Developers Stuart Michaelson and George Mager recently asked the Farmington Hills City Council to reconsider a proposal for a development at the Parker/Lundy neighborhood, a proposal that the council previously rejected.
By: Gena Johnson | Farmington Press | Published February 9, 2026
FARMINGTON HILLS — The Farmington Hills City Council recently voted not to reconsider a project for the Paker/Lundy neighborhood that had been proposed by the Forest at Riverwalk Development, LLC.
Parker/Lundy is south of Folsom Road, on the south end of Farmington Hills.
The development was initially denied late last year because the City Council at the time considered it a “detriment to the community.” The developers came back weeks later asking that the project be reconsidered.
The council’s concerns included the high density of the area, as well as a road encroaching on a nearby resident’s privacy, and the risk of regular flooding, as well as being out of character with the current community.
Density is the number of units per parcel of land. The developers wanted to build 33 new two-story homes across 16 parcels of land, each 2,000 square feet or more, averaging 2.5 houses per parcel of land. Many of the homes currently in this area were built more than 100 years ago, and are one-story buildings spanning less than 1,000 square feet, situated on large parcels of land.
As for the road concern, a road was planned to be built 20 feet from a resident’s bedroom windows at a home where she has lived nearly 60 years. Stuart Michaelson and George Mager, owners of the property, and developers at Windmill Group, said some changes were made to address the complaints.
“She will not have to deal with any traffic,” Michaelson said.
The road will no longer be used for regular traffic, but only during emergencies for police and fire, with a breakaway fence included, he explained. But the council and community members who spoke said this would still encroach on the resident’s privacy. A road that is close to a personal residence is unwanted.
Another change made was that the road would not be paved, but rather, grass pavers would be used. Many in the community expressed concern that a fire truck or emergency vehicle would sink and get stuck due to the wet marsh-like ground.
As for flooding concerns, Parker Street is prone to flooding. Residents use septic tanks and are not connected to the sewer.
“Parker has 100-year-old-houses with 100-year-old plumbing,” Michelle Gala said.
The developer said at a prior council meeting that he didn’t properly explain the drainage.
“We failed to make clear the drainage,” Michaelson said.
He submitted new drawings that showed collection basins throughout the property.
“This is designed very carefully to accept only the (stormwater) from our site, so that it will never spill over to any neighboring sites,” Michaelson said. “In fact, some of the neighbors who spill onto our site, we would actually help them, because we’re going to pick up some of their stormwater.”
The developers wanted to work with the city to develop the plans.
“What we’d like is the opportunity to work with the engineering department, planning department, fire department and other city departments to take a look at the road and look at the drainage in more detail,” Mager said.
Michaelson was confident the new plan was much better than the alternative.
“If this doesn’t get approved, our only other option is to go with what the zoning requires … and you would have to approve it,” he said.
This means they would change their plans to fit the zoning for which they would qualify. According to Michaelson, that would mean the development would have 29 lots that are 80 feet. The road would run from the current open space area to Colfax.
“What that does is it makes our lots much more expensive with bigger, more expensive houses because we would have to change our entire market,” he said.
Council was not moved by what the developer said and still voted 1-6 for reconsidering the plan. Mayor Theresa Rich was the lone “yes” vote for reconsidering the project. The other council members voted “no.”
“Even if something worse could be proposed, (with) the decision of what is proposed before me, I don’t see the benefit of it, and I will be voting no,” said Councilman Jon Aldred.
The mayor shared a different perspective.
“I am disappointed with the way it looks like this decision is going to go down,” Rich said. “We talk about being consistent or inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. What we’re going to get are 28-29 $700,000 houses that are going to go all the way from Folsom to Colfax and are going to just plow right through all of that wetland, as opposed to maintaining 40% of it for the neighbors to continue to enjoy. I just think we are making a poor ecological and housing decisions here. I would have liked to have heard what the developer would have proposed coming back at a future council meeting.”