Join the Movement to Care for the Land, and Our Neighbors 

NEXT UP: EGLE PUBLIC HEARINGS Oct 28th and Nov 5th, please comment and attend (see below for how)

UPDATE: from October 20th

After 3 meetings in 14 days, on October 20th the Lodi Township board forced a narrow approval 4-3 of the Toll Brothers' Arbor "Preserve" final site plans despite clear continued violations of Lodi Township laws and the amended consent judgment. 

(Yeas: Foley, Godek, Rentschler, Smith, Nays: Blackburn, Marsh, Matelski)

 The "fear of being sued" card won, and now many more deviations to Lodi Township laws have been written into a 2nd amendment to the consent judgment.

Recording of Oct 20th BOT meeting HERE

On October 7th the Lodi Township Board ended in a stalemate.  Trustee Blackburn moved to deny and it was rejected 4-3.

LIST OF VIOLATIONS TO THE ACJ that Trustee Blackburn referred to. Also, Open Space map and calculations that show Toll Brothers is misrepresenting their own data.

Later in the meeting, Clerk Smith hurriedly drafted a motion to approve the plan with multiple conditions. The board also voted that down 4-3.

Near the end of the four hour meeting, Trustee Matelski moved to postpone and the Board set a Special meeting for Oct 20th.

Recording of Oct 7th BOT meeting HERE.

Reminder: On July 22nd, the Lodi Township Planning Commission recommended denial of the Toll Brothers May 2025 Arbor Preserve site plans, 7-0 vote.

Recording of July 22nd PC meeting HERE.

EGLE has set a Public Hearing for the Wetlands permit to destroy application

JOIN BY ZOOM HERE on Oct 28th, 2025 at 6pm

(or optionally can preregister at that link)

Support transparency and the rights of residents. 

This proposal continues to offer NO public benefit and plenty of harm and health concerns.

Rare, imperiled wetland areas are proposed to be destroyed. The applicant misrepresents the "benefit" in their Anti-degradation statement by claiming on pg 39:

"The First Amendment to Consent Judgment specifically notes the Arbor Preserve development is expected to “substantially reduce traffic, preserve open space and natural features, and reduce impact on municipal services."

However, that statement is taken out of context and refers to a comparison to their prior proposed plans that were NEVER approved, nor are they allowable given the laws and the court documents.  Make no mistake, this development will INCREASE traffic and impact on municipal services, DESTROYS 90% of the land on the sites with no meaningful natural area preservation and will destroy land downstream of the WWTP's including an undisturbed, rare, imperiled wet mesic flatwood forest.

Per the Public Notice,

COMMENT period is reopen HERE through Nov 7th

or directly to EGLE by emailing: 

Jim Bales; BalesJ@Michigan.gov 

EGLE has set a Public Hearing for the NPDES permit to pollute application

JOIN BY ZOOM HERE on WEDNESDAY Nov 5th, 2025 at 6:00pm

(or optionally can preregister at that link)

Support transparency and the rights of residents. 

This proposal continues to offer NO public benefit and plenty of harm and health concerns.

Wastewater Treatment Plants are prohibited by Lodi Township Ordinance, but an agreement to allow them was made (2023 Amended Consent Judgment) before all the information was available. There is NO benefit to the community, and the discharge violates neighboring landowner rights as well as within the wellhead protection zones of the source of 15% of the City of Ann Arbor's water and all of the neighboring Orchard Grove community's water (over 10% of the homes in Lodi Township). The benefits stated in Toll Brothers' Anti-degradation statement are misrepresenting the truth.

Per the Public Notice,

COMMENT period is reopen HERE through Nov 3rd (or beyond through Nov 15th)

or directly to EGLE by contacting: 

Christopher Prenkert, Permits Section, WRD, EGLE, P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, Michigan 48909, telephone: 517-881-3479, e-mail: PrenkertC1@michigan.gov

To support easier access:

EGLE Wetland PUBLIC HEARING Oct 28th notice and files can be found HERE

EGLE NPDES Permit to pollute PUBLIC HEARING Nov 5th notice and files HERE

EGLE NPDES permit files can be found HERE

EGLE Wetland/Watercourse impact files can be found HERE

More ways to defend our water and environment:

Comment to EGLE for the Wetland and Stream Impact:

"NO to private wastewater treatment plants and development that destroys imperiled wetlands, YES to healthy living conditions. There is no public benefit to offset the destruction."

