View Agenda for this meeting





Mayor Clark called the meeting to order at 7:36 PM


ROLL CALL: Mayor Clark, Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo, Council Members Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer

APPROVAL OF AGENDA: (additional communications or petitions)

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo requested the addition of The Approval for Liquor License, Novi Mid-Eastern Cuisine, LLC as Item #5. It is her understanding the current Item #5, Approval to set a Special Council meeting is being placed as Item #1. Also under Mayor and Council Issues, she would like to add as Item #1 CVS operation violations status, the legal action and Item #2 Tornado Sirens.

Member Csordas stated he understood Item # 5, in Matters for Council Action Part II, is on the Agenda to set a date for a Special City Council Meeting. He would like the consent of the Council to move Item #5 to Item #1, under Matters for Council Action.

CM-01-09-240 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To move item #5, setting a date for a Special Council Meeting to Item #1.

Vote on CM-01-09-240 Yeas: Clark, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo

Nays: None

City Manager Helwig noted the city had just received the JCK the dollar estimate information and it was at each of their places. The information is for on-site regional detention basin costs. He asked if Council preferred to defer this matter to have time to review the new information?

Member DeRoche spoke of his frustration about the amount of information just placed before them on the table that they have to review. Rather than postponing items, perhaps they could take a brief break to digest the materials.

Member Kramer suggested putting Item #2, Approval of Residential Unit Development Agreement for Maybury Estates Condominium, which is on the first half of the agenda, and placing it beyond the break.

Mayor Clark moved Item #6, Approval of Request from Singh Development for Final Plan approval of Churchill Crossings into the Item #2 spot and Item #2, Approval of Residential Unit Development Agreement for Maybury Estates Condominium was moved to the vacated spot left by Item #6.

Member Bononi stated she has served Councils who have become mired down in such situations and normally shoot themselves in the foot with regard to deciding whose matter is important and whose isn’t. She would not like to see us move in that direction. She believes Council currently has a rule with regard to when they receive information. If it is an emergency matter that is another situation entirely. She would not be voting for the changes. She believes to do their business best; they need to be best prepared.

CM-01-09-241 Moved by Cassis, seconded by Kramer; MOTION CARRIED:

To approve the Agenda as amended and modified.

Vote on CM-01-09-241 Yeas: Clark, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer,


Nays: Bononi



Member DeRoche mentioned the information given to Council in their packets regarding SEMCOG ‘s planning for the year 2030 and build-outs. After they have read the materials, he would appreciate a call to him or Member Cassis, the alternate, with any questions about SEMCOG ’s numbers.

Mayor Clark stated he has noticed the projects seem to be ambitious. The build out for Novi is listed for 2030; he feels we will be done in 2010 at the building rate we were currently undertaking.

Member Csordas stated he has been working with Caren Collins at SWOCC on installing an audio track device at City Hall so there would be audio sound with the bill board information on Channel 13.


1. Citizen Recognition - Robert E. Shaw, Jr., Parks & Recreation Commission

Mayor Clark asked Mr. Robert Shaw Jr. to join him at the podium. He commented that once again they have an opportunity to see why the City of Novi works. This was because of the long-standing commitment and dedication of this community of people such as Mr. Shaw. He presented Mr. Shaw with a plaque for his years of outstanding service to the community.

2. Resolution proclaiming September as Prostate Cancer Awareness Month

Mr. Lou Martin, representative of Providence Hospital was present to receive the proclamation. Mayor Clark read the proclamation stating September 2001 was declared Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. He further read that in 2001 approximately 198,100 men in the United States would learn they have prostate cancer, with approximately 31,500 men losing their lives to this disease in 2001. Appropriate screening and testing is one way to reduce the devastation this disease can cause.

Mr. Martin addressed Council with facts about prostate cancer. He further explained the role Providence Hospital was taking to offer free prostate and skin cancer screenings. He thanked Council for making people aware of this. He encouraged people to make an appointment with their health care provider for screenings.

Mr. Martin further stated on Tuesday, September 18th, from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM, and 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM, here at the Civic Center, there would be two physicians available for free skin cancer screenings. Melanoma is a very serious and deadly cancer.




Village Oaks Neighborhood Street Repair Update

Mr. Helwig stated Council Members have received e-mail regarding the condition of the recently repaired streets. A year ago Council passed a policy resolution stating the City would repair the streets in Village Oaks as it was a number one priority. This was prior to undertaking the pavement management system review of all the City streets in June. Village Oaks contract was awarded this summer, it was well under the engineers’ estimate. When the original milling was done, the base under the street was found to be non-existent. It looked to be asphalt on top of topsoil. With the exception of a small portion of Brook Forest, south of the intersection, south of the Clubhouse running to Nine Mile the finished cap has not been placed. In front of the Clubhouse the road will all be torn out and redone before the final cap. The road is in this condition because the contractor used this area for moving his paving equipment in and out of the subdivision. Mr. Helwig felt this section is what prompted the concerned e-mails to Council. The City is committed to an outstanding finished product and he is aware the landscaping and grading needs to be completed.

Mr. Tony Nowicki, Department of Public Services Director, stated the City, the Contractor, and engineers are committed to a quality product. They expect to have the base course of asphalt in place by the end of this week or first part of next week. Shortly thereafter, they will be placing the upper wearing course. This will be an inch of high-density asphalt material. When completed it will be a far superior roadway than what existed previously. Deep strength asphalt will be used as a base in unstable areas; this will increase the life of the pavement. He believes everyone will be pleased with the finished product. Some areas are completed; it rides nicely, and looks very good.

Member Csordas asked Mr. Nowicki if there had been an engineering study done on these roads prior to the construction? Mr. Nowicki responded core samples had been taken in the roadway, about 39 or 40. The cores showed adequate strength within the material. When the two inches came off the existing roadway traffic, the heavy construction equipment destroyed the base course that was left. Member Csordas asked how far down are the soil borings taken from? Mr. Nowicki responded just through the pavement to check the structural integrity of the pavement itself. Member Csordas asked if he thought there was an error in the study and recommendation? Something overlooked? Mr. Nowicki replied in hindsight, perhaps things should have been looked at a little differently, in this particular case there were no signs they would experience base failure. The engineers felt it to be cost effective that this was the best method to do the testing. This type of study is typical on most maintenance projects. In the future they will look more closely at the older, existing roadways.

Member Bononi asked who analyzed the core borings? Mr. Nowicki replied the engineers, JCK and Associates. She stated she has a little experience with this and frankly finds it unusual that 39 core borings were taken and at least one area would not be tipped off in that analysis, which was easy to do. Being this is where we are and what we have, she asked about cost overruns and what additional monies are going to be required to do this correctly? Mr. Nowicki stated the engineer’s estimate was about $800,000. The contractor’s bid was approximately $650,000. We still believe even with the extra work we will be close to the engineers’ estimate. If Council recalls, through the Bond Program and the Budget Process, they have allocated about $1.3 million dollars towards this project. There should be adequate funds to accomplish this project. Member Bononi asked what are we going to do make sure this does not happen again? Mr. Nowicki replied that a more in depth analysis, more frequent core samples, and base analysis would be done so we would not encounter this type of problem again. Member Bononi hoped we would be contracting an expert to take and analyze the core samples to make sure we do not do this again.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo spoke of her disappointment that Council received this information later rather than sooner. She asked about the current pavement management program, and the new vehicle used for information gathering, would either of these items have changed the situation or found the errors? Mr. Nowicki responded they would not have, they only identify surface problems.

b. New 100’ Aerial Ladder Fire Truck

Mr. Helwig noted the new 100’ Aerial Ladder Fire Truck was parked at the entrance to the Civic Center. This was authorized by the voters in a bond issue and is part of the 20-year vehicle replacement program. The truck is housed at the Main Street station and gives us the capacity to reach any building in the city of Novi. Member Csordas asked about $75,000 donation. Mr. Helwig noted that Ericsson retirement community’s’ donation took it from a 75 foot ladder truck to a 100 ft ladder truck and was significant because stakeholders took an interest in the community over and above hosting their business here. Member Csordas agreed that it was important to have commercial entities contribute to the community. He asked if they had been thanked with a letter or plaque? Mr. Helwig replied they have been thanked in writing. Member DeRoche thanked Member Csordas for bringing it to the attention of the residents since our funds are limited. Without individuals like this, it would not be possible.

