|
Norwich — Emotions ran high Monday night during a three-hour public hearing on a proposed commercial
overlay zone that would allow developers to propose commercial development along state roads that pass through the picturesque
historic areas of Harland Road and Washington Street.
After hearing testimony, the City Council
asked city planning director Peter Davis to revise the proposal to address some of the concerns. Aldermen asked for more specifics
on the plan as well, including a map showing the exact areas where the overlay zone could be applied. The proposed ordinance
would be limited to state roads already served by water and sewer and that are within 500 feet of an existing commercial or
institutional use.
“I think it's salvageable,”
Alderman Mark Bettencourt said of the plan.
Alderman John Newson said the proposed ordinance
is a good tool for the city to encourage commercial development, but agreed that it needed modifications.
City Corporation Counsel Michael Driscoll
cautioned the council that the public hearing was closed Monday and that any substantial changes would have to be advertised
for a new public hearing. He also asked them not to discuss the proposal with residents or one another, as the hearing was
closed.
Mayor Benjamin Lathrop said the council
would discuss the changes at a future meeting.
About 130 people who packed council chambers
and the hallway outside the room overwhelmingly opposed the ordinance. They applauded and cheered when speakers said the ordinance
would lead to the destruction of historic neighborhoods and aggravate traffic congestion. One speaker blew a kiss to supporters
in the audience.
The hearing started with a presentation
by attorney Glenn Carberry and land planner William Sweeney for the TCORS law firm, representatives of developers Domenic
Carpionato and Robert LaBossiere. Carberry and Sweeney offered statistics that showed Norwich lagging behind
other eastern Connecticut towns in commercial development and ranking “near the bottom” in per
capita grand list improvement.
Sweeney cited a map created by city planning
director Peter Davis that showed Norwich has only about 250 acres of available commercial land. Sweeney argued that the actual
total is much less because much of the 250 acres is wet or steeply sloped.
Commercial real estate agent Ken Bondi spoke
in favor of the proposal, echoing that the demand is there for “good, reputable” commercial businesses wanting
to come to Norwich. He said he cannot accommodate them because Norwich has no available
land.
Opponents of the zone rejected such arguments,
pointing to the nearly vacant Norwichtown Mall and vacant storefronts downtown or in Greeneville.
Most speakers live in the historic areas
of Washington Street, Harland
Road and Norwichtown, along Routes 169 and
2/32. One resident asked the City Council to remove those roads from the proposal.
Barbara Rothstein, who lives on Case Street, not along a state highway, held up a map of Norwich on which all the state roads were shown in heavy black. Rothstein, a member of the
Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Commission, said the proposal would affect all areas of Norwich, including
Washington Street, which already has a “nightmare” traffic situation.
Beryl Fishbone of Bliss Place off Washington Street, said paved parking lots and bright lights would take over the neighborhood, and that no proposed buffer zone could
hide the new development.
Several speakers and asked the council why
it insists on increasing the amount of commercial land in the city when existing commercial buildings in the Stanley Israelite
Norwich Business Park and the Norwichtown Mall are vacant. The owner of one commercial plaza on West Main Street said chain pharmacies would move out of those plazas to build standalone stores, leaving more buildings vacant.
William Champagne, chairman of the Norwich
Historical Society, said the society discussed the issue at two recent meetings. The group had no official stand against the
proposal, but was looking for “extreme caution” in applying the new zone to properties where historic houses or
other structures stand along state roads.
Sweeney argued during his presentation that
the overlay zone proposal had many safeguards to protect residential neighborhoods along state roads. The overlay zone would
be only a “tool” developers could use to propose specific development. Unlike traditional zone change proposals,
this one would require the developer to show specific site plans at the time of applying for the zone.
The zone could be used only on properties
of at least three acres where municipal utilities are present. The properties would have to be along state roads and within
500 feet of existing commercial or institutional uses. The key, Sweeney said, is that the developer would have to apply for
a special permit to use the zone, which would require a public hearing by the Commission on the City Plan.
Speakers in the Washington Street and Julian Terrace area rejected Carberry's and Sweeney's claims that the ordinance was proposed without any specific
projects in mind. Several said they are aware of neighbors who have been approached by developers seeking options on their
properties.
After more than two hours of opposition
testimony, Carberry returned to the podium and urged council members to consider the proposal before them.
Sweeney asked the council to consider amending
the ordinance to allow changes that could address residents' concerns — such as requiring notification of abutting property
owners if a development proposal comes forward or limiting new development to within 500 feet of commercial entities already
in place. | 