COMMENT directly to EGLE before meeting (or by Nov 7th) 

Join the meeting online Oct 28th 6pm

Comment to EGLE for the NPDES (WWTPs) Permit to Pollute Impact:

"NO to private wastewater treatment plants and development that risks community water, YES to healthy living conditions. There is no public benefit to offset the destruction."

COMMENT directly to EGLE by Nov 3rd 

Join the meeting online Nov 5th 6pm

Help Distribute the Flier

Flier with Oct 7th 6pm BOT meeting date, in Español y English

Please also express your views to both the Lodi Township Planning Commission 

and the Board of Trustees.

Note:

1. Municipal water and sewer are NOT available to these parcels.

2. The Township ordinances prohibit private wastewater treatment plants. 

3. The ordinance for R3 zoning requires that lots have individual well and septic systems if they don't have access to municipal water/sewer (which these do not).

4. The density regulations for R3 zoning only allow 1 per NET acre, which would mean a maximum of 77 units in this case.

Despite these above points, the Township approved deviations to allow 107 units with private wastewater treatment plants in 2023. 

Talking Points for communicating with township officials and EGLE public notice:

The Township fears lawsuits but a yes vote will put residents and their property at risk and will give residents strong bases for lawsuits.

The Amended Consent Judgement  (ACJ) authorized two wastewater plants (WWTPs). It does not authorize plants with zero specifics

 — about footprint, design, disinfection processes and safety specifics. See letter from local expert.

The discharge points are within or near the Wellhead Protection areas for several surrounding community wells, including the last remaining well that serves 15% of the City of Ann Arbor's drinking water. This violates Lodi Township Zoning ordinance 54.08H.

The point of discharge for the effluent from the North plant violates the County’s 2000 foot isolation distance to protect the Orchard Grove community drinking water well. The discharge puts the drinking water of 283 people at risk. The EGLE WWTP division may allow the discharge but the County and the EGLE drinking water supply division say it is wrong; the Township cannot count on EGLE to disallow this violation.

The ACJ does not authorize plants with any type of siting, including sitings that violate the Zoning Ordinance by damaging natural areas belonging to downstream neighbors, risking flooding, noise and odor pollution for downstream neighbors. They could have discharged much farther from the neighbors and dealt on-site with issues of flooding, stream channel erosion, noise and pollution.

The Zoning Ordinance requires evaluation and prevention of damage to neighboring properties. This plan will dramatically reduce the property value of neighboring properties by introducing an environmental hazard (polluted water), flooding, noise, and odor and by restricting where wells can be drilled.

The Zoning Ordinance requires a high level of protection for natural features. This plan completely disregards these values. The plan requires removing 1000s of trees without replacement (they blame the township!) and no on-site or in-county wetlands mitigation. Wetlands mitigation will be near Toledo.

The final plan ignores the 50 foot setback between wetlands and buildings. The developer says they were confused by the ACJ. If they were confused, they should have asked for clarification. The Zoning Ordinance requirement is clear.

The developers failed to conduct a natural features survey of land 100 feet in every direction from the site boundary. They blame the Township and say the requirement is unclear, would require trespassing, and that the planner gave approval. The Zoning Ordinance is entirely clear and the Planning Commission chair repeatedly asked for this survey. 

We do not have a reliable Open Space commitment (or map). Cindy Strader asked planner Hannah Smith to review the Open Space map the developer provided, which appears to be misleading. The Board must not vote on the plans until we get reliable Open Space data. The map Toll gave us offers as Open Space a lot of land that is undevelopable and should be excluded.

The developers violates Zoning Ordinance 55.02 and the Planning Commission cited this violation. 

