Commission on the City Plan

COMMISSION ON THE CITY PLAN Tuesday, December 17, 2024, 7:00 PM Hybrid Meeting / Public Hearing 23 Union Street - Lower-Level Conference Room - NORWICH, CT 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Frank Manfredi called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. ROLL CALL AND SEATING OF ALTERNATES: Present: Frank Manfredi, Chairman, Dean Nason, Ella Myles, Kathy Warzecha Absent: James Quarto, Jason Courter (Alternate), Tracy Burto (Alternate) and Nicholas Fortson (Alternate) Staff Present: City Planner Dan Daniska, Zoning Officer Richard Shuck 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kathy Warzecha made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2024 Regular Meeting. Ella Myles seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously. 4. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 5. NEW BUSINESS: a. Public Hearings and Potential Actions on the Following Special Permit Applications: Ella Myles motioned to table SP#24-12: 46 West Main Street to the January 28, 2025 meeting due to insufficient paperwork. Deane Nason seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Ella Myles motioned to table SUB#438: 452 Plain Hill Road to the January 28, 2025 meeting at the request of the applicant. Deane Nason seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved. Note: Staff has corrected the minutes to reflect the next meeting of the CCP will take place on January 28, 2025 per the adopted schedule. 1. SP#24-10: 307 Washington Street. Request for a Special Permit for a conversion from one non conforming use to another non-conforming use. Proposed cafe with the sale of floral arrangements, and associated site improvements. Property and Application of Geoff LaMarche. Assessor's Map 76 Block 2 Lot 36. Zone R-20. Kathy Warzecha made a motion to open the public hearing at 7:05 PM. Deane Nason seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Manfredi invited the applicant and/or representatives to speak on behalf of the project. Ellen Bartlett, CLA Engineers addressed the Commission on behalf of the project applicants, Jennifer and Geoffrey LaMarche. Ms. Bartlett described the project and reviewed the site plan drawings. In response to a questions asked by Ms. Warzecha regarding the structural support of the second floor porch and interior layout, Ms. Bartlett stated the porch will be repaired as required to meet structural requirements. Ms. Bartlett also described the layout of the floor plan and described the business model. In response to Ms. Myles’ question regarding handicap access, Ms. Bartlett confirmed that the rear entrance to the building from the parking area will be handicap accessible. Mr. Daniska confirmed that all comments, questions and concerns of City Officials have been addressed by the applicants and asked for a waiver of reading the exhibit list. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Manfredi called for comments from the public in favor or apposed to the project. No members of the public spoke for or against this application. Chairman Manfredi called for a motion to close the public hearing. Kathy Warzecha made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Ella Myles seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Public Hearing closed at 7:15 PM. Chairman Manfredi called for a motion to approve SP #24-10. Deane Nason made a motion to approve SP #24-10 with the following conditions: • That the site plan for the Special Permit will expire in 5 years on 12/17/2029, unless an extension has been granted by the Commission. • That comments from other City Departments be addressed satisfactorily in a revised plan set. • That final revised plans be submitted and reviewed by City Staff. • That the City's letter of approval be placed on the final revised plan set (cover page preferred), the required signature block be placed on all plan sheets, 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 final revised set of plans be submitted to the Planning Department for endorsement by an officer of the Commission. The mylars must include the red indelible ink certification which includes the name of producer and process used. • That the endorsed mylar set shall be filed on the Land Records by the applicant. • That a bond, in the amount of $2,250, which has been deemed satisfactory by the City Engineer, be submitted for Erosion and Sediment Control and Site Restoration. Once approved, it should be submitted in the form of a check or letter of credit with the required paperwork for review and approval by the City's Attorney prior to the issuance of the Zoning Permit. • That after the filing of the mylars, a zoning permit shall be issued prior to any land disturbance activities associated with this approval. • That any modifications to the approved proposal shall be reviewed by the Zoning Enforcement Officer prior to occurring and may require additional review and approval by the Commission. • That all proposed improvements associated with this application are to be completed according to the approved plan prior to the issuance of the required Certificate of Zoning Compliance or  a performance bond will be required in accordance with Sections 7.5.7.3 and 8.9 of the Zoning Regulations. • That the Commission may require an as-built or certification by a licensed engineer or land surveyor should it be deemed necessary by the City to determine compliance with the approval granted. • Per the ZEO, a lighting compliance plan for all installed lighting is not necessary, however, the ZEO should be consulted regarding appropriate lighting fixtures. Ella Myles seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Reasons: The proposal conforms to ZR Section 1.2.3.4.1, 4.8, Chapter 5, ZR Section 6.6, and 7.5, and 7.7 of the Zoning Regulations. 