns for public hearing.