Commission on the City Plan

COMMISSION ON THE CITY PLAN Tuesday, December 19, 2023, 7:00 PM Hybrid Meeting / Public Hearing 100 Broadway - Room 33S Norwich City Hall - NORWICH, CT CALL TO ORDER: Acting Chairperson Kathy Warzecha called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. ROLL CALL AND SEATING OF ALTERNATES: Present: Ella Myles (Online), Deane Nason, Kathy Warzecha, James Quarto, and Jason Courter Absent: Frank Manfredi, Chairman Staff Present: Director of Planning and Neighborhood Services Deanna Rhodes and City Planner Dan Daniska Attorney Richard Roberts, legal counsel for the City of Norwich was also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 21, 2023 Meeting, December 12, 2023 Special Meeting (Site Walk) Jason Courter made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 21, 2023 Meeting. Deane Nason seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. Deane Nason made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 12, 2023 Special Meeting (Site Walk). Jason Courter seconded the motion. The minutes were unanimously approved. COMMUNICATIONS: The Commission received one statutorily required municipal referral. Deanna Rhodes reviewed the referral from the Town of Montville (Zoning Text Amendments for Child Care - PA No. 23-142). Commission Members had no comment. NEW BUSINESS: Official Receipt of New CCP Applications: Deanna Rhodes informed the committee that four new CCP applications have been tabled until the January 2024 meeting. OLD BUSINESS: a. Continued Public Hearing and Potential Action on the Following Application: SUB #437: 145 Taftville-Occum Road, 432 Canterbury Turnpike & 180 Lawler Lane. Request for a proposed twelve-lot subdivision with associated new road and dedicated open space. Property and application of Norwich Community Development Corporation. Assessor's Map 25 Block 1, Lot 1; Map 24 Block 1 Lot 1; and Map 23, Block 1, Lot 7. Zone: General Commercial District (GC) & Planned Development Design District (POD). (Received 10/17/2023} Acting Chairperson Kathy Warzecha continued the Public Hearing at 7:10 PM. She instructed the public to not be repetitive in their comments as those comments have already been entered into public record and new comments should be related to the proposed subdivision, not future development. Prior to opening the floor to public comment, Ms. Warzecha invited the applicant to address the Commission. Kevin Brown, President of Norwich Community Development Corporation (NCDC) was joined by Attorney Mark Block and Jeff Bord, P.E. with Bohler Engineering. The team began by responding to questions that resulted from the December 12, 2023 property site walk. Mr. Bord specifically addressed concerns regarding stormwater management and explained the pre- and post-design process required for each lot prior to any development taking place. He also stated that the State of Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) Stormwater Permit for the proposed access road is consistent with current guidelines and meets all State and City of Norwich requirements. He concluded by addressing the plan to obtain input and approval by the State of Connecticut Preservation Office for an easement regarding an off-site cemetery adjacent to lot #3. Attorney Block addressed the Commission on two matters of concern regarding the approval process: 1. The jurisdiction of the Commission on the City Plan (CCP); and 2. Waivers submitted for approval by the Commission. With regard to jurisdiction, Attorney Block read the City of Norwich Code of Ordinances #2 and the State of Connecticut General Statute 8-25 that explained the duties of the CCP with regard to approving any plan that conforms to the regulations and reviewed the specific powers that limit the CCP’s jurisdiction. These include: (1) prohibiting conditional approval; (2) approval of plans that meeting zoning requirements; (3) inability of regulate building heights and other site plan specific details that meeting zoning requirements; (4) application cannot be denied based on conditions of existing roads around project site or require applicant to repair existing roadways — CCP authority is limited to internal plan traffic and at entrance to site only. Attorney Block also addressed the incorrect assumption that the property was rezoned without public knowledge by stating that the City of Norwich had zoned the land Commercial/Industrial in 1974. Attorney Block proceeded by reading the following waivers and stated that NCDC has provided sufficient date to support these waivers. WAIVER 1 - Road Width The requirement of Section 19.27.2(1) requiring a road pavement width of 36' is waived, and Applicant shall construct roads of a width of 22', composed of two (2) eleven foot (11') single lanes, one in each direction. WAIVER 2 - Curbs and Gutters The requirement of Section 19.27.8 for curbs and gutters along the entire roadway is waived, and Applicant shall install an open system which reflects DEEP best practices which is endorsed by the Director of Public Works and City Engineer to provide sheet flow drainage in combination with the storm water drainage management system. WAIVER 3 - Sidewalks The requirement of Section 19.27.2.9 (2) for sidewalks on both sides of the roadway is waived, and Applicant shall install a single ten (10') foot wide sidewalk built of pervious concrete for pedestrian, hiking, biking and other recreational uses, of approximately 7,700 linear feet from Route 97 to Occum Way. WAIVER I - WAIVER OF ROAD WIDTH Waiver of road width: a. does not affect other land in the area as the roads in the area are pre-existing and there are no parcels of land which are subject to development on which roads are contemplated, and the waiver only pertains to the proposed road. b. the existing regulations for new roads permit waivers under Section 19-27.2 which allows for waiver upon report from the Director of Public Works and depending upon site conditions. The Director of Public Works in a memo dated November 20, 2023 has approved of this waiver stating that the proposed waiver is in keeping with current Low Impact Development design standards. c. this waiver will not impact other property since the proposed roadway in the subdivision only pertains to the subdivision property. WAIVER II - CURBS & GUTTERS a. waiver concerns drainage which will only affect the subject property and the designed storm water management system on the subject property. b. Section 19-27.2(8) requires curbs and gutters which have to do with street design and which allow for waiver, which Public Works, in its Memo dated November 20, 2023 says that the waiver is in keeping with current Low Impact Development design standards. WAIVER III - SIDEWALKS a. only impacts the subject property, no other property in the areas being as large as the proposed property cable of the scope of development of the subject property and which would have provision for a walking trail and bike path in lieu of sidewalks both sides of the street. The proposal by the applicant is unique to this property. b. the existing regulations for new roads and road improvements permit waivers under Section 19-27.2 which allows for waiver upon report from the Director of Public Works and depending upon site conditions. The Director of Public Works in a memo dated November 20, 2023 has approved of this waiver stating that a proposed Multi-use Trail is an acceptable alternative to the required sidewalks on both sides of the street, and provides the added benefit of the physical separation, using guide rails, of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the vehicular traffic. c. there is no impact on other property. The waiver for requirement of sidewalks on both sides of the street effect only the subject subdivision, there being no sidewalks connecting to any adjacent properties. Following the presentation, the Commission had several questions/concerns for the Applicant Team. Ms. Warzecha asked for clarification on the location of the Planned Development District and wanted to know what has been done to address the concern of extra traffic on Canterbury Turnpike as a result of the installation of the roundabout and Mr. Courter asked for the agreed upon road with and confirmation that the number of stories in each building is part of zoning. Ms. Warzecha also stated that she feels the size of open space on the plan is not extensive enough. Ms. Rhodes provided details on the regulatory requirement for open space. Ms. Warzecha also expressed concern about the buffer for building lot #5 and asked the applicant to consider adding a natural evergreen border on the Site with a berm and asked for cross walks at every driveway in the subdivision along the multi-use pathway. At this time, Attorney Block asked for a brief recess to allow the Applicant Team to discuss these concerns. Jason Courter motioned for recess the Public Hearing from 7:40 PM to 7:50 PM. Deane Nason seconded the motion. Unanimously approved. The Public Hearing resumed at 7:50 PM. Attorney Block, with input from Jeff Bord, provided the following responses to the concerns raised by the Commission: 1. The safety concern of traffic on Canterbury Turnpike is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission; they can only address safety within the subdivision. However, Mr. Bord provided details for the construction of the roundabout that are being designed to deter truck traffic on Canterbury Turnpike. He also confirmed that cross walks are already part of the plan. 2. They are willing to expand the buffer on Lot #5 from 50 feet to 100 feet by reducing the proposed square footage of the building, limit the building to one story and supplement the buffer with evergreen plantings and a berm. When asked by Ms. Warzecha about wetlands on that site, Mr. Bord stated that prior to actual site development an environmental study will be required. Attorney Block asked that these site plan changes are based on the condition of approval. After clarifications of the regulations by Ms. Rhodes, Mr. Brown confirmed they are in agreement and Ms. Rhodes will prepare the language for the site plan. 3. With regard to the size of open space, Attorney Block again stated that this is beyond the purview of the Commission’s authority. Ms. Warzecha asked with the Commission can require additional land that is not wetlands to which Mr. Block replied that the plan meets all open space requirements. Acting Chair Warzecha then asked for comments by the public. The following citizens had signed up to speak: 1. Charles Witt, 511 Canterbury Turnpike. Mr. Witt expressed his concern that the proposed roundabout will not address truck traffic driving on Canterbury Turnpike from Baltic Road. He also asked if there was an update on the timing of the modification of I-395 on and off ramps by the State of Connecticut. When asked by Ms. Warzecha to address these questions, Mr. Brown referred to Attorney Brown’s comments regarding the Commission’s authority over what is out of bounds, but provided his opinion that trucks typically use GPS to drive the best route, which will be the arterial road off I-395. 