A Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) subcommittee conducted its fifth special meeting of the year on December 15 to continue discussing a possible text amendment to local regulations for warehouse and distribution centers.

P&Z members present were chairman Dennis Bloom, Gregory Rich, and Brian Leonardi.

At the previous meeting on November 17, former Land Use Agency Director of Planning George Benson submitted a drafted memorandum for proposed amendments to Article V — Industrial Zones, as well as proposed amendments to Article I General — Section 2 — Interpretation and Definitions.

His draft document states: “5.02.280 Warehouse/Distribution Center: A. Principal Uses shall require a 100-foot side yard building and parking lot setback from adjacent residential property and a 50-foot natural or planted buffer; B. Special Exceptions and Site Development Plan applications shall require a Traffic Impact Analysis in compliance with 8.02.200; C. If storage is to be provided outdoors, for principal or accessory uses, a planted or natural buffer shall be provided between the items stored and the lot lines.”

It also notes: “Remove current 5.02.280 (M-1), add new 5.02.280; remove current 5.03.320 (M-2A), add new 5.03.320; remove current 5.04.260 (M-3), add new 5.04.260; remove current 5.05.280 (M-4), add new 5.05.280; [and] remove current 5.06.280 (M-2), add new 5.06.280.”

The draft then defines a Warehouse/Distribution Center as “A building or buildings used for storage, sorting of goods and products prior to being distributed, sold, or used. Storage of CT DEEP Class — hazardous materials prohibited.”

In response to the topic of how to define “hazardous materials” in the warehouse definition, Leonardi started off the December 15 meeting expressing that he felt the way it was written was currently ambiguous.

He hoped they could use the Connecticut Department of Transportation’s (DOT) classifications.

“By having an obligation under Connecticut law to label something very clearly and conspicuously as explosive or flammable or gas or whatever the case may be, we could lean on that,” Leonardi said.

He added that he is not interested in banning lithium-ion batteries, which are flammable.

“Frankly, we rely on that stuff 24/7, and we’re not going to arbitrarily make Newtown an outlier on that,” Leonardi said. “However, I don’t know if under CT DOT hazardous material classifications if lithium-ion batteries are within scope with any of those classifications.”

Rich said the CT DOT classifications are for transport, but once it is in a warehouse there are different requirements. Additionally, if someone has a permit for those materials, they are allowed to have it.

With Leonardi’s comments in mind, though, he said they can put there should be no explosives and no bulk storage of flammable items.

Leonardi noted that he understands and agrees with Rich.

“My suggestion I just offer for consideration is that I would qualify the definition as saying something to the effect of ‘bulk storage for purposes of redistribution of explosive material or flammable liquids … are prohibited, notwithstanding the foregoing storage of materials onsite that are incidental to the use of the property are prohibited,”’ Leonardi said.

They compromised with the phrasing to say, “prohibiting storage of explosives or bulk storage of flammable liquids or gases.”

In terms of the other aspects of Benson’s draft document, Rich said he likes the rest very much.

The subcommittee considered ideas for rephrasing, “5.02.280 Warehouse/Distribution Center: A. Principal Uses shall require a 100-foot side yard building and parking lot setback from adjacent residential property and a 50-foot natural or planted buffer.”

Ultimately, they consulted clerk Helen Muro in attendance and looked up the current regulations.

Rich suggested it say, “Principal Uses shall require a 100-foot building and parking lot setback from adjacent residential property with at least a 50-foot natural or planted buffer.”

Leonardi asked if it should say, “Principal Uses and Special Exceptions,” and Rich said agreed.

Leonardi also brought up a typo in the draft. Where it says “remove current 5.06.280 (M-2)” it should say M-5.

The subcommittee motioned to approve the updates, and all agreed.

They will present it to the full P&Z to review at a date yet to be determined.

To learn more about the P&Z, visit newtown-ct.gov/planning-zoning-commission.

Reporter Alissa Silber can be reached at alissa@thebee.com.