Novi Council approves amended consent judgment and preliminary site plan for Society Hill development, 5–2

After nearly four hours of presentation and deliberation, the City of Novi council on Aug. 25 voted 5–2 to approve an amendment to a 2001 consent judgment and to grant preliminary site‑plan approval for the Society Hill redevelopment at the northwest corner of 12 Mile and Novi Road.

Background and motion: The property is subject to a long‑standing 1999 site plan and a consent judgment entered in 2001 that froze development rights and tied the city’s obligations to construction of a SAD 94 sewer. Staff and the developer presented a modernized site plan: roughly 500 residential units across multiple building typologies (two‑ to five‑story buildings and townhomes), about 1,580 rooms, extensive on‑site amenities and preserved wetland/open space. The applicant said the revised plan will provide on‑site trail connections and additional stormwater detention to avoid discharging to the existing pond. “This is a more modern mix of units,” the applicant said in the presentation, noting about seven acres of active open space and a program of indoor and outdoor amenities.

Key legal and fiscal tradeoffs: City Attorney Mr. Schultz and staff explained that approving the preliminary site plan as an amendment to the consent judgment will remove the old 1999 plan and, once the final site plan is approved, eliminate the city’s obligation to construct the SAD 94 sewer under the terms of the 2001 judgment. Counsel explained that if council denied the amendment, the consent judgment would still allow the developer to seek extensions of the 1999 plan and the city could become obligated to build the SAD 94 sewer — a project council members estimated could cost more than $1.2 million depending on route and easements.

Council debate: Members voiced a range of views. Supporters said the updated plan modernizes an antiquated approval, preserves wetlands in different locations, and creates housing variety (including first‑floor and senior accessible units) they argued the city needs. One councilmember said, “If we’re going to lose some of these trees, we might as well do it with a plan that is in the best interest of Novi and all who live here,” and highlighted the public benefits of avoiding a multimillion‑dollar sewer obligation and adding trails and amenities.

Opponents raised concerns about density, building height, deviations from current landscaping and parking standards, and use of a city‑owned 3‑acre parcel for stormwater detention without compensation. One dissenting member said the plan had accumulated “concession after concession” and did not fit the existing neighborhood context; that member voted no.

Deviations and conditions: Staff flagged about 22 deviations from current ordinance standards (setbacks, parking counts, landscape island sizing, foundation landscaping, etc.). Council and staff negotiated conditions on several deviations during the discussion and asked staff to work with the applicant on screening, the potential use of detached garages versus carports, and woodland mitigation. The applicant agreed to commit to fence and screening along the southern city‑owned parcel and to pursue off‑site or on‑parcel tree replacement where feasible.

Vote and next steps: The motion — as amended on the record to remove language implying the city would sell the 10‑acre parcel to the west and to clarify final review thresholds — passed 5–2 (Stout and others in favor; Thomas and Heintz opposed). Following preliminary approval, the developer has up to two years to submit a final site plan per the consent‑judgment timetable; staff will review final engineering, wetlands permits and woodland mitigation and return to council if changes meet the judgement’s threshold for significant modifications.

Provenance: The item began as Agenda Item 3 and included a staff history, developer presentation and extended council Q&A. The formal roll call occurred immediately following the maker and support of the motion; the clerk recorded the vote as 5–2.

What it means: Council’s action replaces the 1999 site plan, avoids the immediate SAD 94 construction obligation if the project proceeds to final approval, and puts a 500‑unit mixed residential development on a multi‑year track through the city’s final site‑plan and permitting process.