Norwich ― A lengthy public hearing on a proposed 12-lot commercial subdivision for the planned 384-acre second business park in Occum ended late Tuesday with the city planning commission delaying a vote on the plan so members can review volumes of evidence and public comments.

The Commission on the City Plan now has 65 days to act on the proposed application either at the Jan. 16 meeting or at a special meeting in February. The schedule was set after the Norwich Community Development Corp. declined a request by the commission to continue the public hearing to address a Dec. 15 report by an engineer hired by a neighborhood group that claims stormwater controls and drainage are inadequate in the plans.

NCDC President Kevin Brown said the agency has been working on the plan since November 2021 and would like to move toward commission review and action. A 90-minute public hearing session was held Nov. 21, and Tuesday’s session stretched for more than two hours. The commission held a 90-minute site walk of the property last week.

NCDC purchased the property, zoned for commercial and planned development, a year ago and plans to develop it as the Occum Industrial Center, with a 7,700-foot-long access road from Route 97 near Exit 18 of Interstate 395 into the property. The plan calls for a traffic light at the Route 97 road entrance.

Commission member Kathy Warzecha sought several conditions at the start of Tuesday’s discussion. NCDC officials agreed to reduce the proposed building size and increase the boundary buffer from 50 feet to 100 feet on proposed Lot 5, near three residential homes, with evergreens planted along the buffer.

Warzecha also sought to increase the size of the 25-acre lot proposed for open space, asking for more open space that is not wetlands. Commission attorney Richard Roberts said the proposed open space complies with the commission regulations. Brown said a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail through the property provides additional recreational open space in the project.

Much of Tuesday’s hearing involved questions posed by the commission and residents to project engineers. These included questions about the proposed access road from Route 97 into the property and how a proposed roundabout at the Canterbury Turnpike intersection would be designed to keep industrial park traffic off the local roads.

Residents continued to object to the size and scope of the planned industrial development, saying it would disrupt their rural residential neighborhood, with heavy trucks at all hours. They also had questions about stormwater runoff, drainage and potential flooding.

“I believe the reason to reject the plan is that it is not in harmony with the area,” said Harold French of White Plains Road. “If you walked this area, you know this is not an industrial park. It’s open space. A more reasonable development might be for residential or something similar to that.”

French said no one who lives in the area bought their homes with any idea that an industrial park could be built next door.

The group, Preserving Norwich Neighborhoods, hired Southbury-based Trinkaus Engineering LLC to review the environmental engineering for the project. Engineer Steven Trinkaus submitted a five-page report to the commission Tuesday that highlighted 71 concerns and claiming stormwater, draining and erosion controls would not meet state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection standards.

Trinkaus said at the hearing the proposed plan lacked information on environmental controls, and the stormwater management in the plan, “is completely inadequate.” The proposed 10-foot-wide permeable multi-use trail planned to run parallel to the access road also would not meet state drainage requirements.

NCDC project engineer Jeff Bord said the plan does comply with DEEP standards, and issues involving drainage issues on specific lots would be addressed when proposed development plans are submitted for those lots. Those plans would need to be reviewed again by the Commission on the City Plan and the city Inland Wetlands, Watercourses and Conservation Commission, along with the city engineer.

NCDC attorney Mark Block objected to Trinkaus’ submitted report, saying it was dated Dec. 15 and NCDC did not receive a copy of it until Tuesday night. He said most of the issues are site plan development issues to be addressed as lots are proposed for development.

“This report deals with matters that are outside the subdivision regulations,” Block said.

Commission attorney Richard Roberts said the commission must evaluate the information submitted from the project engineers, the city engineer who reviewed the plan, and Trinkaus’ report.

c.bessette@theday.com