Central Naugatuck Valley REGIONAL PLAN OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT 200 8 Prepared by the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley Taft School WATERTOWN Farm BETHLEHEM Town Center THOMASTON Beacon Mill Village Apar tments BEACON FALLS Golf Course OXFORD Naugatuck River NAUGATUCK The Meeting Place PROSPECT Grand Street WATERBURY Town Hall WOLCOT T Lake Quassapaug MIDDLEBURY Antique Shop WOODBURY Farmington Canal Trail CHESHIRE Heritage Village SOUTHBURY i Table of contents 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Why Prepare a Regional Plan? ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 What is a Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development? …………………………………………………………… 2 How Will the Plan Be Used? …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Relationship Between Local, Regional, & State Plans ………………………………………………………………….. 3 Existing Examples of Regional Cooperation ………………………………………………………………………………. 4 2. Regional History ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 Over vie w ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Community Origins ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Other Sources ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 f. Demographic Trends ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Population Trends ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Regional Population Growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Immigration ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 1 Population Projections ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 1 Age ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 2 Ethnic and Racial Composition ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 4 Households …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 5 Income and Pover ty …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 6 Major Demographic Trends …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 8 b. Land Use & Grow th Pat terns ………………………………………………………………………….. 1 9 Current Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 9 Location of Growth …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 9 Build-Out ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 0 Major Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 5 5. Natural Resource Conservation ………………………………………………………………………. 2 9 Over vie w ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 9 Current Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 9 Land Use Intensity Guidelines ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 2 Pre-disaster Mitigation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 3 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 ii Imper vious Sur faces ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………33 Major Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 3 Secondar y Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 6 6. Housing ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 7 Current Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 7 Housing Policies ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 7 Major Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 9 Secondar y Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 2 7. Economic Development ………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 5 Over vie w ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 5 Current Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4 5 Major Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 5 8. Transportation ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 3 Over vie w ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 3 Current Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 3 Travel Trends …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 3 Streets and Highways …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 3 Commuter Lots ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 6 Public Transpor tation Systems ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 5 6 Airpor t Facilities ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 9 Pedestrian & Bicycle Pathways …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 9 Major Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 0 9. Open Space ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 5 Current Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 5 Major Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 8 Secondar y Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6 9 10. Water Supply & Sewer Service ………………………………………………………………………… 7 3 Over vie w ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 3 Current Conditions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 3 Water Ser vice …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 3 Se wage Ser vice …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 3 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley iii Major Recommendations ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 5 Secondar y Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 9 11. Future Regional Form ………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 1 Over vie w ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 1 The Concept of the Future Regional Form ……………………………………………………………………………… 8 1 Land Use Categories ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 2 Relation To Other Plans …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 