Mayor Clark announced there was a lack of video at this time during the taping of the Council meeting. There was currently audio but no video at that time. Time- Warner was working on this. Member Bononi asked what has happened with this? Stated it was embarrassing and has been going on for a very long time. It is not good for our citizens looking for complete information. Member Bononi was looking for a little better performance from the cable crew.

a. Plan Review Center Update – Introduce the following staff:

Mr. Helwig introduced the new employees and explained the Plan Review Center was targeted to be up and running at the end of August when we start doing our own plan reviews, beginning January 2, 2002. He noted that we were now asking for only eight sets of plans instead of twenty-one and this would result in higher quality finished product for the community and streamline the process and make better use of pre-application meetings. We should soon be seeing brochures about do’s and don’ts regarding wetlands, and woodlands. There should be a higher degree of accountability with our own experts. Those who have been joined the City since the summer:


Amy Golke, City Planner – She graduated from the University of Michigan with a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Policy and Masters Degree from Michigan State University in Urban and Regional Planning.

Nancy McClain, City Engineer - She was hired at the end of August, graduated from Michigan Technological University and holds two professional engineering licenses; one from Michigan and one from Connecticut.

Lauren McGuire, Landscape Architect - She was hired September 3rd and graduated from the University of Michigan with a bachelor’s degree in Biology and a Masters Degree in Landscape architecture.

Mayor Clark thanked each and every one and welcomed them aboard. Member Csordas congratulated the new hires. Member Csordas was glad to see the openness and frankness of the responses regarding customer service on the site plan applications shared with Council. He thanked the City Manager for his efforts and the documents provided to the Council and he knew the city’s reputation within the development community would improve. Mayor Clark noted in the plan, everyone will be in the same place at the same time to move things in a more expeditious fashion. He knows we will be seeing many positive changes as time goes by.

Mr. Nowicki shared with Council the results of the collection for hazardous waste day. There were over 900 residents who came to the center on Saturday. Many positive comments were received from the residents.

Mr. Klaver reported on the Fuerst Property cleanup. He congratulated Mrs. Kathy Mutch on her organization for much of the work. They had about thirty volunteers show up to work. Some of the work accomplished was the clearing of the overgrown vegetation on the sides of the house. Members of Parks and Recreation Department would be painting the upper level of the home and doing the window repairs. Mr. Klaver congratulated all those who worked on the property. He also mentioned there was also an invitation to attend the Fuerst picnic, September 16 from 1PM – 4PM and the historical State marker was to be dedicated. There would be refreshments and games for kids in the family. A photo of the new historical State marker was displayed.

Mr. Klaver also noted five customer reply cards were received. Two for water meter reader Ryan Trainer; one for Angie Moncrief and a resident that had a tie rod break on her car was helped by the Fire Department. Another resident Warren Jocz complimented Susan Blumer from the City Clerk’s office on her helpfulness for his request as she filled it before leaving for vacation.

Member Csordas asked about the status of the Parks and Recreation Director and Staff? Mr. Helwig replied they are continuing to pursue this. Mr. Klaver has been handling the duties of this position as well as his own.

Member DeRoche noted his concern about housing costs in Novi and felt it may be discussed another evening. He felt a lot of frustration that a qualified individual has been offered the job but unable to accept because of preferences and guidelines that Novi may have.


3. ATTORNEY - None


Sarah Gray, spoke from her standpoint as a Zoning Board of Appeals member about her concerns for the Comerica Well request. Noted there wasn’t a unanimous vote for the additional well. She did approve it due to the existing well head currently at the site. In the July 17th meeting minutes of the ZBA, they weren’t allowed to address the proximity issue because that was part of the permit process and was under Council purview. She clarified she was only speaking for herself. Stated the petitioner already has a wellhead in the city of Novi.

Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin spoke from her standpoint as a resident and asked if the city could set up a tree fund so that if someone wants to donate a tree in memory of a loved one or to congratulate someone, she would like to see set up if we are truly a tree city. Suggested keeping a calendar or list of those trees that were planted and for what purpose.

Police Chief Doug Shaeffer, spoke as a citizen of Novi and cancer survivor. Stated he originally was diagnosed with a 10% survival rate so some of his friends set up the Doug Shaeffer charities. He stated cancer causes catastrophic costs with harsh treatments and other things cancer patients endure. His charity encourages golfers to sign up for the fundraiser on September 21, 2001. Their focus is on children in hospitals and so they asked doctors, nurses and the children what they need? Commented that when he saw Matt Harsha Strong and Sarah Holt from Teens aiding the Cancer Community at the last Council meeting, he knew they needed assistance. They were present with Doug Shaeffer so that his charity could reward their efforts with a check for $1,000 from Doug Shaeffer charities.

Jim Hinkle, 23701 Harvest Ct., commented a new subdivision was being built across from Orchard Ridge. He was given notice there will be a traffic light at the joint entrance to both subdivisions but they don’t know when. He said it was impossibly to get out of his subdivision unless a light is placed there. Also asked for someone to look at the pond that was actually a spring and felt it might overflow on 10 Mile Road. Also the City promised there would be a sidewalk from their subdivision down to Novi Road and there is still no sidewalk.

City Manager Helwig asked Director of Public Services Nowicki to state when the light will be up. DPS Nowicki reported the traffic light has been approved by the Road Commission for Oakland County and is in the design process. Regarding the sidewalk, the goal is to have it built before the snow flies this year. The legal easement work has been completed and Council has authorized the design and engineering.

Monika Jackson, 23425 Highmeadow Drive and a director of Orchard Ridge Subdivision Association, spoke about the traffic light across from Orchard Ridge and stated they gave up half of their boulevard to obtain the light. They also pointed out a second entrance for Churchill Crossing. They do need the traffic light. She contacted Winston Myrie at RCOC and some weeks ago she was told he couldn’t approve it. She stated her original petition included another entrance off Novi Road for the Churchill Crossing.

Tom Steffler, 27110 Taft Road, commented on the height requirement that would be addressed when the upcoming Expo is built. He is a 15 year resident and Novi business owner. He is very much in favor of building the Expo Center and the proposed hotel. He felt it would be to the advantage of the city if each project was reviewed by the quality of the project and not necessarily the height. Felt the freeway corridor was the correct place for a building of this size and would help take some of the tax pressure off the residents and give relief to the businesses of the community. There would be easy on and off access of the freeway and the traffic wouldn’t filter into the local neighborhoods. Felt the larger businesses could better afford to invest in the community with such things such as the ladder truck . Noted that 20 years ago the height ordinance was only 2 stories high. With pro-environment policies in place, he felt it was better to build up instead of out. Asked that when Council reviews these new developments, that these types of things be considered.

