Zoning Committee

CITY OF NORWALK ZONING COMMITTEE April 12, 2017 PRESENT: Louis Schulman, acting as Chair; Mike Witherspoon; Doug Stern; Galen Wells; Joe Passero; Richard Roina; Roderick Johnson STAFF: Steve Kleppin; Mike Wrinn; Frank Strauch OTHERS: Bob Bepko; Angelo DeFazio; Tim Sheehan; Atty. Bill Hennessey; Pete Romano Mr. Shulman called the meeting to order at 7:56 p.m. He appointed Mr. Stern as chair of the Committee as well as himself and Mr. Witherspoon. . I. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING ZONE REGULATIONS/SITE PLAN REVIEWS a) Discussion of medical marijuana dispensaries and information from Norwalk Hospital and other municipalities – Further review & discussion Mr. Kleppin handed out a brochure from Mr. DeFazio, the owner of a couple of dispensary facilities in the state. Bob Bepko, of Norwalk Hospital, introduced Angelo DeFazio, who continued the presentation by explaining how he has developed the state program since the beginning. He explained how it had to work for the city as well as the patients. He went over the definitions. He then went through his brochure for the commissioners. He noted that patients under 18 would be able to receive the medical marijuana who were suffering from certain diseases. He explained how patients would register for the product. He also explained the levels of gatekeeping that a dispensary must follow. He discussed the process of how the patient was certified. He showed how the facilities looked with pictures from his brochure. He also showed them different dosage forms which included capsules and concentrated oils. He said that the state of Connecticut produces the highest quality medical marijuana. He took questions from the commission. There was a discussion as to the access of dispensaries for patients. Mr. DeFazio said that he would apply for a dispensary if it was approved by the Zoning Commission. There was a discussion about how to approach this with the neighbors. Mr. DeFazio said that transparency between patients and physicians was important because patients would seek out medical marijuana. There was a discussion as to where the best area in Norwalk could be for a dispensary. Mr. DeFazio said a light commercial zone would work and close to the thruway or parkway. In some areas, the state might not approve the site plan. There was a discussion about parking at Mr. DeFazio’s 2 locations. There are consultations on initial visit as well as consultations for refills. There was a discussion about pricing for the medical marijuana and consultations. There was also a discussion about other states that have medical marijuana or recreational marijuana. b) #2-17R - Zoning Commission – Proposed amendments to extend the moratorium for one year on licensed medical marijuana producer or dispensary facility as permitted by the State of Connecticut – Final review prior to public hearing and discussion of uses Zoning Committee April 12, 2017 Page 1 of 3  Mr. Schulman said that he thought the commissioners should hear from the medical community including oncologists. There was also a discussion as to where the facilities could be placed around town. He asked the staff to research both avenues. They did not feel they were ready to act on the moratorium so they asked to extend it for a shorter period so that it would be a priority to the commission. Mr. Schulman asked to see the language from the other towns in the state that already have regulations. The commissioners decided to extend it for 3 more months. c) Draft amendments to the zoning regulations and changes to the zoning map associated with South Norwalk Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Redevelopment Plan – Further review Tim Sheehan handed out the latest South Norwalk Transit Oriented Development Redevelopment Plan and then discussed much of it. He also discussed his department’s recommendations. There were questions about the affordable housing regulations. Mr. Sheehan showed the commissioners on the map the proposed zoning districts. There was a discussion about parking in the area. More parking is needed for the affordable housing units. There was also a discussion about the density and building heights. There was a discussion about the Webster St. lot. d) #1-17R/#1-17SPR/#1-17CAM – Meadow Street Partners, LLC – 6 & 30 Meadow St – Proposed amendment to Industrial #1 zone to allow storage of empty solid waste containers and refuse collection receptacles associated with an approved solid waste transfer station as a contractor’s storage yard and site plan review/CAM for new contractor’s storage yard to store empty containers and refuse collection receptacles within 100 ft of an existing solid waste transfer station – Further review prior to public hearing on May 17 Mr. Strauch began the presentation by noting that the application was being processed and noted that the applicant’s project team was available for questions. Atty. Bill Hennessey continued the presentation with a brief history of the application. Mr. Romano discussed the site plan which he showed the commissioners. He explained the drainage and the quality of water. There was a discussion as to conditions about the drainage in the resolution. There was also a discussion about the buffer. Atty. Hennessey said that he had been on the site visit with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (“D.E.E.P.”). e) #9-16R – Zoning Commission – Proposed amendment to Section 118-1110 Coastal Zone regarding vegetated buffers from the Coastal Jurisdiction Line for properties in the Coastal Zone – Status update: Hearing continued Mr. Kleppin began the presentation that there were 2 towns that seemed to have a buffer but they were actually setback regulations. He also said there was an intern working on a study to help them make a recommendation. It was decided to withdraw the application. f) #10-16R - Zoning Commission – Proposed amendments to Articles 111 and 140 regarding fees for various applications and adoption of new fee schedule – Final review prior to public hearing Mr. Kleppin said there was nothing to add to this. Zoning Committee April 12, 2017 Page 2 of 3  Mr. Schulman said that he was happy with the brochure that they had received from the Redevelopment Agency but not happy with the fact they received it so close to the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diana Palmentiero Zoning Committee April 12, 2017 Page 3 of 3