2. Sue Jacobson, 256 Lawler Lane. Ms. Jacobson expressed her biggest concern was the impact of runoff water on her basement, well and septic system. She also is concerned about traffic, and would love to see sidewalks installed. Mr. Bord responded that in regard to water runoff, the model has to match existing runoff patterns. 3. Robert Groner, 89 Lawler Lane. Mr. Groner raised concern about the lack of information with regard to the exit of the arterial road on Lawler Lane. He requested factual clarification on this issue. Mr. Brown responded by confirming that current plan shows cul-de-sacs at the end of each phase, with an emergency access only gate installed at Lawler Lane until such time that Lot #9 is developed. Mr. Groner asked if a final proposal, transparent to the public, will be available prior to voting by the Commission. Ms. Warzecha confirmed that a final proposal will be available that will show approved changes. 4. Mark Perkins, 81 Lawler Lane. Mr. Perkins reiterated his comments submitted a month ago. He is requesting more transparency on the changes from Business Park North to Business Park North 2.0. He expressed concern for wildlife, specifically Bald Eagles, and feels the traffic control drawings are incomplete due to lack of altitude consideration. He stated that documents lack any language on buffers and building heights and recommended the CCP does not approve the plan. He feels due to the scope of this project being more that a zoning application, more information should have been provided on the City’s website. Ms. Warzecha responded by reiterating the CCP mandates for approving the plan vs. the Zoning Board. 5. Reiner Beckmann, 210 Old Canterbury Turnpike. Mr. Beckmann expressed his concern the project will have on the ecosystem as well as the effect the roundabout’s proximity to his property will have on his quality of life. 6. Frederick Browning, 671 Scotland Road. Mr. Browning submitted into record a resume and report from Steven Trinkaus, P.E. of Trinkaus Engineering. (See attached). On behalf of Mr. Steve Browning, Mr. Trinkhaus was hired to review and comment on the plan and documents submitted by the Applicant. Mr. Browning also discussed his concern regarding the impact of heavy rains as a consequence of bad engineering. Mr. Trinkaus (online) reviewed his qualifications with regard to reviewing this information and provided his professional opinion on several issues and concerns he discovered upon his review of the project. 7. Harold French, 88 White Plains Road. Mr. French opposes the plan, and feels the land should remain open space instead of an industrial park. He expressed his concern about the overall process and responses by public officials, including traffic. He cited the past development of the Montville Commons project, and the negative impact it has on the surrounding neighborhood. Acting Chairperson Warzecha asked if there were any members of the public who didn’t sign up to speak but now wished to do so: 1. Marilyn Jester, 487 Canterbury Turnpike. Ms. Jester stated her concern about berms being built around an old cemetery on her property and also cautioned the Commission that making changes that help one property can negatively impact someone else. 2. Holly Watson, 507 Canterbury Turnpike. Ms. Watson stated that she and her father are in agreement that the roundabout location will be hard to see at night and the water runoff down the hill ices up in the winter. 3. Evie Piscatelli, 44 Wales Road. Ms. Picsatelli questioned the grading of the roundabout and asked for clarification with regards to the direction of groundwater runoff. Mr. Bord and Mr. Brown demonstrated the direction of water runoff using the site map. Ms. Warzecha again called for any questions or comments from the public. 