Jim Utley, Walden Woods, reported he lived in Orchard Ridge 10 years ago and a traffic light was needed back then. It was one of the reasons he moved was because of the inability to get out of only one entrance and exit to the subdivision. Also felt a light was needed at the library as it was next to impossible to get out from there. He was appearing before Council to compliment the City on the walkway at Addington. It was a very nice addition to the City and hoped this could be extended to Royal Crown and Yorkshire where tree roots were raising the asphalt. Felt many of the walks need attention. Council should be commended for not taking too much out of the road bond fund for the sidewalk at Addington. Council has done a very good job in prioritizing road needs in the City. His subdivision roads were very high on the list for re-paving.

Alan Bennett, 1691 Harbor Cove, spoke regarding the South Lake Drive task force. Noted there was also a school curriculum meeting that prevented members of the task force from being present at this Council meeting. There were very few people outside those that live on S. Lake on the task force and asked Council to keep in mind that there are many other people that live around the lake that need access to travel the roads. Noted a petition has been signed by 100 people and asked for Council’s review of that prior to making additional changes to the road. His feeling was to install additional traffic lights and use additional police enforcement of traffic on South Lake Road. He felt that should solve the problem. Also suggested the use of cameras and crosswalks with the X’s in white with a traffic cone in the center that states a vehicle must stop when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. To limit access to city roads felt like a taking of property. When residents are asked to drive down to 12 Mile and then back to 13 Mile, both to and from work, causes them to drive 4 additional miles each day and it was unfair to them. He thought the residents might be willing to file suit if this public road were removed from public use.

Dean Waldrup, noted he was a part of South Lake Drive Task Force and was in the audience in case Council wanted to ask questions of the members. The task force was asking for a safer road.

Joyce Wolfe, Harbor Cove resident and pediatrician from Troy, stated she looks at S. Lake Drive as an essential egress for emergency vehicles. Regarding the safety of children, she has worked her entire life to make life safer for children. Felt there were safety issues for residents and their children. While driving to the Council meeting using 11 Mile and Taft, there were many children playing out in the yards. Parents watched the children. The idea was not to choke traffic. Felt they were imprisoned and should be allowed to have egress from their homes in the same way the S. Lake Drive residents should have safety for their children. She doesn’t want restriction of traffic on S. Lake Drive and wants to have it continue to be an open street. She was concerned about safety for children but reiterated that children should be taught to be safe. Suggested keeping the 25 mph speed limit and enforcing it and possibly adding another light. Also asked if Council would limit the beach access as well.


CONSENT AGENDA (Approval/Removals)

A. Approve Minutes of:

1. August 13, 2001 – Regular meeting

2. August 27, 2001 – Regular meeting

Approve Ordinance 2001-120.07-Language amendment for Chapter 20, Massage Ordinance to provide reference for massage establishment – 2nd Reading & Adoption.

Approval of a three-year contract with Detroit Temperature Engineers for HVAC maintenance, as recommended by the Consultant Review Committee

D. Approval of Claims and Accounts – Warrant No. 605

Member Bononi removed A-2 Regular Meeting of City Council August 27, 2001 minutes for corrections.

CM-01-09-242 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Lorenzo; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda Items A1, B, C, and D.

Vote on CM-01-09-242 Yeas: Clark, Bononi Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo

Nays: None



1. Approval to set a Special Council meeting - for a study session and consideration of 1st reading of zoning ordinance text amendment 01-18.169(expo overlay district). An ordinance to add article 10A to Ordinance No. 97-18, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance; to add the designation for the Expo "Exposition Overlay" District to the Schedule of Regulations contained within Section 2400 of said ordinance; to amend footnote (h) to the Schedule of Regulations contained within Section 2400 of said ordinance, relating to off-street parking; to amend subsection 2507.3 of said ordinance, relating to off-street loading and unloading; to amend subparts 2509.6a and 2509.8b of said ordinance, relating to berming and landscaping; and to amend subsection 2519 of said ordinance, relating to performance standards, for the purpose of creating the Expo "Exposition Overlay" Zoning District, which is intended to encourage the development of an exposition, conference, and convention center, and supporting uses, in an appropriate area of the city.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo suggested the special meeting could be scheduled for September 20, 2001. There is an Ordinance Review committee meeting currently scheduled from 6 – 7 PM, and there will be three Council Members in attendance. Mayor Clark explained he had a prior commitment. Member Csordas suggested Thursday, September 13, 2001. No Council Member was available on this date. Member Kramer suggested either September 17th, 18, or 19th. Again no one was available. Mayor Clark suggested Thursday, September 27, 2001, 7 PM – 10 PM. Council agreed this was a good date and amount of time. They did not want to give the appearance of rushing on this item. Member Csordas stated this should not appear to be on the fast track. This has been discussed at a meeting with Council, and Chamber of Commerce, at least two years ago. Mayor Clark felt the concern was in the overlay district. He received a number of telephone calls after the last Planning Commission study session about how the matter was handled. This is the reason he felt Council needed to be involved and to give it the serious consideration it deserved. Member DeRoche wanted to clarify he wanted the Council Meeting to be as long as needed to discuss it. He also stated how frustrated he has been with the amount of time spent and the number of committees where this has been discussed before coming back to Council. Member Bononi asked if this matter could be referred to the Ordinance Review Committee, it will be meeting in the interim. If there are any problems in regard to the committee because of the timeliness of the matter, pushing it to Item #1 for discussion and seeing if there are any recommendations that at that meeting on the 20th that can be brought forward. Member Bononi asked to have the recommendations from the Ordinance Review Committee brought to the September 27th Council Meeting, there may be some items that can be given to them in advance of the meeting on the 27th. Mayor Clark questioned if Council would gain anything because even if there are personal recommendations, they are going to be subject to review by the whole Council. Any Ordinance Review member is welcome to attend the Council Meeting and give their recommendations. Member Bononi will count on their sense of organization that evening. Mayor Clark assured her they would come prepared.

CM-01-09-243 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Csordas; CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Special Council Meeting or September 27, 2001 from 7PM – 10 PM

Roll Call Vote on CM 01- 09- 243 Yeas: Clark, Bononi Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Lorenzo

Nays: None


2. Approval of Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land use Permit and Drilling Permit for Comerica Well 2-29, SP 00-58, located in Section 29, on the south side of Ten Mile, east of Wixom Road.

