Commission on the City Plan

COMMISSION ON THE CITY PLAN Tuesday, November 15, 2022, 7:00 PM Hybrid Meeting Lower Level Conference Room, 23 Union NORWICH, CT CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Frank Manfredi called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. ROLL CALL AND SEATING OF ALTERNATES: Present: Chairman Frank Manfredi, Vice Chairman Les King, Michael Lahan, Ella Myles, Kathy Warzecha and Michael Lahan Staff Present: Director of Planning and Neighborhood Services Deanna Rhodes and Don Poland, Consultant Planner with Goman+York. Rich Shuck, ZEO was present to provide technical assistance with Zoom. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 25, 2022 On a motion by Les King, seconded by Ella Myles, the CCP approved the minutes. Kathy Warzecha abstained. Michael Lahan arrived at the meeting (7:04 p.m.). Deanna Rhodes, Director of Planning and Neighborhood Services proceeded to read information pertaining to virtual meetings and clearly stated that the meeting, including video, was being recorded and reminded the public that there was not any public hearings on the agenda so no comments would be taken on agenda items. NEW BUSINESS: None COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Rhodes presented referrals sent by the towns of Bozrah and Lisbon. The Town of Bozrah notified the City separately about two proposals: a proposed text amendment relative to allowing Event Venues as a special exception, and a site plan application for proposed construction of a 25,600 sq. ft. manufacturing building at 40 Stockhouse Road. The Town of Lisbon notified Norwich of a signage application for property located at 689 River Road. The three municipal referrals were sent because the subject properties, and potential properties available for an event venue use, are within 500 feet of the shared municipal boundary. There was no action taken on these referrals. OLD BUSINESS: Referral from the Norwich City Council (Tabled from 10/25/2022) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF NORWICH Please click on the blue link below to view complete documents ORDINANCE CREATING BUSINESS MASTER PLAN DISTRICT 1  Complete Business Master Plan Documents An ordinance amending the zoning map of the city of Norwich. Accompanying the zoning ordinance of the City of Norwich by changing those tracks or parcels of land known as 527 Scotland Rd; 253 Lawler Lane; 207 Lawler Lane; Lawler Lane Rear; 432 Canterbury Turnpike; Bromley Lane; 180 Lawler Lane; 300 Canterbury Turnpike Rear; 431 Canterbury Turnpike 431; Canterbury Turnpike Rear 461; Canterbury Turnpike; 83 Taftville-Occum Road 97; Taftville- Occum Road 105; Taftville-Occum Road 111; Taftville-Occum Road 16; School Avenue; as as shown on a certain map entitled “Zoning Location Survey ” Zoning Map Amendment” Prepared for Norwich Community Development Corporation. Taftville-Occum Road. Canterbury Turnpike. Old Canterbury Turnpike. Lawler Lane & Interstate 95. Norwich, Connecticut. Boundaries, LLC. Date August 2022. Scale 1”-200’. Sheets 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. That the following map of the City of Norwich accompanying the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Norwich be and the same is hereby amended so that the tracts or parcels of land showing on the above stated map be changed from GC or PDD as the case may be to BMPD. Legal description is attached hereto. Purpose of Change: The purpose of establishing the Business Master Plan District, which is a floating zone, which is established by approval of a Master Plan, is to create a new business park on approximately 384 acres of land comprising an assemblage of 17 parcels of land. The 17 parcels are presently zoned either PDD or GC. The present business park serving the City has virtually no more space available to provide opportunities for new business. Creating a new business park will enable Norwich to attract business within the uses set forth in the BMPD, which will then generate employment opportunities, generate real estate and personal property taxes, and utility revenue for the expansion of electric and gas service to the business park. Consultant Planner with Goman+York, Donald Poland, PhD, AICP provided an overview of the application at the request of the Chairman, Frank Manfredi. Mr. Poland explained the BMPD map amendment proposal and noted some deficiencies relative to items missing from the Master Plan, which is an integral part of the zone change. A discussion then ensued. Chairman Frank Manfredi then stated for the record that he was a former member of the NCDC Board (the applicant) and stated that he spoke with the City Attorney about any potential concerns. He stated that he has no conflict of interest to act on the referral, as he has no