While a patch of woods can offer privacy, natural beauty and a sense of isolation, property ownership near a major airport comes with restrictions that can reach well above ground level. The height of trees on one Michigan homeowner’s property became the basis of a long legal battle against the authority that operates Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. Nearly three decades after buying the land, she suffered a major blow to her court battle when an appellate decision allowed the airport authority to enforce aviation safety restrictions.
A dispute over property with roots in aviation safety
According to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Michelle Baldwin bought a wooded property in 1997 on Vining Road, south of Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. To the north was property owned by the Wayne County Airport Authority. The dispute began after the Joint Airport Zoning Commission for Wayne and Washtenaw Counties approved an airport zoning ordinance in July 2016. The rule established tree and structure height limitations within a 20-mile radius of the airport, and anything above the limits was considered a potential aviation hazard. Baldwin’s property was in Zone B, which meant that trees and other objects could only be up to 50 feet above the elevation of the airport.
Warnings and disputes over cutting down trees
The Michigan Court of Appeals pointed out that some trees on Baldwin’s property eventually grew taller than the prescribed height. Airport contractors have conducted obstruction surveys around the airport in 2018, 2021 and 2022 to identify possible risks.An airport authority representative told Baldwin in February 2022 that eight trees on her property were too tall and posed an aviation hazard. The authority is understood to have offered to arrange for them to be removed but Baldwin refused the offer in May that year.The dispute also included allegations of unlawful entry. Baldwin alleged that airport authority employees had gone onto her property and cut down or trimmed between eight and 11 trees without permission between 2018 and 2022. The authority confirmed its employees had removed at least one tree, though its representative said the organization had been unaware of the entry at the time.
Court denies compensation claims
The airport authority filed suit in February 2023, seeking an injunction that would force Baldwin to remove or trim the trees or allow its representatives onto the property to correct the violations.Baldwin filed counter-claims, arguing that the restrictions constituted a regulatory taking of her property, and that the alleged tree removal entitled her to damages under Michigan’s timber-trespass law.The trial court ruled for the airport authority, holding that the maintenance of trees in excess of aviation safety restrictions constituted a public nuisance. The bottom line: removing the hazards was not a compensable taking of private property.
Appeals court upholds injunction
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision in its November 3, 2026 ruling. A judges’ panel of a court of appeals ruled airport hazards were a public nuisance under state law and the authority had the authority to take steps to remedy the violation. They also denied Baldwin’s claim for compensation, finding the enforcement measures did not deprive her of the productive use of her multi-acre property.Her timber trespass claim was also dismissed as the acts of the authority were part of an authorized government function protected by government immunity.The court also made it clear that its decision did not give the airport authority free rein to cut down trees on private land The ruling supports the injunction and underlines the importance of aviation safety regulations for properties located near major airports.Images Courtesy: istock