Mayor Clark explained this item deals with one existing well and a proposal to expand to a second well. These are located near Echo Valley Subdivision. At the last Council meeting there were a number of concerns raised. We had the Zoning Board of Appeals recommending approval and the Planning Commission had a number of concerns that justified a denial. He mentioned the City Attorney pointed out the need to have reasons and factual support that can be documented. Mayor Clark briefly reviewed the litigation involving the State of Michigan, on a similar issue. Mayor Clark asked the petitioner if he had anything additional he wished to say? Mr. Bill Horn, on behalf of SOMOCO, stated he, Mr. Gottchalk, and Mr. Baker were present to answer any questions. Mr. Brown, of Colano and Saha Engineers, Inc. was present to address noise questions.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo asked Mr. Fisher, City Attorney, if he had reviewed Miller Brothers-vs.-DNR and found any relevancy to the City of Novi’s situation. Mr. Fisher responded the facts are distinguishable, he thinks to one point that is relevant is that it has to do with a well drilling application denial for entirely different reasons than Novi has, if there is a denial. A denial from Novi would be completely different than the Miller Brothers case. This was a complete denial by the State Administration of any drilling in that area. Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo asked him, as their legal counsel, would he advise them to move cautiously with any denials that may be made. Mr. Fisher replied there is a need to be very cautious, and as he advised them last time if they do make a denial it must be founded upon facts and authoritative documented positions in the record itself.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo thanked the Somoco people for the additional information.

She would like confirmation that it was possible to limit the actual drilling to normal construction operation times from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.; the well pumps would need to continue circulating, but from the residential areas the noise would be inaudible.

Manager, Mr. Tim Baker, said they were dealing with two separate issues. The noise study dealt with what was out there now and the operation of the existing pumping unit; the pumping unit ran on an electric motor and the drilling operation would entail bringing in some pumps run with diesel engines. Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo asked if it was possible to run them by electricity and he said it was possible, however, they didn’t have electric service at the site of sufficient capacity to run those pumps. He said they did have a generator that they intended to use, however, that generator was also fired by diesel engines. He said their proposal would be to add hospital mufflers; they were used during the original drilling of the well and the only noise complaint they had was the clanking when picking up the joints of pipe.

Mr. Baker said the process of drilling involved bringing in diesel generators and diesel pumps with the addition of hospital mufflers. He said at the existing Comerica well, they went to the bottom of the well and then drilled horizontally to enhance production. They used hospital mufflers and had no noise complaints.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo asked if the hospital mufflers were used to muffle the diesel generator, and Mr. Baker said they were used on the diesel generator as well as the pumps. He said the pump referred to in the noise review was at the existing site; they did not have a well drilling in the area they could model to fit a specific area. He said there was a well drilling within the City of Howell, however, it was in a cleared area with housing and building all around it with nothing remotely similar to what they had in terms of vegetation to muffle the noise at the current site. He said they look to the current site to actually be a better situation.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said with regard to the sound measurements, it appeared that the numbers have increased in terms of the db levels and she understood that was with one well operating, not concurrent. She said in the noise study it said based on your recent information, the operation of the proposed second well will not operate at the same time as the existing well. She said she has not seen any documentation indicating that was what he planned. He said the existing pumping unit did not need to run 24 hours a day and they anticipate that would continue into the future. It runs about 15 minutes per hour now and it was very possible they could have the second one run at a different time period from the first. He added that when another motor was added to the situation, it would not produce twice the noise.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said the noise study has not evaluated what the noise level would be with two wells running concurrently, and Darren Brown, project engineer, said that was correct. She said it appears that the sound levels have increased a few decibels from the previous study at each location, and Mr. Brown said the well was not the only sound that contributed to the overall level. There were the sounds outside of the well operation of wind and insects that contributed. Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said noise was noise and they weren’t able to do anything about the ambient sounds; their only control was the well operation.

Mr. Brown said from what he understood of the ordinance, the only item they were concerned about here was the well and operation noise; they weren’t concerned with wind and insect noise. He said it was just a factor during the measurement; the 54 db level was the level measured in conjunction with the well and the level of the well itself was under that. Mr. Brown said based on earlier measurements during the winter when the ambient noise level is lower, they project the level of the well is 50 db.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said she understood the winter measurement wasn’t done at the property line but projected from a model and Mr. Brown said that was correct. She noted that she gave more credence to the actual reality of being at the property line than she did to models. Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said they only measured one well operating and didn’t have real measurements from the property line of what it might be for two wells operating simultaneously. Mr. Brown said if they considered as a worse case scenario that the pumps were operating perfectly in unison, it would add 3 db to the overall level. Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said then in the case of at least one, it would be over the top, and Mr. Brown said that was assuming that the 54 db was the actual level of the pump and it was not. He said that was pump and background noise; if they used the projected level of 50 and added 3 db to that, it was still below the level of the night time limit.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said with regard to the information in his September 5th letter, Mr. Horn indicated that he wanted to address some of the other issues. He said to address concerns raised in the Planning Commission meeting, they installed odor detection devices on all four compass points. He said those devices would shut down the pumping unit system and call the lease operator to the site. If there was no answer by the lease operator within a certain period, then it went up the ladder until it obtained someone who responded. Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo asked if he was willing to put the response plan in documentation form and have it at the City and also with the adjacent residents? Mr. Horn responded yes.

Member Bononi asked the city attorney with regard to the facts not related to across the board decisions and recommending a denial, would such a specific fact relate to the initial request for this well committing to having one well and one well only? Mr. Fisher said in other words, if the applicant had committed at one point to having only one well, was that a basis for denying this well? Member Bononi responded yes. Mr. Fisher said he supposed it could be one of the factors taken into consideration, but he didn’t think it could be the moving factor for a decision. He said if you had a number of things in the record that demonstrated a significant problem or the existence of a problem if you were on the edge of things, that might be able to be utilized to tip it one way or the other. He said they needed to rely on the criteria in the ordinance for the purpose of determining whether they should approve or deny.

Member Bononi said she understood that, but to her, that was a direct relation to compatibility of use in a single-family zone. Secondarily, she said in the event which happened the last time they were here that she asked the specific question of did he intend to drill yet another well and the question was substantially that the applicant did not believe that was going to be the case. She said to add that on to her first question and was it a basis for denial?

Mr. Fisher said they were essentially saying they were not making a commitment, and he thought then the next proposal, should one ever arrive, would have to rise and fall on its own merits. Member Bononi said the first application was for only one well and that was stated on the record. Mr. Fisher said he thought the moving factors had to be the criteria in the ordinance and the consideration of a representation made at an earlier hearing would be some evidence if it were a close question. He said that really relates to credibility more than performance standards that need to be taken into consideration under the ordinance. Member Bononi said, to her, it had a lot more to do than just credibility because it had to do with increasing an existing nonconforming use so she thought they were going to agree to disagree on that one. She said she also wanted to make it clear that was the reason she removed the minutes from the consent agenda because none of that information was included here and she felt that if it wasn’t, they would need it at some point.

Member Bononi asked what if anything Comerica had to do with this? Gary Gottschalk, Vice President of Somoco, said it was named after Comerica Bank because Comerica managed the trust at the time. Member Bononi asked if Comerica had any interest in this well at this time? Mr. Gottschalk said he didn’t know if they still operated the trust or not. He said Comerica Bank had no ownership in the mineral rights. Member Bononi asked Mr. Helwig if the City was a depositor with Comerica Bank, and he said he didn’t believe so but he would want to verify that with the Finance Department. Member Bononi asked Mr. Fisher if the City were, would there be any kind of situation they should be aware of with regard to this decision? Mr. Fisher said in terms of conflict of interest, Comerica wouldn’t be an interested party in the well, just a holder of funds so he didn’t see a conflict as long as Comerica wasn’t the applicant. Member Bononi asked if it mattered to the City if it was a depositor, and Mr. Fisher said he didn’t think so. He said unless there was something he was missing, he didn’t see that as a basis for a conflict of interest.

