Norwich commission approves resubdivision to reduce lots, add open space despite environmental petitions

The Commission on City Plan on July 22 approved a resubdivision application by the Norwich Community Development Corporation that reduces the approved number of lots in Subdivision 437 from 12 to 10, shortens and relocates a roadway, and increases dedicated open space from about 25 acres to roughly 38 acres.

The action matters because it changes the layout and lot sizes of a large planned development west of Canterbury Turnpike and establishes the framework for future site plans that could host commercial or industrial buildings within the planned development district. The commission also decided on related procedural matters raised during the public hearing, including a petition for environmental intervention and a waiver request for a cul‑de‑sac length.

Kevin Brown, president of Northview Realty Corporation, presented the application and framed it as an economic development step for Norwich, saying the plan “promotes the foundation for a transformational economic development opportunity for the city of Norwich.” Attorney Brian McCann, representing the applicant, explained the changes are amendments to an earlier 12‑lot subdivision approved Jan. 23, 2024, and described three previously granted waivers (roadway width reduction, elimination of curbs and gutters, and elimination of sidewalks on both sides of the roadway). McCann and project engineer Jeff Ford said the new plan shortens Ockham Way from about 7,700 linear feet to roughly 5,000 feet, merges Lots 8–10 into one larger lot, and increases dedicated open space to about 38.05 acres while reducing overall upland disturbance by roughly three acres compared with the earlier approval.

Two petitions for intervention were filed during the day alleging likely environmental impacts near wetlands, stormwater basins and culvert crossings and asking the commission to treat those claims under Conn. Gen. Stat. §22a‑19(a). City counsel (referred to in the hearing as Attorney Grama) advised that an intervener is automatically a party when the petition is filed but that the petition must show specific factual allegations and that the commission’s jurisdiction is limited to matters before it. The commission heard testimony from resident Frederick Browning, who said the petition was supported by an earlier technical report by a consultant, and from other neighbors who asked questions about the parking area and the scale of hypothetical future buildings.

After public comment and staff presentations, the commission voted 3–1 that the petitions did not present substantial evidence that the resubdivision, as proposed, would unreasonably impair or destroy public natural resources within the commission’s jurisdiction. The commission then voted 3–1 to grant the applicant’s requested waiver of the subdivision regulation that limits permanent dead‑end streets to 1,200 feet, allowing the proposed cul‑de‑sac length as shown on the plan. Finally the commission voted 3–1 to approve the resubdivision application, subject to the planner’s and city engineer’s recommended conditions and the requirement that future building plans return to the commission and wetlands authority for site‑specific review.

Staff and the applicant emphasized that this resubdivision is a planning step; specific development of any lot — including driveways, wetland crossings, building footprints, stormwater design and other site work — must return for review under the city’s wetlands and subdivision processes. The city planner also noted outstanding technical review items that must be resolved in construction documents and required that final deed restrictions and covenants be recorded on the land records as part of the approval.

The record for the item includes the resubdivision plan set, referrals and the two petitions for intervention. The commission’s motions and votes are recorded in the minutes.