Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Norwich commission continues hearing on 12‑lot Canterbury Turnpike subdivision after public concerns about wells, drainage and private road access

Norwich City Plan Commission · December 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Norwich City Plan Commission opened a public hearing Dec. 16 on Subdivision 44389 (89 Canterbury Turnpike), a proposed 12‑lot subdivision. Residents raised concerns about wells, stormwater, septic setbacks and use/maintenance of private Beebe Road; the commission continued the hearing to Jan. 21, 2026 and asked the applicant for detailed revisions.

The Norwich City Plan Commission on Dec. 16 opened and then continued a public hearing on Subdivision Application 44389, a proposed 12‑lot subdivision for a roughly 24‑acre parcel at 89 Canterbury Turnpike. Greg Fettis of Fettis Engineering, representing owner Green Star Capital LLC, presented site drawings and technical sheets showing lot layout, wetlands, a gas easement crossing lots 9 and 12, and proposed utilities and stormwater controls.

Why it matters: Neighbors told the commission they rely on private wells and springs and fear new construction and septic systems could affect groundwater and increase runoff onto downstream yards. Commissioners and staff pressed the applicant for clarifications that are normally resolved before final approval, and they moved to continue the hearing so the commission and the public can review corrected plans and additional technical details.

Fettis said the subdivision plan shows 12 lots that meet zoning bulk requirements and that all lots will be served by septic systems; several frontage lots would tie to the Canterbury Turnpike water main while other lots would rely on private wells depending on accessibility. On stormwater, Fettis described paved driveways pitched away from sensitive areas, a 2‑foot crushed‑stone infiltration trench designed to capture the first 1.3 inches of runoff, and rain gardens that discharge to Canterbury Turnpike storm drains when trenches overtop.

Residents challenged several elements of the plan. A longtime resident who owns property on Beebe Road said, “If anything happens to the well that I'm using because of all this stuff, who's gonna pay for it?” expressing concern that disturbance and new septic systems could contaminate shallow water sources. Another resident described Lot 9 as “very wet” and cited existing basement sump‑pump use on neighboring properties.

On public water service, the record shows differing guidance from Norwich Public Utilities and the local health authority. Fettis and staff acknowledged a discrepancy: Norwich Public Utilities’ memo indicates lots within a set distance of the main must connect, while the health district’s letter states all proposed lots on Canterbury Turnpike should be served by public water. Fettis said he prefers tying in where practicable but that some lots are more than 200 feet from the main and may remain on wells; he agreed to coordinate a final determination with NPU/MPU and the health district.

Commissioners and staff requested specific, plan‑level changes before the hearing resumes: show driveway sight‑distance calculations for each proposed driveway; add the pipe/catch basin under Canterbury Turnpike and its size to the plans; show septic locations relative to existing neighboring wells (the minimum separation cited during the meeting was 75 feet); add a note that the unaccepted portion of Beebe Road is private and not maintained by the city; identify the location and size of the AT&T/utility line and the gas easement; and include a note requiring that foundation drains and driveway grading not discharge onto adjacent properties.

Fettis responded to drainage worries by saying, “None of the lots are allowed to drain and send water with proposed grading onto adjacent properties” and that the city planning and engineering staff will review site‑plan grading during the later, lot‑by‑lot approvals. He also said wetlands had been flagged by a soil scientist and that the wetlands commission has already granted approvals that required minor reconfiguration of some lot boundaries.

Outcome and next steps: After hearing public testimony and technical questions, the commission voted to continue the subdivision public hearing to the Jan. 21, 2026 meeting. Staff said it will issue a revised memo when updated plans are submitted and will ensure the correct plan set is posted on the city website ahead of the next hearing. The commission asked the applicant to provide the requested sight‑distance drawings, sewer/water connection clarity from NPU/MPU and the health district, and other plan corrections before the next meeting.

The hearing will reconvene Jan. 21, 2026, when commissioners expect to review the revised materials and any additional staff findings.