Member Csordas said what we had was an operator of a well for over nine years with no incidents. He said as he understood it, this new drill site would allow them to remove raw materials far quicker than with the current equipment. Mr. Gottschalk said it could last 40 or 50 years with a single well versus 25 years. Member Csordas said, thirdly, there has been zero opposition from the neighbors. Member Csordas said there was always the potential for legal action but for the trust of the citizens we have to insure that we take proper risk management and we have done that all along. He said he was very concerned about the numbers in front of them and we have another issue out there we have to clean up and we cannot even consider presenting the opportunity for additional legal action.

CM-01-09-244 Moved by Csordas, seconded by DeRoche, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Drilling Permit for Comerica Well 2-29, SP00-58, located in Section 29, on the south side of Ten

Mile Road, east of Wixom Road.


Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said she would like to make a formal amendment.

CM-01-09-245 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Bononi, MOTION FAILED. To amend the motion to add the following conditions: That the drilling of the well and any related construction activities be limited to normal construction hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday with no drilling on Sunday; that the applicant will install the hospital mufflers as indicated on the diesel generators and on any other equipment it is possible to be muffled; that the well and pump equipment will be utilized, operated, and maintained in a manner that will minimize any noise to the maximum extent possible; that the building shall be insulated to further reduce sound; that the proposed second well shall not operate concurrently with the existing well; that the Council in granting this approval has relied expressly upon the information and representations provided by the applicant and his consultants; that if any violation of these representations or information occurs the City will take the appropriate action to insure compliance with all of the City and other applicable ordinances and these approvals.


Member Csordas said he could not accept the amendment

Mr. Fisher said he wanted to raise a point of order and make sure there was a

consensus of all council members that there wasn’t already a motion on the floor that carried over from the last meeting. He said there was a motion on the floor when a motion to postpone was made and as long as there was a consensus of council that that motion doesn’t carry over, then we have a clear record. He said the motion from last meeting was a motion to deny.

Mayor Clark asked if there was a consensus of Council tonight that the only motion and/or amendment thereto is the motion that was made this evening and the proposed amendment. Council agreed.

Roll call vote CM-01-09-245 Yeas: Bononi, Clark, Lorenzo

Nays: Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Cassis

Member Kramer said maybe there could be a less extensive amendment. Member Bononi suggested asking the applicant whether or not they would agree to do these things and thereby clear the question.

Mayor Clark noted that they have already agreed to the muffler issue.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo asked if he was willing to limit the drilling to construction hours? Mr. Baker said all the same equipment would be required to run 24 hours a day whether they were drilling or not. The actual noise of turning the bit occurs at depth; the noise primarily generating when drilling a well is the noise from the generator and the mud pumps and that was the noise issue he was offering to address. He said they believe they can get in and out in a much quicker period of time with much less disturbance if they were allowed to drill 24 hours a day. He said the last well was drilled there in eight days. He said they schedule their truck traffic so it didn’t coincide with school bus traffic; they actually brought a lot of trucks and equipment in at night and didn’t have a single complaint. Mr. Baker said they were proposing to do the very same thing they did before.

Mayor Clark said he previously indicated that if they didn’t do the drilling portion of this site 24 hours a day, rather than eight days it might take a month, and Mr. Baker said that was correct.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo said the applicant had already concluded that they should not operate concurrent with the existing well. Mr. Baker said the well only required being pumped about fifteen minutes an hour; it flows at a lesser volume, the pumping unit just assists that flow. A good share of the time it "flumps" producing a little bit of fluid even when the pumping unit is not running. The electric motor does not usually add more sound at the road. They are willing to, once the other well is in place, consent to a noise study and demonstrate that very issue. If there is a problem they will remediate that.

Members Bononi, Lorenzo, Kramer, and Mayor Clark agreed this was fair.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo stated according to the petitioner, the current well building is insulated. The others would be issues previously discussed, installation of odor detection devices and the plan if there were odors detected. Mr. Baker stated they currently have a plan in effect with the Fire Department. Mayor Pre-Tem requested a copy be submitted to the City Manager and adjacent residents. She further indicated for the record they are relying on the information and representations made by the applicant.

Mayor Clark stated the representations given by the applicant of what they are willing to do could be incorporated into the motion. Is the maker of the motion amenable to that?

Member Csordas mentioned the problems he had where he knew that the operation had to be 24 hours and complete the work more quickly. He again asked the petitioner if he was comfortable with all of this? They replied they were. Member Csordas said he would accept this.

Member DeRoche believes Councils’ rules call for the maker of the motion to speak first and the seconder to speak second. Sometimes this offers value in structuring the debate in getting it through. In the past this has worked. He feels the applicant came forward in a way that is appropriate and well thought out. They covered a lot of bases understanding the uphill fight they would be facing. He appreciated the levels of information and answers the applicant provided Council. One point he wished to make was this was an issue where you may not necessarily want the use on the land proposed, but underlying it’s the property owner’s rights that were at stake. The owner has done their research with our Ordinances and State statutes and come forward asking for consideration of their request based on what it is a property owner is allowed to do with their land. He explained his involvement in the Miller Brothers case when he chaired the Michigan Republican Conservative Conference. He also felt Council and the City attorney has done a very responsible job in coming to this determination. He wanted his comment on the record that he does not want to see a well in the City but he can respect the property owners’ rights.

Member Kramer stated he would be supporting the motion because the existing well’s operation is well documented over the last nine years.

Roll Call Vote for CM01-09-244 Yeas: Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer,

Clark, Lorenzo, Bononi

Council recessed at 10:06 p.m.

Council reconvened at 10:28 p.m.

3. Approval of Request from Singh Development for Final Plat approval of a 208 lot subdivision located on 80 acres at Ten Mile and Novi Road Churchill Crossings SP 00-14. The proposed project is in a Single – Family Residential District (R-4).

Mayor Clark reminded Council this item has been moved to Item #3.

CM-01-09-246 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by DeRoche, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: to approve a request from Singh Development for Final Plat approval of a 208 lot subdivision on 80 acres at Ten Mile and Novi Road, Churchill Crossings SP 00-14. Single Family Residential District R-4


Mayor Pre-Tem Lorenzo stated they would follow Member DeRoche’s recommendations and the maker of the motion speaks first. She asked if she understood correctly that a traffic signal was a condition of Final Preliminary Plat Approval, the minutes do not express this condition. She stated the minutes indicated the petitioner was voluntarily doing this and it was not a requirement of the City. She commended Singh Development and Mr. Kahm for living up to the commitment, and diligently pursuing it throughout Oakland County Road Commission.

Mayor Clark expressed his hope the light would be installed very, very soon.

Mr. Kahm responded they were just waiting for the approval, in writing, from Road Commission for Oakland County.


Roll Call Vote for CM 01-09-246 Yeas: Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Clark, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis

Nays: None



4. Policy discussion of South Lake Drive Task Force Recommendations

Mr. Helwig stated that he was asked to be a facilitator of this Task Force. He last reported to them July 16, 2001 with the findings and recommendations of the Task Force. At the last Council Meeting they adopted a resolution to solicit design-engineering proposals for the reconstruction of South Lake Drive with new roadway and improvements for pedestrian safety.