3 Civil Rights – Environmental Justice ……………………………………………………………………………………… 8 4 12. Implementation Tools …………………………………………………………………………………… 8 7 Regional Tools …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 7 Community Tools …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 7 State Tools ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 8 Federal Tools …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8 9 Related Planning Activities …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 9 Implementation Schedules ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 0 Major Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 2 1f. References ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 3 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 iv List of Tables Table 2.1 National Register of Historic Places, Central Naugatuck Valley ………………………………………………… 6 Table 3.1 CNVR Population …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9 Table 3.2 Amount of CNVR Population Growth ………………………………………………………………………………. 1 0 Table 3.3 Rate of CNVR Population Growth …………………………………………………………………………………… 1 0 Table 3.4 CNVR Migration 1990-2000 ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 1 Table 3.5 Population Projections ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 2 Table 3.6 CNVR 1990 – 2000 Age Distribution ……………………………………………………………………………….. 1 3 Table 3.7 2000 CNVR Racial and Ethnic Composition ……………………………………………………………………… 1 4 Table 3.8 CNVR Households ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 5 Table 3.9 CNVR Household Types ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 6 Table 3.10 Median Household Income …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 8 Table 4.1 Central Naugatuck Valley Region Land Use: 2000 ………………………………………………………………. 2 0 Table 4.2 CNVR Build-Out Final Results ………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 1 Table 5.1 Summar y of Resources Affecting Conser vation and Development ……………………………………………. 2 9 Table 5.2 Natural Resources Summar y Table ……………………………………………………………………………………. 3 0 Table 5.3 Recommended Land Use Intensity Ranges …………………………………………………………………………. 3 2 Table 6.1 CNVR Housing Data, by Municipality: 2006 …………………………………………………………………….. 3 8 Table 6.2 Tenure in the CNVR, by Municipality: 1990, 2000 …………………………………………………………….. 3 9 Table 6.3 Governmentally Assisted Housing Units in CNVR, by Municipality: 2006 ………………………………… 4 0 Table 7.1 Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status, by Place of Residence: 2006 …………………………………………. 4 7 Table 7.2 Estimated Nonagricultural Employment by Industr y, for th e Waterbur y Labor Market Area: 2000, 2005, 2006 ……………………………………………………… 4 8 Table 7.3 Leading Industries in the CNVR: 2003 – First Quar ter ………………………………………………………… 4 9 Table 8.1 Priority Highway Projects from the COGCNV Regional Long-Range Transpor tation Plan: 2007-35 …63 Table 9.1 Open Space in the CNVR, by Municipality: 2006 ………………………………………………………………. 6 6 Table 10.1 Se wage Treatment Facilities in the CNVR: 2007 …………………………………………………………………. 7 5 Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley v List of Figures Figure 1.1 Regional Location ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Figure 2.1 National Register of Historic Places – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………………………. 7 Figure 3.1 CNVR Natural Population Increase ………………………………………………………………………………… 1 0 Figure 3.2 CNVR Age Cohor ts 1990 and 2000 ………………………………………………………………………………… 1 3 Figur e 3.3 Population Density – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………………………………………….. 1 7 Figure 3.4 Persons Below 150% Pover ty Level – Central Naugatuck Valley Region …………………………………… 1 7 Figure 4.1 Basic GIS CNVR Build-Out ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 Figure 4.2 Land in Agricultural Use and Prime and Impor tant Farmland Soils – Central Naugatuck Valley Region …………………………………………………………………………………… 22 Figure 4.3 Generalized Land Use – Central Naugatuck Valley Region 2000 …………………………………………….. 23 Figure 4.4 Economic and Community Centers – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ………………………………….. 26 Figure 5 .1 Natural Resource Constraints and Areas Sensitive to Development – Central Naugatuck Valley Region …………………………………………………………………………………… 31 Figure 5.2 Imper viousness of Local Basins ( Watersheds) – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ………………………. 34 Figur e 5.3 Major and Regional Watersheds – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………………………….. 35 Figure 7.1 CNVR Labor Force …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Figur e 7.2 Percent Unemployment for the CNVR …………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Figure 8 .1 Place of Employment of CNVR Residents by Region: 2000 ………………………………………………….. 54 Figure 8.2 Functional Classification of Roads – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………………………. 55 Figure 8 .3 Highway Congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………………………………….. 5 7 Figure 8.4 Transpor tation Modes – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………………………………………. 61 Figure 9.1 Open Space – Central Naugatuck Valley …………………………………………………………………………… 67 Figure 9.2 Nonne waug Falls Open Space Action Area ………………………………………………………………………… 72 Figure 9.3 Straits Turnpike Open Space Action Area …………………………………………………………………………. 72 Figure 9.4 Hop Brook Open Space Action Area ……………………………………………………………………………….. 