Members of the Farmington Hills City Council listen carefully Nov. 10 as developers and residents debate a proposed development for the Parker/Lundy community. More than 40 people requested that the project be denied.
By: Gena Johnson | Farmington Press | Published November 20, 2025
FARMINGTON HILLS — The Farmington Hills City Council voted to deny the Parker/Lundy development during its Nov. 10 meeting, with the majority agreeing it would be a “detriment” to the residents who live nearby.
The council vote was 5-1. Jon Aldred, Michael Bridges, Jackie Boleware, William Dwyer and Valerie Knol all supported the motion to deny.
Mayor Theresa Rich was the lone dissenter, requesting that the vote be postponed so that more information could be acquired and so the developers would have time to adjust their proposal.
“The mayor and City Council really listened to the residents about their concerns and really took them to heart,” said Tom Progar, a resident in opposition to the development.
The Parker/Lundy area is on the south side of Farmington Hills, located at Parker Street and Lundy Road, south of Folsom. The area is filled with wetlands, water, woods and wildlife.
The homes there are mostly one story and under 1,000 square feet. The neighborhood is described as a rural, tight-knit community where many residents have lived more than 50 years.
The applicant and owner of the 16 parcels of land proposed for development is Forest at Riverwalk Development, LLC, and is owned by Stuart Michaelson and George Mager, who are also part of the Windmill Group.
The developers wish to build 33 new detached homes, which would be larger than the existing homes in the area, including many two-story homes. There will be two or three larger homes on a lot smaller in size than the lots that currently have one small home in their proposed cluster development.
More than 600 trees would be cut to accommodate the new development. Residents were concerned about the excess water that would be created with fewer trees to drain stormwater runoff in an area that is already prone to flooding.
They also worried that a new road planned for the site would intrude on their privacy, and that the style of the new homes would clash with the neighborhood’s character.
Residents made their concerns clear at the council meeting.
“The more than 100 people in attendance and the 40 or so that spoke giving their personal reasons for not wanting the development really made an impact on council,” Progar said.
Barbara Seabolt has lived in the Parker/Lundy community for nearly 60 years.
“They are planning to put the road even closer than I dreamt — 20 feet from my home,” Seabolt said. “My bedroom is right there. All three of my bedrooms in my home are going to be right next to that road. It’s going to be an impact that will be just horrific.”
Many council members said this was “unacceptable.”
Bridges made a motion to deny the development, citing the residents’ concerns about insufficient drainage, privacy violations. In addition, it would alter the character of the neighborhood and be a “detriment” to the neighbors and the community.
Michaelson said his team had taken the concerns into consideration.
“We are very careful to be sure that all of our sites are self-contained so that any drainage on our land goes into the detention (basin) and out the storm (sewer drain) and outlets, so it doesn’t interfere with any of the neighbors,” Michaelson said.
The developers insisted they did everything the city asked.
“We designed the community in this way because the city told us we had to do it this way,” Mager said.
He said the city’s fire and police departments required the developer to have two points of ingress and egress in case of an emergency. He also agreed with the mayor, echoing her request for a postponement. Among the things the mayor would like is a traffic study done on Parker Street.
“There is a lot a traffic that goes down Parker pretty darn fast,” Rich observed. “It is used as a (detour) from Eight Mile (Road). A traffic study should be done (to) understand what the options are.”
She would also like to explore water mitigation efforts, in order to make sure a bad situation is not made worse. But some thought Rich shouldn’t vote on this matter.
“I think you (Rich) should recuse yourself from voting, seeing you took money for your campaign,” said John Salmonson.
Rich began the meeting stating she accepted a $500 donation from Stuart Michaelson of the Windmill Group for her reelection bid in the Nov. 4 election.
“This was less than 1% of the total amount I raised of $140,000,” Rich said.
In a previous interview, she dismissed the concern.
“This was not material,” Rich said previously. “And no, (the donation) would not have an impact on my vote.”
Michelle Gala said she appreciated the mayor’s statement.
“No, I don’t think that (the $500 donation) had anything to do with her vote,” Gala said. “We’re glad that she addressed that first thing.”
Michaelson insisted the proposal was airtight.
“This community is well thought out,” Michaelson said. “It is totally qualified. It meets your ordinances.”
Mary Newlin, a resident in the Parker/Lundy community and former member of council, said she doesn’t expect the debate to stop here.
“I know how developers change things, and keep coming back and coming back, or they take the city to court,” Newlin said.
Many residents said they would like to see the Parker/Lundy land turned into a park or natural trail that could be used by community members and school kids on field trips.
Councilman Randy Bruce was not in attendance at the Nov. 10 council meeting. He ran for mayor in the Nov. 4 election and came in second to incumbent Rich. Newly elected councilman Charlie Starkman sat in the audience and will be sworn in at the council meeting following the certification of the election, at which time Bruce’s tenure on council will end.