Novi City Council Tables Decision on Rezoning 10 Mile & Beck Road Property

Dozens of Novi citizens showed up at the Novi City Council meeting Monday to voice their opposition of the rezoning of the area northwest of 10 Mile and Beck roads for a residential development that doesn’t meet the city’s Master Plan.

After listening to nearly a half hour of neighbors' concerns and talking among themselves for another hour and a half, City Council decided to table the matter to vote on at a future meeting, with hope that some changes can be made to the plan to yield an approval.

“We’re listening, and we’re appreciative of all the emails and all the correspondence that you’ve sent,” said Novi Mayor Bob Gatt.

The proposed development would sit on 24.24 acres of land, and the applicant, Beck Ten Land, LLC. is asking council to rezone the district from a R-1 (one-family residential, 1.65 dwelling units per net acre) to a R-3 (one-family Residential, 2.7 dwelling units per net acre) by using the city's Planned Rezoning Overlay (PRO) option to allow for development with smaller and narrower lots and slightly higher density.

The PRO acts as a zoning amendment, in which the applicant and the city can agree on any deviations from applicable ordinances and use restrictions.

The Novi Planning Commission approved the proposal for recommendation to the council in late February. Yet, dozens of emails to the council and a big showing at the meeting have caused council to mull over their decision.

Major concerns voiced by citizens and shared by several council members include the density of the development, the lack of any new access road to the homes and deviating from the city’s Master Plan.

Density debacle

The city’s Master Plan, or the guide used for government to make decisions on the physical development of the city, has outlined a density of 1.65 units per acre for the property northwest of Beck and 10 Mile roads.

The proposed development, however, would have a 1.77 density, going against the Master Plan. The plan as-is would have 38 homes; if three homes were removed, it would meet the 1.65 density. Although the proposal calls for a rezoning to an R3, the property would actually be below the R3 density of 2.7 units per acre.

Several citizens said they did not like that city would go against the Master Plan.

Jill Baty, who has lived in the nearby subdivision since 1993, said she looked at the Master Plan when she decided to move there.  

“I think it’s important to take into consideration our viewpoint – the people that are actually adjacent to that property. … My husband and I feel that it will lower the value on our homes,” she said.

Although many other citizens are concerned about home values, the city has not found any facts to prove this wrong or right.

“I have not seen any documentation from anybody saying, yes it will affect the property value or no it will not. I think a lot of us are just playing on emotion,” said council member Wayne Wrobel.

Howard Fingeroot, the managing partner of Beck Ten Land, LLC., said the company’s objective is to develop a quality, residential development consistent with the neighborhoods, which he believes would not bring property values down.

“I think we really do have a plan that’s very consistent with your ordinances. I think it’s a wonderful opportunity and I think they’re going to be wonderful homes, and wonderful neighbors that come out and live in this community,” Fingeroot said.

Several citizens said that they have yet to see a proposal made for the property that would fit the R1 zone, and that it’s unfair to offer a rezoning to this development.

“It’s not the city’s responsibility to make sure that a developer maximizes profit from a particular piece of property,” Wrobel said.

Yet, council member Terry Margolis said the density is close enough to the Master Plan.

“This density does fit with the Master Plan. Is it a couple of houses over? Yeah, but again, what I’m looking for is this whole idea of can we get a quality residential development in there that we can all be proud of and live with … as I went through this, that’s what I was really looking for,” she said.

No access road

The plans for the development do not include adding a new access road to the houses. Instead, residents would exit the development into nearby Greenwood Oaks subdivision to exit via the existing roads.

"I think that access required through the neighboring communities would be a detriment. I think it's a burden on those roads and a burden on those residents," said council member Justin Fischer.

Fingeroot said no access roads were planned because the development is designed to create an enclave so residents do not feel like they are part of the intersection. Trees and landscaping would line the development’s edges along the main roads.

The city asked for a traffic study to be done of the area, and the traffic consultant found that no other access road would be needed for the additional traffic.

But citizens of Greenwood Oaks said they do not like the idea of having more cars driving through their roads and having the two developments appear to be the same subdivision.

“They have to have their own entrance,” said resident Kim Capello, who said he would be in favor of the development if a road were added.

Gatt and other members of council said adding an access road to Beck Road would be one of their major requirements for approving the proposal in the future.

"I think that for this development to go forward, there has to be an access road onto Beck Road. There has to be a Beck Road improvement that [Beck Ten Land, LLC.) would be responsible for paying, and that's one of my main concerns with this project," Gatt said.

Setting precedent

Resident John Gazette asked the council a question that several members said they are concerned about.

“Do we really as a city want to set a precedent here? ... Do we want to start changing the Master Plan, which was well thought-out and one of the reasons we moved here?” Gazette said.

Resident George Oommen, who bought his property and built his home on it in 1999, agreed.

“I simply do not believe in having two sets of rules,” he said. “One for all of us who bought property and one for another individual who is trying to make money off of this. … If you approve this proposal at any point in time, what stops me from coming to you and saying, ‘I want another home on my property’?”

Residents in the audience applauded Oommen’s remarks.

Until next time

While council also voiced several other concerns, including the size and façade of the houses and the extra open space, they said they are willing to work with the company to try to come up with a solution.

“If we can get the developer to agree to some of the conditions that some of the council members and myself put forward, I think it’s a win-win,” Gatt said

Several council members agreed that this would be an opportunity to put an end to any threat of a commercial or retail development going into the property.

“What we really have to think about is what’s the long-term best interest for not only the residents that are there but also the entire city,” said Mayor Pro-tem Dave Staudt.

Fingeroot said he is willing to continue working with city staff to try to come to an agreement.

“I’m here for the long run,” he said.

Do you have an opinion on the matter? Send a letter to the editor at rebecca.jaskot@patch.com.