72 Figure 9.5 Boundline Road Open Space Action Area …………………………………………………………………………. 72 Figure 9.6 I-84 Connecticut Route 70 Open Space Action Are a …………………………………………………………… 72 Figure 9.7 Peck Mountain Open Space Action Area …………………………………………………………………………… 72 Figure 10 .1 Existing Se wer and Public Water Ser vice Area – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ……………………… 74 Figure 11.1 Minority and Low-Income Target Area – Central Naugatuck Valley Region ………………………………. 84 Figure 11.2 Future Land Use – Central Naugatuck Valley Region …………………………………………………………… 85 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 vi Three River Farm, WoodburyPhoto Courtesy of Chris Wood vi  1. Introduction Introduction The Central Naugatuck Valley Region encompasses 311 square miles in west-central Connecticut. The region consists of the city of Waterbury and twelve surrounding municipalities. The Regional Plan was prepared by the Council of Gov- ernments of the Central Naugatuck Valley (COGCNV). COGCNV consists of the chief elected officials of the member towns. The Regional Planning Commission, comprised of two locally appointed representatives from each municipality, is COGCNV’s regional planning group. COGCNV serves as: The state-defined regional planning organization (RPO). The federally-defined metropolitan planning organiza – tion (MPO) for transportation planning in the region. • • Boston New York Hartford Bridgeport New Haven Waterbury A TLA N T IC O CE A N L O N G I S L A N D SO U N D Springfield Albany § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦684 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦91 NEW YORK CONNECTICUTRHODE ISLAND MASSACHUSETTS § ¨ ¦90 § ¨ ¦95 § ¨ ¦395 ” )8 ” )8 ” )9 ” )2 ” )15 New London Stamford Danbury Torrington Providence Worcester 0 30 15 Miles ³ Central Naugatuck Valley Region Figure . Regional Location Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  -Introduction  Why Prepare a Regional Pl an? There are both legal and practical reasons for preparing a Regional Plan of Conservation & Development. State Statute 8-35a mandates that regional planning agencies prepare such a plan:At least once every ten years, each regional planning agency shall make a plan of development for its area of operation, showing its recommendations for the general use of the area including land use, housing, principal highways and freeways, bridges, airports, parks, playgrounds, recreational areas, schools, pub – lic institutions, public utilities, agriculture and such other matters as, in the opinion of the agency, will be beneficial to the area. Any regional plan so developed shall be based on studies of physical, social, economic and governmen – tal conditions and trends and shall be designed to promote with the greatest efficiency and economy the coordinated development of its area of operation and the general welfare and prosperity of its people. Such plan may encourage energy-efficient patterns of development, the use of solar and other renewable forms of energy, and energy conservation. Such plan shall be designed to promote abatement of the pollu – tion of the waters and air of the region. The regional plan shall identify areas where it is fea – sible and prudent 1. to have compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-ori – ented mixed use development patterns and land reuse, and 2. to promote such development patterns and land reuse and shall note any inconsistencies with the fol- lowing growth management principles: (A) Redevelopment and revitalization of regional centers and areas of mixed land uses with existing or planned physical infrastructure; (B) expansion of housing opportunities and design choices to accommodate a variety of household types and needs; (C) concentration of development around transporta – tion nodes and along major transportation corridors to support the viability of transportation options and land reuse; (D) conservation and restoration of the natural envi – ronment, cultural and historical resources and tradi – tional rural lands; (E) protection of environmental assets critical to pub – lic health and safety; and (F) integration of planning across all levels of gov – ernment to address issues on a local, regional and state-wide basis. The plan of each region contiguous to Long Island Sound shall be designed to reduce hy – poxia, pathogens, toxic contaminants and floatable debris in Long Island Sound. On the practical side, a Regional Plan of Conservation & Development provides a metropolitan perspective for addressing development and conservation issues. It pro – vides planning linkages between towns. Moreover, some development issues and functions can be addressed more effectively at the regional level. Many issues — water quality, water supply, transportation, economy — tran – scend municipal boundaries. Economic competition is on a global scale, and the smallest geographic area for competing on the global stage is the metropolitan area or region. And finally, we live in a regional community. Each town in the region relies on other towns within the region for employment, housing, retail, healthcare, and other services and needs. What is a Regional Pl an of Conserfation & Defelopment? A Regional Plan of Conservation & Development pres – ents general recommendations for the future physical de – velopment of a region and its municipalities. Its purpose is to recommend policies that will guide the region in responding