Mayor Clark noted that in essence, we need the recommendation from the engineering study before we can address items numbered 3, 4 and 5. Mr. Helwig responded it would deal with traffic calming, how to separate a walkway for pedestrian traffic, and the marking of pedestrian crosswalks. Mayor Clark asked if this request was to change the timing at West Park and 12 mile road and then pursue the standardization of the speed limit to 40mph from West Road north to the City limits. Mr. Helwig answered in the affirmative, he continued, item 6 – regarding enforcement and item 7 were the issues before Council for their directive. He wanted to underscore the following point for the residents; this work is not about closing the street. He reported that first it would be very difficult to do even if they wanted to. But since Council’s policy resolution states that the road remains open, he wanted to repeat that for the public. Mayor Clark noted that items 1, 2 and 7 were the issues to be addressed.

CM 01-09-247 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Bononi: MOTION CARRIED: to adopt recommendations 1. Adjust the light timing at West Park Drive and 12 Mile Road, 2. Standardize the speed limit on West Park Drive to 40 m.p.h. and 7, Maintain the minimum timing for West Park Drive and adjust 13 Mile Road and to continue enforcement.


Member Kramer agreed with items 1 and 2 but some adjustments might be needed with the 12 Mile and West Park Drive, as often as monthly, depending on the traffic situation as well as the situation on West Park Drive and South Lake Drive. There was a consensus of the Council to review items 1, 2 and 7 periodically.

Member Cassis asked for clarification of the motion from Member DeRoche. Member DeRoche stated that while he lives on Ludlow and has been very concerned with residents around the lake and those with property on both sides of the lake, S. Lake Dr. wasn’t intended to be a thoroughfare. The original road was a lake drive for cottages, a dirt road. The outlet most cars use at this time is South Lake Drive to West Park Drive/Twelve Mile Road. He felt the recommendations are responsible in that they continue to keep traffic off South Lake Drive. Referred to items: 1, provides an incentive for using West Park Drive as opposed to a residential cut-through, 2, is a standardized speed limit on West Park Drive, most people driving it, drive its entirety and 7, maintaining the minimum timing for West Park Drive and adjust 13 Mile Road. He felt that it would decrease the convenience of using South Lake Drive as an alternative in getting through the area.

Member Cassis asked where the recommendations were going and were they policy decisions? City Manager Helwig replied the motion related to items 1, 2 and 7 and re-affirms #6. Those would be final decisions made this evening and implemented, with the option of revisiting any time they wish. Items 3, 4 and 5 were embodied in what the engineering firm would take into consideration while working closely with the community and city administration. Member Cassis stated engineers would be directed to design the project in the safest way and asked if the engineers come back to tell us it will not work, would we rescind what has been voted on? City Manager Helwig replied that Traffic Engineer Rod Arroyo has been very active in working with the residents on the traffic considerations. He has been very involved in the making of the recommendations before Council. The resolution adopted by Council two weeks ago was very important since traffic hasn’t paid much attention to pedestrians. Since then, there has been a trend toward traffic calming ideas in neighborhood settings while still moving traffic. We are specifically asking for engineer’s expertise on Items 3,4,and 5, and to review these possibilities.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo read through all materials and concluded there’s a delicate balance with this issue. She fully empathizes with the residents on South Lake Drive. The excessive speed can adversely affect their quality of life. She also knows that for every action there is a reaction. Specifically referring to the accidents at the traffic light, she noted that information provided to them indicated there were 7 caused by hitting the car in front of them. That suggests there wasn’t enough time to get through the light. Also she asked if there has been an appreciable difference in deterring the traffic through South Lake Drive? She felt it necessary to question the timing of the light and found it difficult to maintain the timing of the light. Asked if the light at West Park and South Lake Drive could be adjusted, the through traffic, for more "green" time?

Mr. Rod Arroyo stated new traffic count data was collected that showed it could be beneficial to increase the green time for through traffic.

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo addressed the speed limit on West Park Drive being increased since in the past it has been shown that with the increase comes more speeding. Mr. Arroyo stated that with the increase to 40 mph it makes it more attractive to use that road. Member Lorenzo stated that if the speed is increased, she wants enforcement

Member Lorenzo had a request for item #5, she would like to request an opinion from City Attorney and insurance carrier – risk management, encouraging and condoning a walkway in those areas. Could there be difficulty if injuries occur? She cannot support the motion as it stands with the inclusion of #7. Specifically because of more accidents and drivers violating the left turn signal, she does not feel there is any benefit.

Member Cassis felt he must vote against this as he wasn’t an engineer. Suggested to have the design come first and then comment on it once that is received. He agrees that safety is an important issue. The process was not the correct approach.

Mayor Clark commented that the same number of accidents happened for two years and the timing of the light cannot affect some of those particular types of accidents. He noted it was quite clear this was an attempt to address a problem that had been ignored for too long. A resolution was adopted for the engineers to design something and Council will have the final say at the end and should now put some mechanism in place to address these items on a regular, on-going basis. Mayor Clark felt it was necessary to start somewhere and this was a step in the right direction to move this forward. Once the intersection was complete at Beck Road, the change would relieve traffic.

Member Bononi felt the most instrumental part of the document was to solicit design engineering for the reconstruction. She does not know any other way to solicit for design engineering than to have some basic, limiting concepts in order to present a description or what we want done. She asked if this was about an RFP? Mr. Helwig replied yes. Member Bononi further stated from the standpoint of short of being able to list all of the criteria we want included in this plan, which perhaps we could if were talking of designing a street on a straight-of-way, with no limiting factors or limiting zones, this is a unique situation. The fact that we can start at this point with these points she has no problem supporting, and move forward with the other points needing to be addressed as they fine tune this. There was one limitation in an RFP that she would have as stormwater retention wasn’t addressed. It is conspicuous by its absence even at this preliminary stage. From the standpoint of being able to move forward, there was not anything wrong with doing this, other wise how will you move forward? There are too many things the City wants the citizens to be included in here as we move along. She would support the motion.

Roll Call Vote for CM 01-09-247 Yeas: DeRoche, Kramer, Clark, Bononi, Csordas

Nays: Lorenzo, Cassis


5. Approval of Final Preliminary Plat for North Haven Woods Subdivision, SP 00-43, located in Section 3, southeast of West Road and south of Pontiac Trail.


CM 01-09-248 Moved by Lorenzo seconded by Bononi: MOTION CARRIED: To approve the Final Preliminary Plat for North Haven Woods Subdivision, SP00-43, located in Section 3, southeast of West Road and south of Pontiac Trail subject to comments in the review letters.

Roll Call Vote CM 01-09-248 Yeas: Kramer, Clark, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas

Nays: DeRoche

6. Request from Novi Mid-eastern Cuisine, L.L.C. to transfer ownership of 2000 Class C licensed business, in escrow, located at 42875 Grand River, Unit 1, Novi MI 48375, Oakland County from VIC-EAT, INC.; and request new Dance Permit.

CM 01-09-249 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by DeRoche CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the request from Novi Mid-eastern Cuisine, L.L.C. to transfer ownership of 2000 Class C licensed business, in escrow, located at 42875 Grand River, Unite 1, Novi MI 48375, Oakland County from VIC-EAT, Inc.; and request new Dance Permit.

Roll Call Vote CM-01-09-249 Yeas: Clark, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer

Nays: None


6. Approval of Residential Unit Development Agreement for Maybury Estates Condominium project, SP 00-53, located on the north side of Eight Mile between Beck and Garfield Roads.