1. Frederick Browning, 671 Scotland Road. Mr. Browning again referenced Mr. Trinkaus’ report which shows the negative environmental impact of the project and presented additional waivers to the Commission. Mr. Bord reviewed the locations of the temporary cul-de-sacs on the phasing plan to the audience, making these locations officially part of the plan. He also addressed the stormwater runoff issues addressed in Mr. Trinkaus’ report stating that roadway drainage will be addressed as each lot is developed and will be presented to the Commission at that time. The plan will be designed according to the Water Quality Manual and presented to the City Engineer for review. Attorney Block also confirmed that site development issues will be addressed on each lot as they are developed and that the plan in front of the Commission is only to show the site subdivision and new roadway. He stated that Mr. Trinkaus’ report should not be included into the record due to the late submission and much of the information is irrelevant to the regulations for approval by the CCP. When asked by Ms. Warzecha to comment, Ms. Rhodes explained that when presented by experts with the same qualifications, in this case P.E. licenses, the Commission must decide who has the more appropriate testimony. Attorney Roberts added the when offered competing opinions, the Commission must evaluate within the confines of their authority. Ms. Rhodes provided clarification on the timelines for the Public Hearing and decision by the Commission. The Public Hearing was opened on 11/21/23, and must be closed within 35 days (12/26/23), at which time the Commission will have 65 days to render a decision, unless the Applicant grants an extension of either the Public Hearing or the decision date. Ms. Rhodes asked Dan Daniska to show the Exhibit List on the screen so that it could be included in the recording, so as to not necessitate the reading of almost 60 exhibits. Ms. Rhodes added the new documents that had been received at the meeting tonight to the exhibit list, including the Intervener Requests. Attorney Roberts commented that the Intervener Requests are invalid and should not be considered. Ms. Rhodes also commented that 15 stipulations have been addressed at this point. Acting Chairperson Warzecha clarified that if the Applicant doesn’t grant an extension the Commission will be required to make a decision. She then asked the Applicant to grant an extension to the Public Hearing to allow the Commission to address the information submitted by Mr. Trinkaus. Before providing an answer, Mr. Brown asked for a date when the Public Hearing would continue and if the public would be allowed to speak. Ms. Warzecha confirmed the public would be allowed to speak at a Public Hearing date of 1/16/24, however the only matter for discussion would be responses to Mr. Trinkhaus’ report. After a brief discussion with the Applicant Team, Mr. Brown declined to extend the Public Hearing. Attorney Roberts and Ms. Rhodes then explained that once the Public Hearing is closed and due to its late submission the Commission must review Mr. Trinkaus’ report without input from the staff or City Engineer. Ms. Rhodes then read documented comments by the City Engineer on the plan.  Brian Long, City Engineer, has reviewed the responses to his previous comments and found them satisfactory with one exception. He would recommend a condition acknowledging that should the hydraulic sizing for the Bebo arches result in the need for arches larger than what are shown on the plans and area of wetland disturbance needs to increase then a permit revision would be required. Typically the hydraulic sizing would take place prior to the structural design. It is worth noting that the size of the arches appear to be adequate and they wouldn’t need to increase but the final calculations will determine that prior to construction. Ms. Warzecha asked the Applicant for clarification they will not change the open space plan as requested by the Commission to which the Applicant confirmed and reiterated the details of the open space shown in the plan. Mr. Quarto stated that after watching the video of the last Public Hearing he reviewed the regulations and understands the responsibility of the Commission. Ms. Warzecha then asked the Applicant to consider extending the Public Hearing to which the Applicant responded “No”. James Quarto made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Jason Courter seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. b. SDP #1049: 0 Myrtle Drive. Site Plan Review for land disturbance activities associated with preparation of commercial pad sites for future development. Application of Sammy P Inc. Property of Sammy Piotrkowski. Assessor's Map 41. Block 1, Lots 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.RD. Zone BP. (Received 10/17/2023) David McKay of Foundries LLP spoke to the Commission on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Piotrkowski. Mr. McKay state that as a follow up to the previous discussion on 11/7/23 the Inland Wetlands, Water Courses & Conserva on Commission granted approval for moving the driveway. Mr. McKay then requested a change to the days and hours of opera on from Monday-Friday 7 AM to 7 PM to Monday-Friday 7 AM - 7 PM and Saturday 8 AM to 12 PM. Mr. McKay stated that processing using mechanical equipment for rock crushing will take place Monday - Friday, while only earth work will take place on Saturdays. A er some discussion the Commission stated that Monday-Friday 7AM to 5 PM is appropriate for the type of work being undertaken during that me frame and had issue with adding the Saturday hours for earth work. Dan Daniska reviewed his memo and stated that all city concerns had been addressed, and asked that the reading of the condi ons of approval be waived as they are shown on the video and will be provided to the Recording Clerk. Deane Nason made a