to future change. A Regional Plan of Conservation & Development is an advisory document that is intended to: Evaluate conditions, trends, and issues of regional sig – nificance. Recommend policies that will address regional issues. Promote consistent decision-making. • • • Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  – Introduction  How Will the Pl an Be Used? The Plan will guide COGCNV in setting priorities, re- viewing state, regional and local proposals, implementing programs, and assisting member communities. The Re – gional Plan is used by COGCNV to review: Subdivisions abutting municipal boundaries (CGS 8- 26b). Zone changes within 500 feet of a municipal boundary (CGS 8-3b). Local plans of conservation & development. Funding for municipal economic development projects (CGS 32-224). Projects that request federal or state funding. Proposals to establish an intermunicipal district. Proposals submitted by member municipalities. Recommendations in the Plan are also meant to guide residents and decision makers when: Considering conservation and development activities in the region. Preparing local plans of conservation and develop – ment. Mitigating intermunicipal impacts. Rel ationship Bet ween Local, Regional, & State Pl ans Each municipality in the region has a local plan of con – servation and development. These plans address local issues and are the most specific. Municipal implementa – tion is accomplished by land use regulations, operating and capital improvement budgets, and land acquisition. Municipal plans must be updated every ten years. At another level, the State Conservation and Development Policies Plan 2005-2010 is much broader due to its geo- graphic scope. The State Plan is updated every five years. Recommendations in the State Plan guide major state initiatives and local and regional projects involving state funding in excess of $200,000. The Regional Plan falls between these two. It is, by ne – cessity, more specific than the State Plan and more gen – • • • • • • • • • • COG Meeting with Legislators eral than the local plans. Implementation of the Regional Plan must typically rely on consensus and education. State statutes specify that all three types of plans address the same six growth management principles listed as (A) through (F) in the statute citation in the “Why Prepare a Regional Plan?” section in this chapter. Further State statutes require a review of consistency be – tween a town plan and regional and state plans of conser – vation and development. As part of its review of a mu – nicipal plan, RPOs are required to compare the local plan with those of neighboring municipalities. Regional plans must be reviewed for consistency with the state plan. While consistency is often achieved, the creative tension Waterbury Mayor Jarjura and Thomaston First Selectwoman, Maura Martin, at COG Meeting Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  -Introduction  in areas where the plans disagree is indicative of different perspectives on the appropriate development of a particu- lar area. The local plan typically is the most influential with its connection to local zoning. For this reason, the Regional Plan places a great deal of emphasis on local plans and local zoning. Regional Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Naugatuck Ebisting Ebamples of Regional Cooperation Regional efforts at cooperation are already evident in the sharing of resources for solid waste management — in – cluding recycling and hazardous waste — water supply, waste water treatment, transit, public safety, emergency planning and operations, and social services. Regional cooperation will continue to occur and will expand when each community sees benefits from participation. COGCNV will continue to provide services and facilitate cooperation at the regional level as needs and opportuni – ties arise. Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  – Introduction  2. Regional History O ferfiew Native American tribes hunted in the area that is now the Central Naugatuck Valley Region, but except for tem- porary camps, none established permanent settlements. European settlers later purchased land from the tribes. In the seventeenth century, settlers from Farmington, seek – ing land for farming, purchased a large tract in the Nau – gatuck River Valley, called Mattatuck at the time. Set – tlers from Stratford bought land from two tribes in the Pomperaug River Valley — the Southbury, Woodbury, Bethlehem area. The present day towns evolved from this common be – ginning. As the region’s population grew in the eigh – teenth century, residents of outlying sections petitioned the General Assembly for the right to establish their own Congregational parishes to avoid long treks in the winter to attend church. In the nineteenth century, major industrial enterprises de – veloped in Waterbury, Naugatuck, and Thomaston, assist – ed by the area’s mechanical ingenuity and the waterpower available from the Naugatuck River and its tributaries. By the time of the Civil War, the valley was a national leader in the manufacture of brass and brass-related prod – ucts including clocks, buttons, munitions, and machines. The railroad enabled raw materials to be shipped here, and finished products to markets. A network of trolleys connected residential neighborhoods in Waterbury and the surrounding towns, transporting workers to the bur – geoning factories. The economic growth of the industrial