Mayor Clark reviewed the retention/detention system questions posed at the last meeting. Council requested additional information about a 10-year onsite detention system, which would be built by the developer. The 100-year regional detention basin would require more land, financial expenditures and future maintenance from the City of Novi. This site was not in the original storm-water master plan. JCK reported the cost or the 10-year on-site detention system would be $107,800 and the 100-year retention basin $ 342,800 for Wayne County Design Standards and $298,900 using Oakland County Design Standards.

CM 01-09 Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Bononi: To approve the RUD agreement for Maybury Estates Condominium Project SP 00-53, Located on the north side of Eight Mile, between Beck Road and Garfield Road with Ten Year onsite retention system, being the responsibility of the applicant. Requiring minimum impact to wetland A.


Member Csordas asked if the approval required five votes? Mayor Clark stated Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo’s motion did not require it as the financial obligation was the developers responsibility. Attorney Fisher replied that was correct. He further explained a Master Plan fund has been set up with monies available, he did not know if the establishment of the fund represents the monies available or considered allocated for this type of thing. If the money were allocated it would not require five votes.

Member Kramer asked if the City was being short-sighted on this issue. He asked Mr. Nowicki if there were funds available to construct the detention basin in the Storm water Fund, either now or the near future? Mr. Nowicki responded there were not funds in there currently. Money flows into the funds each year; there would be sufficient funds available but it is a matter of priorities and other projects the City may undertake. Member Kramer asked if it was prudent to by pass this opportunity to get the 100-year basin built. If it were not built here, would it have to be built elsewhere? Mr. Nowicki replied that as it is planned this is the most logical location for a storm water basin that would handle the entire sump district. Member Kramer asked what the status of the basin land is if we bypass the 100-year design? Mr. Nowicki answered the land and the developments upstream would have to accommodate their own flows. Member Kramer stated we have the opportunity but no funds to execute the 100-year storm basin so do we still need the 100-year basin and if so, where does it go? He thought the purpose of the delay was to come up with that decision. Mr. Nowicki replied he would need an engineering evaluation to answer his questions. Member Kramer asked for advisement. Mr. David Bluhm, from JCK, had been asked if we chose not to do the 100-year basin, what are alternatives? The 10-year site basins flow up stream and would not function the same as 100-year basin. The engineers have the developers look at the overland flow routes for 100-year storms so that it doesn’t pose a threat to downstream residents. Member Kramer asked if either approach satisfies the City’s requirements for storm water management/Master Plan function? If we don’t undertake it and the plat is approved as existing, can we go back and put in 100-year basin? Mr. Bluhm stated only if easements were provided and to keep in mind delaying it impacts residents such as aesthetics. Yes, it is a viable alternative to do it at a later date.

Member Kramer asked the applicant if the proposed layout was such that should we not go for the 100-year basin option knowing that negotiations in the future can be achieved 6 years down the road? The applicant responded the 100-year basin lies entirely within an open space area that is currently a wooded wetland and would be problematic in the future after upscale homes are constructed along that area. As the developer it doesn’t matter to them to build the 100- year or 10-year basin and they want to do the right thing to cooperate with the master plan. A signed disclosure does not always matter, as soon as you change the character of the surrounding area the people do not care what they signed.

Member Kramer stated we don’t have the funds to do this now so how could we work together cooperatively?

The applicant responded no payments would be made until it would be budgeted in the next fiscal year. Member Kramer said so the answer is no. The applicant replied correct.

Member Kramer stated we would need to determine the rate the Council could get funds and unlikely to commit to build it next year, but it seems to make sense to build the basin. Is there some means that we can work together so the city would not have to meet the payments until the next fiscal year? The applicant did not think so as it is a lot of money. Member Kramer also asked about cooperative solution? Mayor Clark interjected the answer remains the same.

Member Kramer understood there are problems both ways but felt they both understood what the correct solution was. The applicant stated there were pluses and minuses with short/long term gains.


Member Kramer stated he felt it was a lose/lose situation in not achieving the master plan 100-year basin and if we do the basin later we’ll have problems with residents later and not having the funds is probably a heavier consideration at this time. Due to not having the money, we will end up with a second rate design.

Mayor Clark stated this particular site was never designated for the site of a 100-year basin and does not preclude that one would not be done down the road at another site. As difficult as it is, the prudent thing to do is adopt the motion and allow the petitioner to proceed with the development and the 10-year detention basin.

Member DeRoche asked if they were arguing for the 100-year basin according to the Master Plan? Mr. Capello responded that is correct, they intended to build the 10-year basin. The developer agrees that it makes more sense to build the 100-year basin but either way is fine with them. Member DeRoche stated the only concern is if the Council goes back and deems this site for a 100-year basin, is there any risk to the developer or City that Council would pick out this spot in the future for the basin? Mr. Fisher noted the standards in the ordinance specify that down stream capacity has to be considered in designing the system while it’s a ten-year basin per se, the developer still has to consider downstream and the capacity. If we were able to obtain easements without paying for them at the present time, it would be prudent to add in the motion. Member DeRoche asked if the easements would be given?

Mr. Capello stated it’s the liability and given that they would not like to do that since residents will have the concern for something different being there. Member DeRoche quoted page 9 of the 10-year plan, item 14 – Storm water management Continuation – second paragraph; his concern in his review of this section seems to be committing the City to a relationship with Northville Township in which we are committing the developer to have to correspond with the neighboring body?

Mr. Capello stated he is reading that the document requires them to comply with Oakland County/City of Novi standards. They have contacted Northville Township and there is no such thing as a certification from them. He believes the last section should be removed from the section before the motion is passed.

Member DeRoche is concerned with the City of Novi, Oakland County, Wayne County, Northville Township and State of Michigan issues, he does not want to commit our developments to responsibilities to other governing bodies.

CM 01-09-250 Moved by DeRoche, seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the RUD agreement for Maybury Estates Condominium Project SP 00-53, Located on the north side of Eight Mile, between Beck Road and Garfield Road with Ten Year onsite retention system, being the responsibility of the applicant. Requiring minimum impact to wetland A.

Also to strike the language on page 9 of the RUD agreement. He requested it to read "As determined and approved by the City of Novi in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan, and the County of Oakland"

Mayor Clark stated that we must work with neighboring communities and follow the same state laws with discharge requirements mandated. Whether or not there is certification is invalid as Mr. Fisher stated the point is to put Northville on notice and they acknowledge they have been put on notice and are aware of the situation, to give them an opportunity to object. If they do not object at this time, it is more difficult for them to make any adverse claims in the future.

"As determined and approved by the City of Novi in accordance with the laws of the State of Michigan, and the County of Oakland" is all Member DeRoche wants in the agreement and not relying on Northville and he does not want their name in a document that will get us in a situation with Northville.

Mr. Fisher does not see what the problem is by giving them notice. Member DeRoche asked if it is Wayne County law or Northville Township Ordinances that mandates we give them notice? Mr. Fisher stated it is going above and beyond the law in giving them notice in advance to make sure they do not come back later with a claim.

Mr. Fisher stated an alternative would be to put a period after the word discharge, two lines from the bottom, we would still give them notice. Member DeRoche and Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo agreed, placing a period after the word discharge; second line in the paragraph and taking off the last two lines.