55.02 : "No site plan review application and no proposal for division of land shall be approved if subsequent development would result in an identifiable diversion, concentration or increase in the velocity or volume of the existing or natural flow of surface water.”

~~~

Gross under and misrepresentation of Trees being destroyed: preliminary site plans named only 83 trees.  The "final" site plan submittals have pages and pages of tree data with no summaries.  When that data is counted independently, it is clear that over 6000 trees are documented on the site and as many as 3545 trees are proposed to be destroyed, well over half.  Of those numbers, at least 945 are Landmark trees and the applicant proposes to destroy 457 of those trees.  Per Lodi Township Zoning Ordinance 54.08.O, calculations for how many trees they would have to replant give a conservative count of 4878!  The applicant claims to need to replant only 3402 and says they can't fit them and is asking for yet more deviations to laws.

Applicant proposes destroying several trees estimated to be over 200 years old, including a shagbark hickory!  And to destroy over 850 trees that are estimated to be over 50 years old.

~~~

Arbor Preserve was sold by Red Equities and is now owned by Toll Brothers who have a dreadful record of willing and widespread Clean Water Act (and other) violations.

The developers were granted a PUD zoning but are providing none of the community benefits required for fulfillment of a Planned Unit Development.

The developers ask for a deviation from the PUD open space requirement (to lessen the required amount). The open space they do propose is mostly land that will be bulldozed and replanted; it is not natural land that supports native plants and animals.

The development devastates a complex ecosystem with massive tree removal, cut-and-fill construction that alters naturally hilly topography, bulldozing of large swaths of animal habitat, and degrading dozens of wetlands. This type of development grossly violates the principles expressed in the Lodi Master Plan, which represents a contract with Lodi residents.

The proposal deviates from the Amended Consent Judgment, Zoning Ordinances, Master Plan, as well as other massive environmental concerns and federal and state level concerns.  

The developer has many inconsistencies within their own submitted plans. For example, in the Feb 2025 plans, the tree summaries they provided of their own data, they are grossly underrepresenting the number of landmark trees they are proposing destroying. What else are they misrepresenting?

The development impacts the great majority of 36 documented state-protected wetlands as well as the Rouse Drain and tributaries. No on-site mitigation is proposed.

The treatment plants will pollute the Rouse drain, a natural creek which feeds the Saline River and River Raisin.

The treatment plants run the risk of creating noxious odors and are located close to the township’s most densely populated neighborhood. This siting represents environmental injustice.

The treatment plants and the seven stormwater detention ponds will have no governmental management; neither the township nor the developer will have responsibility or liability. Those obligations will rest with a homeowners’ association (HOA) of questionable expertise and financial resources. Who will bear the consequences if they mismanage the plants, have accidents, or run out of operational funds?

The treatment plants will discharge a great quantity of (polluted) water into a fragile forested ecosystem that will be badly degraded by the changes in water volume. These forests are rare and are classified as ‘imperiled’ at the state and global level. They are called Wet-Mesic Flatwoods. Some of the affected woodlands are on the development site, some on private land. The seven detention ponds also discharge water into this shallow stream system, which is often dry. Flooding, death of native plants, and winter icing are likely.

No outside agency has responsibility for managing the seven detention ponds. Will these create mosquito breeding sites? Will mosquitoes be controlled with toxins that affect people and wildlife in the area?

State law requires that the woodlands on the site be regarded as the home to two varieties of endangered bat, due to many historical records of their presence and 100 recently documented bat roosting trees. The developer has the responsibility to demonstrate that these bats are not present and has not done so.

The development requires 107 new wells which will deplete already-taxed aquifers potentially causing neighboring wells to fail. Digging deeper wells is the developers proposal, yet doing so is not a sustainable solution as deeper aquifers don't recharge overnight, some took thousands of years to develop and would take lifetimes to rebuild : See the Groundwater Crisis.

As the groundwater is taxed by more wells, what could happen with the Gelman Plume just over a mile away?  We don't want carcinogenic dioxins in our wells.

The development requires many permits that have not been received—eg, soil erosion control, stormwater management, wetlands disturbance—thus final approval would violate the conditions of the amended consent judgment and is entirely inappropriate.