centers, supported by the agricultural productivity of the surrounding towns, brought prosperity to the region. Following World War II, auto ownership led to residential growth in the region’s outer lying farming communities. With the shift from rail to highway for goods movement, and widespread auto ownership, industrial and business centers began to emerge in suburban towns around Wa- terbury. Brass production left the region, moving closer to the ore mines, and plastics replaced brass in many products. Despite these jolts, the innovations from the brass industry enabled local manufacturers to evolve into state-of-the-art precision metal fabrication firms. Health services, banking, business services, educational services, as well as fabricated metal products, now dominate the region’s economy. The region has become much more economically diversi – fied since World War II, and recent technological changes have added to the dispersal of population and employ- ment. While these trends have changed the character of the region, Waterbury is still its social, cultural, and insti – tutional center. Glebe House, Circa 1750, WoodburyPhoto courtesy of the Seabury Society for the Preservation of the Glebe House, Inc Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Regional Histor y  MunicipalityHistoric Site Historic Bridge/Dam Historic District Beacon Falls Home Woolen Company • Depot Street Bridge • Bethlehem Celeb Martin House Joseph Bellamy House • • Bethlehem Green Historic District • Cheshire First Congregational Church of Cheshire • Cheshire Historic District Farmington Canal Lock Marion Historic District (partial) • • • Middlebur y Josiah Bronson House Tranquillity Farm • • Middlebury Center Historic District • Naugatuck Bronson B. Tuttle House Salem School U. S. Post Office – Main • • • Naugatuck Center Historic District • Oxford Wooster Sawmill and Gristmill Site • Stevenson Dam • Quaker Farms Historic District • Prospect David Hotchkiss House • Prospect Green Historic District • Southbur y Aaron Bronson House Bullet Hill School Plaster House Rueben Curtis House Wheeler Admin. House and Theo – dore F. Wheeler Wheelwright Shop William Hurd House • • • • • • Hurley Road Historic District Little Pootatuck Brook Archaelogi – cal Site Russian Village Historic District Sanford Road Historic District South Britain Historic District Southbury Historic District No. 1 Southbury Training School • • • • • • • Thomaston Hose, Hook and Ladder Truck Bldg Thomaston Opera House Trinity Church • • • Reynold’s Bridge • Waterbur y Benedict Miller House Beth El Synagogue Bishop School Elton Hotel Enoch Hibbard House and George Granniss House George S. Abbott Build ing John Kendrick House Matthew and Willard Factory Palace Theatre Stapleton Building Waterbury Brass Mill Site Waterbury Union Station Webster School Wilby High School • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sheffield Street Bridge Washington Ave. Bridge • • Bank Street Historic District Downtown Waterbury Historic District Hamilton Park Hillside Historic District Lewis Fulton Memorial Park Overlook Historic District Riverside Cemetery Waterbury Clock Company Waterbury Municipal Center Dis – trict Waterbury Center Historic District • • • • • • • • • • Water town Roderick Bryan House • Skilton Road Bridge • Watertown Center Historic District • Wolcott Southwest District School • Wolcott Green Historic District • Woodbur y David Sherman House Glebe House Jabez Bacon House • • • Minortown Bridge • Hotchkissville Historic District Woodbury Historic District No. 1 Woodbury Historic District No. 2 • • • Table . National Register of Historic Places, Central Naugatuck Valley  – Regional Histor y Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Ú Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø × × × ××× × × × × ×× × ××× × ×× × ×××× × × × × × × ×× × × × × × × × B R I D G E W A T ER ” ¥ ” ¥ ” § ”  ” Í ” Î ” Ò ” Ñ ” Ó ” Å ” Ì ” × ” ð ” ½ ” × ” Ý ” Ü £ t ” ì ” ¬ ” e ” Í ” Í ” ½ ” Ð ” Ð ”  ”  ” ¥ ” Ì £t t ” Ó ” e ” Ò ” ð ” Ò ” Ñ ” ½ §¨ ¦84 §¨ ¦84 §¨ ¦691 ” Í ” Ñ ” Î M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 24 1 Miles × Historic Site Ø Bridge Ú Dam Limited Access Expressway Historic District Regional Arterial Municipal Boundary Figure . National Register of Historic Places Central Naugatuck Valley Region Source: National Register of Historic Places, December 00  For more information go to: http://www.cultureandtourism.org/cct/lib/cct/CT_National_Register_of_Historic__Places.doc This map does not include state or local historic district. Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Regional Histor y  Communit y Origins (in chronological order) Waterbury (then called Mattatuck) was one of the first settlements in the region. Settlers from Farmington ac- quired the land area bordered by Farmington, Derby, Woodbury, and Southbury from Native Americans. Lat – ter expansions included Watertown, Plymouth, and parts of Wolcott, Middlebury, Oxford and Prospect. Woodbury, the other early settlement in the region, was settled by families from Stratford. At one time, the Town encompassed Woodbury, Southbury, Bethlehem, and parts of Oxford, Middlebury, and Washington. Wood – bury was named a town in 1686. Cheshire was settled along the Quinnipiac River and in the southern portion of the town by farmers from Wall – ingford. The town was incorporated in 1780. Watertown was originally the Wooster Swamp area of Mattatuck. It