WHY WE MUST DEFEAT THIS

Ordinance written and lobbied by developers not by our elected officials or city employees.

In Planning Director Davis' letter (view this letter on "The Ordinance" page) to the Mayor and Council dated May 29, 2007, it is clear that Mr. Carpionato and their attorneys have been granted nearly unrestricted access to the process of amending this ordinance, and even refers to them as “applicant”. Why are the developers and their legal representatives being given unlimited access to the amendment writing process when citizens and even the City Council’s access is limited? If the public hearing is closed, it should be closed to all. This one sided access to City Government represents an inequity that should not be condoned by an affirmative vote.

This type of large scale zoning change is an abuse of the text amendment provisions of the City Charter. This ordinance is, in effect, a zoning map change and should be treated as such. It has the real effect of allowing commercial development in specific areas of the City that can be easily defined. By introducing this as a text change and not as a zoning map change, the protections provided in the City Charter for zoning changes are avoided (such as protest petitions). These protections are written into the charter to provide checks and balances. These checks and balances are being circumvented by introducing the changes in this manner. This type of abuse of the system should not be condoned by an affirmative vote.

Existing commercial establishments within residential zones that pre-date the establishment of zoning laws are to be used as a trigger to allow modern, large scale commercial developments. What explanation can there be that the nearly random occurrences of such establishments can be used as a basis for future development?

Many of the areas that this proposed ordinance would most directly affect are not areas that are targeted for development by the 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development authored by the planning department. Are we not compelled to follow our own plan of development when undertaking zoning changes such as this?

If the goal is to allow more flexible commercial zoning in town, then we should be directing the planning department to examine ways to accomplish that without negative effects on residential zones. Protecting neighborhoods and increasing the grand list are not mutually exclusive. Can we not start with the idea of allowing more flexible zoning within the areas of Norwich that are already commercially zoned? This could achieve many of the same goals as this ordinance without the negative effects on local neighborhoods.

This ordinance would allow high volume, large scale commercial properties within residential neighborhoods. This goes against the very idea of zoning. What message does this send to existing and potential residential property owners throughout town?

During the public hearing on May 21, 2007, Alderman Mereen requested a map from the planning department depicting the areas that would fit within the three criteria set forth in the ordinance. Based upon recent phone conversations with the planning department, it does not appear that the planning department is currently undertaking this effort. As the language of the ordinance currently reads, it is difficult to interpret the affect this ordinance will have on the future of our City without this type of analysis and visual representation.

During the public hearing, it was discussed that a workshop would take place with the planning department and the City Council regarding this ordinance. When requesting information from the planning department regarding the workshop, my neighbors and I have been told that no such workshop has been scheduled.

Despite deveolper's attorney Glen Carberry and Bill Sweeney (the lawyer's planner and former Norwich City Planner) statements at the public hearing to the contrary, it has become increasingly apparent that this ordinance has been introduced to the benefit of one developer for one project (namely on Washington St. from Arnold Place to Julian St. and back into Julian Terrace). By voting against this ordinance, the City Council would send the message that this type of spot zoning is not condoned by the City.

The public hearing was closed before all agencies and Council members could comment and submit evidence for consideration.

The Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG) was not notified in the timeframe required by state statutes. Therefore, SCCOG's Negative recommendation was not recorded because the City held their hearing before SECOG’s subcommittee could meet to determine their position.

The City was aware in advance of hearing that they were in violation of state notification laws but held the hearing anyway.

Business owners in areas that are currently within valid commercial zones will see decreases in traffic and customers as commercial businesses spread through residential zones.

The are many, many more valid points brought up by citizens at the May 21 public hearing regarding traffic, parcel lengths and depths, ethical issues, proceedural issues, developers's direct lobbying of City personnel and bodies, etc. but at the core, the aforementioned serves as the foundation of why this ordinance will prove to be a gross mistake for residents and business owners in areas currently zoned commercial.