Neighbors urge council to deny Forest at Riverwalk cluster plan, citing wetlands and flooding risks

The Farmington Hills City Council held a public hearing Nov. 10 on the Forest at Riverwalk cluster site plan, a proposal to build 33 single‑family homes on a roughly 16.3‑acre tract south of Folsom Road between Parker Avenue and Lundy Drive. The plan’s consultant said the development would occupy a net 13.8 acres of buildable land and proposes clustered lots to preserve natural areas.

Planning consultant Joe Tangari of Giffels Webster summarized the application and zoning review, noting the project is being proposed at a density of about 2.38 units per acre — lower than the RA‑3 district’s by‑right density of about 3.48 units per acre — and that the plan requests minor reductions in front and side setbacks to allow typical lot widths of 55 feet. Tangari also said the applicants had obtained an EGLE (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy) wetlands permit and that certain landscaping and buffer details remain subject to planning commission approval.

Developer Stuart Michelson said the team reduced an earlier 38‑lot proposal to 33 lots after EGLE comments and public input. Michelson told the council the developer agreed to grant a conservation easement to EGLE covering 4.0226 acres, hired a herpetologist to mitigate impacts on reptiles and amphibians, and will purchase wetland mitigation credits to address about 0.325 acres of forested wetland loss.

“After review and comment, we reduced lots and agreed to a conservation easement,” Michelson said, noting the team had revised plans during EGLE review.

Neighbors at the meeting challenged both the project’s design and the developer’s assurances. Longtime resident Barbara Siebel said the planned road would sit just feet from her home and described personal hardship and fear about the change: “How dare they build something 20 feet from my house… We love this place,” she said. Multiple residents described year‑round sump‑pump use, basements that run constantly, and frequent spring flooding on Parker and adjacent streets.

Residents also raised environmental objections. Several speakers asserted the project would remove hundreds of trees (some referenced a figure of about 600 trees), destroy habitat for wildlife and threatened species, and permanently alter a last remaining wooded parcel in the area. “This land contains wildlife, wetlands, trails, and mature oak, maple and beech trees,” one speaker said, urging the city to explore purchase or grant funding to preserve the property as public open space.

Engineering testimony from the developer’s team said the plan includes on‑site storm sewers, catch basins along lot lines, and an oversized detention basin sized to hold runoff longer than typical practice; the engineer said the post‑development outlet rate would be roughly 60% of what is normally allowed and that the project will comply with Oakland County and city stormwater requirements and be subject to city engineering review.

Several residents and some council members pressed for more data and outside review. Joseph Tomczak asked the council to require third‑party inspections and a more detailed drainage analysis, citing examples in other jurisdictions where subdivision drainage failures led to litigation and expensive retrofits. Councilmember Knoll and others said they were concerned that the secondary road would empty onto Parker Street — described repeatedly in public comment as a dirt road that floods frequently — and noted the packet did not include a study documenting how often the road floods.

Questions of trust and fairness also surfaced in public comment. Speakers cited the developer’s campaign contributions to some candidates; one resident asked whether donations created an appearance of impropriety. Mayor Theresa Rich addressed campaign finance chatter earlier in the meeting, disclosed her campaign receipts and said she had discussed the matter with the city attorney and did not believe contributions prevented impartial consideration. Residents who reported prior unkept promises by the builder in nearby projects also urged the council to deny the application or require stronger safeguards.

No final council vote on the Forest at Riverwalk site plan is recorded in the provided transcript. The public hearing was closed and council members began deliberations, with several expressing concern about the road alignment, neighborhood character, and the absence of empirical flooding frequency data in the packet.

What’s next: The council returned the item to council deliberation after public comment; the transcript provided does not record a final approval or denial. Any subsequent action will be set by the council at a later meeting or after additional staff review.