developed into the Westbury area and was incorporated in 1780 from Waterbury. Southbury split from its original township, Woodbury, due to travel distances necessary to attend religious ser – vices. Southbury, was incorporated in 1787. Bethlehem was settled about 1740 following the 1703 North Purchase by Woodbury. The Town of Bethlehem was incorporated in 1787. Wolcott was incorporated in 1796 from Waterbury and the part of Farmington which became Southington. It became Wolcott to honor Lieutenant Oliver Wolcott who cast the deciding vote in favor of its establishment. Oxford drew its early residents from Derby, Stratford, and New Haven around 1680. Oxford was incorporated in 1798 using land from Derby and Southbury. Middlebury was incorporated in 1807 due to the diffi – culty of crossing the Naugatuck River in winter to get to church. Middlebury took its name in recognition of its origins from the three “burys”, Southbury, Woodbury, and Waterbury. Prospect was incorporated in 1827 from Cheshire and Waterbury. Known as Columbia prior to its incorpora – tion, the town was renamed Prospect because of its many vistas offering a “prospect” view. Naugatuck, originally part of Mattatuck, was incorpo – rated as Naugatuck in 1844 from parts of Waterbury, Bethany, and Oxford. Beacon Falls was incorporated in 1871 from portions of Bethany, Oxford, Naugatuck, and Seymour. The name originates from a waterfall on Beacon Hill. Thomaston was originally formed as the parish of North – bury in Mattatuck. The parish included Plymouth. Thomaston, named for clockmaker Seth Thomas, split off from Plymouth in 1875. Other Sources More information on the history of the Central Nau – gatuck Valley region can be found in: Connecticut, A Fully Illustrated History of the State from the Seventeenth Century to the Present, Albert Van Dusen, Random House, New York, 1961. Historic Preservation in Connecticut, Volume IV, Western Uplands: Historical and Architectural Overview and Man – agement Guide, Geoffrey Rossano, Connecticut Histori – cal Commission, Hartford, 1996. These materials, and other information on the history of towns in the region, can be found at local libraries and the Mattatuck Museum. Edgewood Cemetery, Wolcott  – Regional Histor y Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  f. Demographic Trends As of 2006, the Central Naugatuck Valley Region (CNVR) had 281,895 residents according to U.S. Cen- sus estimates — an increase of 9,301 people (3.4%) since 2000 and 20,814 (8.0%) since 1990. The region is grow – ing faster than the state, with a rate of 8.1% between 1990 and 2006 compared to 6.6% for Connecticut as a whole. 1 The City of Waterbury is home to well over a third of the region’s population (see Table 3.1). Waterbury’s popu- lation generally remained stable (-1.6%) between 1990 and 2006. In contrast, the Connecticut cities of Hartford (-11.0%), New Haven (-5.0%), and Bridgeport (-2.7%) lost population, while Stamford experienced population growth (10.4%). Excluding Waterbury, the population of the CNVR grew 14.8% between 1990 and 2006. Among Connecticut’s 15 planning regions, Central Nau – gatuck Valley ranks ninth in regional population growth between 2000 and 2006. Out of the eight regions with populations over 200,000, the CNVR ranks third in the state for regional growth after the Central Connecticut (New Britain – Bristol), and Housatonic Valley Regions (Danbury). Regional Popul ation Grow th Between 1990 and 2006 the southwest quadrant of the CNVR grew the most rapidly — the towns of Oxford and Southbury. Oxford experienced intense growth be – tween 1990 and 2006, growing by 41.7%. From 2000 to 2006 Oxford led the state in population growth, increas – ing 25.3%. The region’s pace of population growth has picked up since 2000. Even the City of Waterbury, which lost 1,690 people between 1990 and 2000, has managed to retain its population since 2000 (see Table 3.2). 2 Popul ation Trends Between 1990 and 2003, the number of births in the CNVR declined 15.4%, while the number of deaths rose 8.5%. 3 As a consequence, population growth from natural increase (births minus deaths) dropped 48.1% (see Figure 3.1). Nevertheless, most towns in the CNVR have many more births than deaths. The main excep – tion is Southbury, with annually more deaths than births due to age-restricted housing (Heritage Village). As more unrestricted housing is constructed within Southbury, this trend should moderate. As other towns, specifically Oxford, build large scale age-restricted housing develop – ments, they too may experience more deaths than births. Geographic Area  00  Estimate 000 Census  0 Census C N V R 281,895272,594261,081 Wat e r bu r y 107,251107,271108,961 R e m a i nd e r of R e g ion 174,644 165,323152,120 Beacon Falls 5,7005,2465,083 Bethlehem 3,5773,4223,071 Cheshire 28,83328,54325,684 Middlebury 7,1326,4516,145 Naugatuck 31,87230,98930,625 Oxford 12,3099,8218,685 Prospect 9,2648,7077,775 Southbury 19,68618,56715,818 Thomaston 7,9167,5036,947 Watertown 22,32921,66120,456 Wolcott 16,26915,21513,700 Woodbury 9,7579,1988,131 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, 2000 Census, and 2006 Estimates Table . CNVR Population Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Demographic Trends 00 Numerical Population Change Geographic Area  000- 00   0- 000  0- 00  C N V R 9,30111,513 20,814 Wat e r bu r y -20-1,690 -1,710 R e m a i nd e r of r R e g ion 9,321 13,203 22,524 Beacon Falls 