2. SP#24-11: 139 Norwich Avenue. Request for a Special Permit for a proposed cannabis cultivation facility with associated site improvements. Proposed building totals 6,650 sq. ft. with associated 25,000 sq. ft. fenced outdoor grow area. Property of RTF Investments, LLC, Robert Adams, Principal. Application of Lets Grow Hartford, LLC, David Salinas, CEO. Assessor's Map 63 Block 1 Lot 43. Zone GC/MF. Ella Myles made a motion to open the Public Hearing at 7:18 PM. Deane Nason seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jack McCartney of CLA Engineers reviewed the site plan provided with the application, including modifications that were made to the proposed building to accommodate the flood plan. He also addressed the operations and security details of the project. In response to Ms. Warzecha’s question regarding a fertigation plan, James Billett, the Grow Manager for Lets Grow Hartford explained the fertigation plan for the process. Ms. Warzecha asked for information regarding a waste management plan. Mr. McCartney informed the Commission that there would be an dumpster enclosure on site. Mr. Billett added that all waste would be disposed of per state requirements. Ms. Warzecha asked about air quality and odor containment, and expressed concern for the bakery/restaurant adjacent to the site as well as the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Mr. Billett gave a brief description of the filtration system that will be used for the process and growing areas. Ryan Krieger Krieger, Chief Plant Operator for Lets Grow Hartford added that they can’t guarantee there will not be odors from outdoor growing, but they will mitigate odor as much as possible. Ms. Myles asked why they would choose to build an outdoor growing facility instead of an indoor growing facility. Ryan Krieger explained that the cost of growing indoors is not economically feasible. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Manfredi called for comments from the public in favor or apposed to the project. Tina Patcheco, Norwich: Ms. Patcheco spoke in opposition to the project. She is against another cannabis facility located in Norwich, and particularly in the location currently referred to as Nippy’s Field, which is currently used for outdoor recreation. Ms. Patcheco feels this project does not fit into Norwich’s Plan of Conservation and Development, which calls for preserving recreation areas, and that a cannabis facility would alter the neighborhood, do nothing to benefit the citizens of Norwich. She asked the Commission to protect the interests of the community by denying the application. Krzysztof Pietrzykowski, Norwich: Mr. Pietrzykowski had several questions for the applicant: 1. Will the facility use a lot of energy, and if so, what steps will be taken for energy conservation? Ryan Krieger responded that the facility will use very little energy as sunlight will be used in the growing process. 2. How much water will be used daily? Ryan Krieger answered that the process uses drip irrigation with no significant water draw. Only about 3 acres of the 14 acre site will be used for the process, the remain land will remain green space. 3. What is the tax revenue? Ryan Krieger explained that a social equity plan has been filed with the town; significant tax revenue and social equity will be brought into town. 4. How will flooding be handled? Ryan Krieger reiterated that all growing will be done in raised beds above any flooding areas. 5. Why did they decide to build in the middle of town? Ryan Krieger stated that Norwich was the only town with open space and a high enough crime rate to qualify for state approval. Martin Indars, Norwich: Mr. Indars asked where the water will go after treatment. Mr. McCartney explained the water will leave the treatment basin and will flow over the ground, but added the water will be clean when leaving the basin. Richard Shuck, Norwich Zoning Officer, asked about the use of LED lighting in the growing area. Ryan Krieger stated that light pollution will not be an issue due to the nature of the growing cycle, however, lights could be added in the future at which time a lighting plan would require Commission approval. Mr. Shuck asked if a plan for the split of property has been filed. He explained that it is a procedural requirement to file this plan prior to mylars, but has not yet seen a plan. He also discussed flood proofing plan and architectural plan requirements. Mr. Daniska asked the applicant to review how the application meets special permit requirements, adding that city staff have reviewed and commented on the application. Mr. McCartney reviews that letter submitted that details on how the project conforms to special permit requirements. Mr. Pietrzykowski asked if studies have been conducted on how this facility will affect property values and the general appeal of the surrounding neighborhoods, and which agency oversees the operation. Chairman Manfredi responded that he did not believe that was required for the application, and asked the applicant to respond regarding the operation. Ryan Krieger responded that no studies have been done, but the homeless camp currently on the property will be cleaned  out. Mr. Pietrzykowski asked if the town had done any studies, to which Chairman Manfredi responded that was not required. Ryan Krieger stated that the State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection oversees all cannabis operations. Ms. Patcheco asked if there was a beautification plan, and if the public will have access to the unused space on the property. Ryan Krieger referenced a site plan drawing showing the landscaping plan and responded that just as the public could not walk across the active driving range, it will hold true for the new development, that the public will not be able to access any space on the property, but wildlife will have use of it. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Manfredi called for a motion to close the public hearing. Kathy Warzecha made a motion to close the Public Hearing. Deane Nason seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, and this Public Hearing closed at 8:05 PM. Chairman Manfredi asked if a member of the Commission would like to make a motion in connection with the application. Kathy Warzecha made a motion to deny SP #24-11 citing the following reasons: • The application is not consistent with the City of Norwich Plan of Conservation and Development, Section G3.5 - Encouraging Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development. Ms. Warzecha feels the odor from the process will adversely impact the adjacent small businesses. • The application is not consistent with the City of Norwich Plan of Conservation and Development, Section L2.2 - Rehabilitate the City’s Existing Housing Stock. Ms. Warzecha feels this project will hinder investment in the community, and the proposed building and fencing will not fit into the aesthetics of the area. Ella Myles seconded the motion. Voted in favor: Kathy Warzecha, Ella Myles and Deane Nason. Voted in opposition: Frank Manfredi. The motion passed and the application was denied. 6. OLD BUSINESS: None 7. EXTENSION REQUESTS: None 8. BOND REDUCTION/RELEASE REQUESTS: None 9. OTHER BUSINESS: None 10. STAFF REPORT: None 11. ADJOURNMENT: Kathy Warzecha made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ella Myles seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously ending the meeting at 8:11 PM. Respectfully submitted, Jeanne Kurasz – CCP Recording Secretary