Public Documents from Lodi Township Website:

OCTOBER 20, 2025 – SPECIAL MEETING BOARD PACKET

Included in the packet is:

1. Minutes from 10.7.2025 – reviewed by Attorney O’Jack

2. A letter from Toll Brother’s Attorney, Alan Greene

3. Second Amendment to Consent Judgement Draft

4. Letter dated 10.6.2025 from Washtenaw County Water Resources Commissioner

5. Questions submitted on 10.12.2025 to Planner Smith from Clerk Smith

6. Questions from Trustee Blackburn submitted on 10.14.2025 to Planner Smith

7. Letter from the City of AA regarding the WHPA

8. Letter received from Orchard Grove MHC on 10.16.205

9. Order Denying Show Cause dated 6.29.2021

10. Two letters from Tokio Marine dated 1.25.2021 & 7.14.2021 regarding insurance coverage

11. Other comments received from the public

CLICK FOR AGENDA
EXHIBIT #2 for Proposed Amendment to the Consent Judgement
Updated DRAFT Bylaws
Updated DRAFT Master Deed

Draft Updated Consent Agenda Judgment <--Toll is proposing a 2nd amendment to the CJ

October 7th 6:00pm meeting materials

CLICK HERE FOR AGENDA
CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE PACKET
ARBOR PRESERVE PART 1 – Information provided to the Board on September 18, 2025
ARBOR PRESERVE PART 2 – Information provided to the Board on September 18, 2025
EXHIBIT #2 for Proposed Amendment to the Consent Judgement 

Updated DRAFT Bylaws 

Updated DRAFT Master Deed

Draft Updated Consent Agenda Judgement <--Toll is proposing a 2nd amendment to the CJ

Toll Brothers has submitted a resubmittal package (8/12/2025 Submission) of the Final PUD for Arbor Preserve North & South.

CLICK HERE for Arbor Preserve North Final Plans
CLICK HERE for Arbor Preserve South Final Plans
CLICK HERE for the Submittal Package
CLICK HERE for Façade Plans. 

Plans for Arbor Preserve, reviewed at July Planning Commission mtg and likely on September Board of Trustees mtg

(5/22/25 Submission)

July 22 Planning Commission Information

Arbor Preserve North Plans
Arbor Preserve South Plans
Arbor Preserve resubmittal letters
Arbor Preserve Traffic Study
Wetland Study Part 1
Wetland Study Part 2
Open Space Easement
Access Easement 

Additional Information – SAFD

Engineer Review

Planner Review

(Feb 2025 Submission)

Plans for Arbor Preserve

ARBOR PRESERVE NORTH
ARBOR PRESERVE SOUTH
Engineering Review of Presented Plans
Planner Review of Plans

Planning Commission

When: March 25, 2025 @ 7pm 

 Where:  3755 Pleasant Lake Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48103

CLICK HERE FOR AGENDA
CLICK HERE FOR COMPLETE PACKET 

(includes Planner/Engineer Reports and letters from Public)

Public Record: Amended Consent Judgment 2023 - Parts 1 and 2

The above and below images show the natural beauty of the land that is at risk.

Concerns about the Wastewater treatment plants being proposed: Extended Aeration Plants:

Extended aeration plants, while effective for wastewater treatment, have limitations including the inability to achieve denitrification or phosphorus removal without additional processes, limited flexibility to adapt to changing effluent requirements, and higher energy consumption due to longer aeration periods. EPA

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the problems associated with extended aeration plants:

• Limited Capabilities:

  • Denitrification and Phosphorus Removal: Extended aeration plants, as a standard process, are not designed to remove nitrogen (denitrification) or phosphorus efficiently. These removals require additional unit processes. 

  • Flexibility: The fixed design of extended aeration plants can limit their ability to adapt to changing effluent requirements resulting from regulatory changes. 

• Operational Challenges:

  • Energy Consumption: Extended aeration plants require a longer aeration period compared to other activated sludge processes, leading to higher energy costs. 

  • Sludge Bulking: If not properly managed, extended aeration systems can experience sludge bulking, where the sludge becomes too light and fails to settle properly in the clarifier. 

  • Foaming: Excessive aeration can also lead to foaming in the aeration basin, which can be difficult to control and can negatively impact the operation of the plant. 

• Other Considerations:

  • Safety: Sewage treatment plants, including those using extended aeration, present safety risks such as exposure to hazardous gases (like hydrogen sulfide), infectious diseases, and working in confined spaces. 

  • Cost: While extended aeration can be cost-effective for certain applications, the initial investment and ongoing operational costs can be significant.