motion to approve SDP #1049: 0 Myrtle Drive with the following conditions: • That nal revised plans be submi ed and reviewed by City Sta . • That this approval will expire in 5 years unless an extension has been granted by the Commission. • That a note be added to the site development plan requiring an immediate stop of work and no ca on of the City Planning Department and State Archaeologist should any archeological resources or remains of any kind be uncovered during the development of the project. • That the City’s required signature block and le er of approval be placed on the nal revised plan set, and that all plan sheets include the stamped seal and signature of the licensed professional. • That 6 signed and embossed sealed paper copies and 2 mylars of the nal revised set of plans be submi ed to the Planning Department for endorsement by an o cer of the Commission. The mylars must include the red indelible ink cer ca on which includes the name of producer and process used. fi ti tt tt ft ti ti ti ti fi ti tt ff ffi fi fi ti fi ti  • That the endorsed mylar set shall be led on the Land Records by the applicant. • That a er the ling of the mylars, a zoning permit shall be issued prior to any land disturbance ac vi es commencing in the site. • That the applicant submit the required $216,000 erosion and sediment control bond prior to reques ng a zoning permit, in the form of a check or le er of credit, and the associated paperwork to the Planning Department for review and approval by the City’s A orney. • That any modi ca ons to the approved proposal shall be reviewed by the Zoning Enforcement O cer prior to occurring and may require addi onal review and approval by the Commission. • That a pre-construc on mee ng be held with the Planning, Public Works Departments and NPU prior to the start of the project. • That all E&S controls be installed by the applicant and inspected by the ZEO and Wetland Agent prior to ini a ng any land disturbance ac vi es. • ZR Sec on 4.6.4 requires that the driveways be permi ed by the Public Works Department (Dominican Drive). • That all proposed improvements associated with this applica on are to be completed according to the approved plan prior to the issuance of the required Cer cate of Zoning Compliance or a performance bond will be required in accordance with Sec ons 7.5.7.3 and 8.9 of the Zoning Regula ons. • That the Commission may require an as-built or cer ca on by a licensed engineer or land surveyor should it be deemed necessary by the City to determine compliance with the approval granted. • That the discharge of stormwater and dewatering of any wastewater from construc on ac vi es is less than 5 acres and falls under the CT DEEP general permit. • That the opera ng hours for the site be restricted to 7AM to 5PM Monday through Friday, and 8AM to 12PM on Saturday, with no rock crushing to occur on Saturdays. Reason: The proposal conforms to Sec on 5.4 the Zoning Regula ons. James Quarto seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. EXTENSION REQUESTS: 1. SP#18-08 AND SDP#1042- Hale Mill Hotel Project. Brandon Handfield, P.E. (online) informed the Commission that the second modification will be presented at the January 2024 meeting and asked the Commission to approve a five-year project extension until 12/18/28 after explaining the reasons for this request. Jason Courter made a motion to approve the request to extend SP#18-08 and SDP#1042-Hale Mill Project for five years, ending on 12/18/28. Ella Myers seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. 539 Norwich Avenue. Deanna Rhodes details to the Commission on the history of approval for this project and is asking the Commission to provide an extension so the new owner, OneKey/Ponemah can address and correct property violations and code compliance issues related to unpermitted apartments. Ella Myles made a motion to provide an extension for 539 Norwich Avenue ending 3/18/24. James Quarto seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Executive Session Pending Litigation: The Commission did not enter into Executive Session. Deanna Rhodes informed the Commission of a January 2, 2024 court date concerning Victoria Landing. STAFF REPORT: CIF 2030 Planning Grant Application Submission for Norwich State Hospital. Dan Daniska informed the Commission that the City has submitted a grant application for $250,000 for a planning study and environmental cleanup. ti ti ffi ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti fi ti fi ti tt tt ti tt ti fi ti ti ti ti ti ti ti fi fi ti ft ti ti Deanna Rhodes informed the Commission that the City has submitted a CIF grant application for $11.7 million for the Norwich Harbor waterfront/docks. Ms. Rhodes informed the Commission that she has included a budget line item requesting $20,000 for consulting services for zoning regulations. Ms. Rhodes stated that the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) has been completed and meetings will start up in January 2024. ADJOURNMENT: Jason Courter made a motion to adjourn. Deane Nason seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting ended at10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Kurasz – CCP Recording Secretary