454163 617 Bethlehem 155351 506 Cheshire 2902,859 3,149 Middlebury 681306 987 Naugatuck 8833641,247 Oxford 2,4881,1363,624 Prospect 557932 969 Southbury 1,1192,749 3,868 Thomaston 413556 969 Watertown 6681,205 1,873 Wolcott 1,0541,5152,569 Woodbury 5591,067 1,626 COGCNV Staff Analysis based upon U.S. Census data Percent Change in Population Geographic Area  000- 00   0- 000  0- 00  C N V R 3.4%4.4%8.0% Wat e r bu r y 0%-1.6% -1.6% R e m a i nd e r of r R e g ion 5.6% 8.7.8% Beacon Falls 8.7%3.2.1% Bethlehem 4.5.4% 16.5% Cheshire 1.0.1% 12.3% Middlebury 10.6%5.0.1% Naugatuck 2.8%1.2%4.1% Oxford 25.3.1.7% Prospect 6.4.0% 19.2% Southbury 6.0.4% 24.5% Thomaston 5.5%8.0.9% Watertown 3.1%5.9%9.2% Wolcott 6.9.1% 18.8% Woodbury 6.1.1% 20.0% COGCNV Staff Analysis based upon U.S. Census data Table . Amount of CNVR Population Growth Table . Rate of CNVR Population Growth Figure . CNVR Natural Population Increase 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Population CNVR Births CNVR Deaths Natural Increase Source: CT Depar tment of Public Health  – Demographic Trends Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Middlebury and Bethlehem — similar to Southbury — have experienced low population growth from natural increase, with only slightly more births than deaths. As CNVR residents age, natural population decline (deaths exceeding births) may become more common. During the 1990s, natural increase kept the CNVR from losing population even though more people left the re- gion than migrated to it (see Table 3.4). Waterbury ex- perienced the greatest out-migration, losing 8,162 more people than gained from in-migration. Out-migration is responsible for the population drop seen in Waterbury between 1990 and 2000. Although Naugatuck and Bea- con Falls did not lose population, they too experienced a net migration loss. Intraregional migration may have blunted the impact on the region’s population size. Many of those leaving Waterbury relocated locally. Southbury and Cheshire experienced the greatest net in-migration during the last decade. Since 2000, the region has attracted more people than it has lost. Between 2000 and 2004, 4,743 more people moved to the CNVR than left. Waterbury continued to lose more people to out-migration, though the rate of loss has halved since 2000. All other CNVR municipalities experienced net migration gains. Immigration A noticable amount of the in-migration between 1990 and 2000 was driven by immigration. As of 2000, the CNVR was home to 24,475 foreign born residents 4, an increase of 29.4% from 1990. 5 Waterbury continues to be the region’s gateway, with more than half of the CNVR’s foreign immigrants. Although the region is home to many immigrants from Europe (12,011), most of these residents immigrated to the United States prior to 1980. Recent immigration has been predominately from Latin America. In 2000, CNVR residents born in Central America, South America, the Caribbean, or Puerto Rico totaled 15,356. 6 The vast majority of Latin American immigrants and Puerto Rican migrants live in Waterbury. A majority of the region’s Hispanic popula – tion (55.5%) were born outside the 50 U.S. states, mostly in Puerto Rico. Also since 1990, the CNVR experienced immigration from Asia (4,282) and a small immigration from Africa (686). 7 Popul ation Projections The Central Naugatuck Valley Region is projected to experience slowing growth over the the next twenty years. Between 2005 and 2025, the region can expect to gain over 17,000 new residents and reach a population of 300,000. Population growth will be 6.1% over this twenty-year period — a more robust rate than the state as a whole. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that Connect – icut’s population will grow 5.1% during the same time period. Waterbury’s population is projected to remain steady, while the surrounding towns absorb most of the region’s growth (see table 3.5). Due to declining natural increase, the future population growth in the CNVR will be dictated by migration. Migration to, from, or within the CNVR will be influenced by the economic health, housing affordability, transportation infrastructure, and quality of life of the region and its municipalities. Geographic Area Natural IncreaseNet Migration Population Growth C N V R 12,924-1,41111,513 Wat e r bu r y 7,220-8,910 -1,690 R e m a i nd e r of r R e g ion 5,704 7,49913,203 Beacon Falls 404-241 163 Bethlehem 108243351 Cheshire 9541,905 2,859 Middlebury 38268 306 Naugatuck 2,314-1,950 364 Oxford 6964401,136 Prospect 294638932 Southbury -1,1973,9462,749 Thomaston 392164556 Watertown 7294761,205 Wolcott 5659501,515 Woodbury 4076601,067 COGCNV Staff Analysis based upon CT Department of Public Health and U.S. Census data Table . CNVR Migration 0-000 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Demographic Trends  Age The region continues to age. In 2000 the median age of CNVR residents was 37.5 years, three years older than in 1990. 