Member Cassis stated he had a list of the drain revenue fund from 1999/2000 that shows a balance of $2,250,000, he asked if we have expended the entire amount? Mr. Nowicki replied they have not expended the entire sum at this time. Member Cassis asked what is the $1.8 million for construction? Mr. Nowicki replied he would have to look at the details in the exact budget. He noted a certain dollar amount has been committed to certain projects including, City Administration, the DPW that maintains the drains, Meadowbrook and Village Oak Lakes dredging, storm water permit fund, educational programs and a number of other projects. The perpetual maintenance fund, the $2.25 million is from a millage. Member Cassis asked where the money, collected in previous years from the developers, has gone? Mr. Nowicki replied it is put in a perpetual maintenance fund, which is set to accumulate, to a point where the millage can be removed from the books. The interest on those dollars will be enough to support a maintenance operation.

Member Bononi asked about the next to the last page of the RUD document. The concern is the ability of the applicant to get the sanitary and the water situation lined up with regard to timing. Member Bononi asked if they were talking about not being held to be responsible for any kind of action no matter what the circumstances would be with regard to any of these items, particularly a potential SAD for the sanitary sewer system?

Mr. Fisher said basically this provision meant if the City had a right they could enforce and for some reason neglected to do that, that did not prevent the City from enforcing those rights in the future.

Member Bononi said she was also looking for any extenuating circumstance that would cause any delay on the City’s part; she asked if that would also be covered under that paragraph and the city attorney said it would. She said so the City had no risk exposure in that regard in the event that plans to achieve either water service or sanitary sewer service go awry on the part of the applicant.

Mr. Fisher said in the event, for example, the developer put in a temporary sanitary system and the City was attempting to construct the permanent system and there is an extensive delay, this provision did not cover that. He said the City was not bound and obligated to do the final system within a specific time frame. Member Bononi said if there was a specific section that referred to not being liable for that, she missed it. Mr. Fisher said there wasn’t an exclusion of liability; what he was looking for was any particular timetable for creating an obligation to do it. Member Bononi said there was language on page 10 that referred to best efforts to acquire outstanding easements that did not have a connotation as to time and that was the reason for her question. Mr. Fisher said that language applied to the developer.

Mr. Fisher said he thought it would be implicit in this agreement for the City to act in good faith to pursue the appropriate means of finance including the establishment of a special assessment district to construct the permanent facility. He said he did not believe there was an obligation to do it within a specified period of time, but it would be something the City should do with some due deliberation. Member Bononi asked if he was satisfied that this language protected the City’s interest in that regard, and Mr. Fisher said yes.

Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo spoke in regards to the contract, would he remove all of the 100-year language? Mr. Fisher said it had been removed. She said she wanted to make the point in terms of priorities and spending for next year and beyond out of the drain fund, we have committed to start saving money for the dredging of Meadowbrook Lake and Village Oaks Lake from both a water quality standpoint and obviously a functional standpoint. She said those were the priorities and it would take a number of years to accumulate the dollars to accomplish those two tasks so she didn’t see that they would have expendable income in the foreseeable future for other things.

Mr. Fisher asked if the maker and seconder were agreeable to striking the language on page 9 of the RUD agreement? They said they were as long as he was satisfied that the City was protected and Mr. Fisher stated he was.

Roll call vote on CM 01-09-250 Yeas: Kramer, Clark, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche

Nays: None.

Mr. Capello said apparently Council decided they didn’t want a regional basin on this property. He said Mr. Guidobono would be before them shortly and then Our Lady of Victory and the Northville School property that this basin would have served. He asked if there was any sense in them paying that regional basin maintenance fee if the City was not going to create the basin?

Mayor Clark said that was a separate question to be addressed to Mr. Fisher and he would get back to them with an answer.


7. Approval of a one year Final Preliminary Plat extension - Wilshire Abbey subdivision SP 97-48.This subdivision project is located on 33.256 acres in Section 29 on Beck Road between Nine and Ten Mile Roads.

CM 01-09-251 Moved by Lorenzo seconded by Kramer CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve a one-year Final Preliminary Plat extension – Wilshire Abbey Subdivision SP 97-48.


Roll Call Vote for CM 01-09-251 Yeas: Clark, Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer

Nays: None

8. Approve conceptual design for Grand River Avenue Improvements – Beck Road to the CSX Railroad.

Mayor Clark pointed out the information provided for them in their packet. There was a letter from Mr. Fisher and memorandum from Mr. Helwig pointing out the improvements

on Grand River Avenue, presently being undertaken, between Wixom Road and Beck Road. By continuing this process the City will save a substantial sum of money.

Member Kramer stated he felt neither Grand River Avenue nor this proposal provides for any non-motorized pathway. Mr. Helwig stated non-motorized pathways are provided for the section from Beck to the CSX railroad overpass. The portion the road commission is doing, west of Beck to Wixom, does not. Member Kramer asked if the non-motorized pathway fit within the 100 foot right-of-way design? Mr. Nowicki replied it fits, it is part of the project. Member Kramer asked if there is enough room for a non-motorized path to be added in the future? Mr. Nowicki answered it could be added through development.


CM 01-09-252 Moved by Kramer, seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the conceptual design for Grand River Avenue Improvements – Beck Road to the CSX Railroad.

Roll Call Vote for CM 01-09-252 Yeas: Lorenzo, Bononi, Cassis, Csordas. DeRoche, Kramer, Clark

Nays: None


Item A-1 was removed - August 27, 2001 Council Meeting Minutes.

Member Bononi asked that page 6, under Consent Agenda approval removals, the third paragraph, and second sentence. She did not remove item H, she believes Mayor Pro-Tem Lorenzo did. Member Bononi continued with page 11, she referred to it earlier, regarding the Comerica Well. She would like it inserted that she asked the question about the first well being committed as the only well and also she asked repeated questions about whether or not additional wells were going to be drilled. She believes it is very important to the substance of the minutes and would like to have it included. She also asked if the minutes with these corrections need to be brought back for final approval or can Council move to approve?

Mayor Clark believed the minutes would have to be amended and brought back for approval.

Member Bononi asked to have the minutes amended and brought back.

CM 01-09-253 Moved by Bononi, seconded by Lorenzo, CARRIED UNANISMOUSLY: That the corrections to the August 27, 2001 Council Minutes be brought back for Council action at the next meeting.

Roll Call Vote for CM 01-09-253 Yeas: Bononi, Cassis, Csordas, DeRoche, Kramer, Clark, Lorenzo

Nays: None



1. CVS Operations Violations

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked if CVS has responded to the violation notice issued by the City Attorneys with regard to possible hours of operation beyond what had been originally approved and a police report indicating the fans are remaining on. She asked if there had been any response from CVS? Mr. Fisher stated they would seek injunctive relief, the minutes clearly indicated hours of operation. CVS may be relying on the motion made did not include that as an express condition.


2. Tornado Sirens

Mayor Pro Tem Lorenzo asked how many sirens would we get? Mr. Nowicki stated we would receive three. Two of the sirens will be replacement sirens. She feels at least one should go to the Police Department and should have the battery backup. The County is going out for bids and everything seems to be in order for the replacements.


Member Cassis asked the new Novi News reporter to please introduce herself to Council.

Victoria Sadlocha introduced herself as the new municipal reporter for Novi News. She has been with them for 2 ˝ weeks.




__________________________________ _______________________________

Richard J. Clark, Mayor Maryanne Cornelius, City Clerk



Transcribed by ______________________

Nancy Reutter


Susan E. Blumer


Date approved: September 24, 2001