personal interest and/or financial interest in the project. Attorney Block, NCDC’s attorney, spoke up and stated he had no concerns that Chairman Manfredi did not see a need to recuse himself. Michal Lahan concurred. Kathy Warzecha then spoke and requested additional time to review the proposal, as the CCP agenda was emailed late and she did not have the link to the information prior to receiving it. A discussion then ensued. Ms. Warzecha then suggested tabling the application to the next CCP 2 meeting and also asking the City Council to table the application, as well. More discussion ensued. Chairman Manfredi then addressed Attorney Mark Block requesting that he respond to questions of the Commission members and consultant. Attorney Block responded that the focus of the Master Plan was essentially the roadway. Additional discussion ensued including the City’s Planning Consultant, Donald Poland, questioning whether the roadway spitting the property creates a subdivision of the land. He also questioned whether any of the lots that which are part of the project were created from other subdivisions, which not potentially constitute a res- subdivision. More questions ensued about the common interest community aspect of the project relative to not creating a subdivision. After much back and forth regarding the items noted in Mr. Poland’s memo and items required of the master plan, Director of Planning, Deanna Rhodes, requested that she be allowed to speak only to clarify the specifics of the Zoning Regulation (ZR) Section 3.11. Ms. Rhodes stated that she did not review the specific proposal being considered, but would speak generally about the regulations. She explained that the ZR section 3.11 requires a conceptual Master Plan element to approve a Business Master Plan District, which is a unique from most other floating zones. The conceptual master plan must also include certain elements that are specifically referenced in the section. More discussion ensued about whether the regulations were ambiguous to the requirements of the Master Plan. Ms. Rhodes noted that a member of the public was in the Zoom chat room and sending messages. She addressed this issue by stating that the Commission would not read the comments of the public, as the agenda item is a referral to the Commission from the City Council only and not a public hearing. She shared that the opportunity to present testimony would be at the City Council’s December 5, 2022 public hearing on the BMP District proposal. There was then more back and forth discussion between the members of the Commission and the consultant and questions on the Commission’s oversight on the Master Plan. Kathy Warzecha then made a Motion to ask the Council to table the application until more information is provided to make a determination that the proposal complies or does not comply with the Zoning Regulations and Plan of Conservation and Development. Ella Myles seconded the motion. Kathy Warzecha and Ella Myles voted in favor of the motion. Frank Manfredi, Les King and Michael Lahan voted in opposition. The Motion failed 3 to 2. Planning Consultant, Donald Poland, then re-read parts of his memo aloud and noted that although the proposal meets the spirit of the regulations including the merits of the traffic study and economic impact analysis, specifics are still needed to be provided to meet the regulations and should not be put off and amended later, as suggested by the Attorney Block. The items 3 relate to establishing the height of buildings, minimum yards, perimeter buffers, parking areas that demonstrate compliance with industry standards, a spec to demonstrate compliant full cut- off light fixtures, signage for the business park, and possibly a comprehensive architectural design scheme. More discussion then ensued. Michael Lahan then made a motion to send a Favorable Recommendation to the City Council on that basis that the applicant has met the Regulations as existing in ZR Section 3.11, but strongly urges the City Council to review more carefully the Regulations of Section 3.11 to make more clear requirements of the Master Plan that are ambiguous such as signage, lighting, parking, etc. Les King seconded the motion. A discussion ensued and the motion was amended to include a reason: conformity with the Plan of Conservation and Development. Frank Manfredi, Les King and Michael Lahan voted in favor of the motion. Ella Myles and Kathy Warzecha voted in opposition. The Motion passed 3 to 2. BOND REDUCTION/RELEASE REQUESTS: None POCD UPDATE: Ms. Rhodes provided a brief overview of the last POCD meeting. STAFF REPORT: None ADJOURNMENT: On a motion by Michael Lahan, seconded by Les King, the CCP unanimously adjourned at 8:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deanna L. Rhodes 4