8 Overall, in 2000 the CNVR was older than the national median age of 35.3, but almost the same as the Connecticut median age of 37.4. As of 2000, South – bury was the region’s oldest municipality with a median age of 45.7 years. Waterbury was the region’s youngest municipality with a median age of 34.9 years. Excluding Waterbury, the median age of the CNVR was 40.0 years in 2000. Population Projections Geographic Area  00  Estimates 0 0  0  0 0 0  0 0 CNVR 281,895289,677295,440 298,748299,445 296,535 Waterbury 107,251108,714108,772 108,119107,060 105,713 Remainder of r Region 174,644 180,963186,668 190,629192,385 190,823 CT 3,504,8093,577,4903,635,414 3,675,650 3,691,0163,688,630 COGCNV Staff Analysis based on U.S. Census Bureau Projections Table . Population Projections By the year 2000 the post World War II “baby boom – ers” had begun entering the 45-64 age group. This age group rose 26.9% since 1990 and comprised 22.8% of the region’s population in 2000. The “baby boomlet” of school-aged children 5-17 grew 21.1% over the decade. Adults aged 35-44 grew a moderate 14.6%, while the 65 and older age group only grew by 1.1%. There was a substantial decline during the 1990’s in the number of young adults aged 18-24 (-22.7%) and adults aged 25-34 (-23.1%). The proportion of preschoolers (under the age of 5) also declined (-3.9%). The aging of the baby boomers and the size of their age group will lead to increased demands for elderly services such as senior recreation, transportation, home health services and medical care into the future. At the same time, the growth of the retiree population will in turn reduce municipalities’ abilities to pay for services. The decline of the number in adults aged 18-34 and preschool children may compound this problem. There will be few – er employed taxpayers and less economic vibrancy due to the lack of young workers and fewer entrepreneurs. If na – tional trends towards couples marrying later and having fewer children continue, the lack of younger adults and fewer children could lead to a decline in regional popula – tion as the baby boomers begin to die off. The decline in the number of young adults could affect the region’s economic growth. Pond Place Medical Center, Prospect  – Demographic Trends Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  1990 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 +85 Age Group Population Men Women Woodland Regional High School, Beacon Falls Age Range  000  0 Percent Change Total Percent of Total TotalPercent of Total Under 5 18,2096.7,954 7.3%-3.9 % 5-17 52,04019.1,979 16.5.1% 18-24 19,5837.2,322 9.7%-2 2 .7% 25-34 35,16412.9,702 17.5%-2 3.1% 35-44 46,28717.0,399 15.5 . 6% 45-64 62,03322.8,866 18.7%2 6 .9 % 65+ 39,27814.4,859 14.9% 1.1% Total 272,594100.01,081 100.0% 4 .4% Median Age 37.5 32.714 .7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and 1990 Census Table . CNVR 0 – 000 Age Distribution Figure . CNVR Age Cohorts 0 and 000 2000 -15,000 -10,000 -5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 +85 Age Group Population Men Women Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Demographic Trends  Ethnic and Racial Composition According to the 2000 Census, 83.8% of CNVR resi- dents identified themselves as white, 7.5% as black or African-American, 0.3% as American Indian and Alaska Native, 1.4% as Asian, and 4.8% as some other race or combination of races (see table 3.7). The region’s non- white population was 44,060 and constituted 16.2% of the region’s total population in 2000, a 63.7% increase from 1990. In 2000, 80.0% of the region’s racial minor – ity population lived in Waterbury, accounting for 32.9% of the city’s total population. Cheshire had the second largest number of minority residents, representing 10.6% of its population, followed by Naugatuck with 8.2%. In the remaining CNVR towns, the minority population ranged from 2.1% to 3.7%. 9 Playing at Bunker Hill Park, Waterbury Geographic Area W hiteAfrican American AsianAmerican Indian Other or Multiple Races Hispanic a C N V R 216,34519,1873,877 55032,635 27,634 Wat e r bu r y 62,40616,3351,584 31926,627 23,354 R e m a i nd e r of r R e g ion 153,939 2,8522,293 2316,008 4,280 Beacon Falls 5,0013454 4153 112 Bethlehem 3,320927 264 22 Cheshire 25,1051,270743 441,381 1,097 Middlebury 6,2072183 4136 79 Naugatuck 27,541842520 702,016 1,386 Oxford 9,4525065 16238 180 Prospect 8,26812263 7247 168 Southbury 17,84480214 13416 296 Thomaston 7,2684437 8146 109 Watertown 20,628149273 25586 406 Wolcott 14,486185113 20411 273 Woodbury 8,81946101 18214 152 aHispanic ethnicity regardless of race Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Table . 000 CNVR Racial and Ethnic Composition In 2000, people identifying themselves as Hispanics to – taled 27,634 and comprised 10.1% of the CNVR’s popu- lation. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of Hispanics in the region grew by 59.9%. As of 2000, 84.5% of the region’s Hispanic population lived in Waterbury and con – stituted 21.8% of the city’s population. Naugatuck and Cheshire were home to the second and third largest por – tion of the region’s Hispanic population with 4.5% and 3.8%, respectively. The remaining 7.2% of the CNVR’s Hispanic residents lived in the region’s other towns.  – Demographic Trends Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Households As the CNVR ages, the size of its households has declined. In 2000, the average CNVR household size was 2.57 per- sons 10, down from 2.62 in 1990 11 (see table 3.8). On average, CNVR households are larger and shrinking less slowly than the average Connecticut household. Average household size in the CNVR is still smaller and shrinking faster than the national average. In 2000, Oxford had the region’s largest households with an average size of 2.94 persons, down from 3.09 in 1990. Southbury had the region’s smallest households with an average size of 2.41 persons in 2000, up from 2.34 per – sons per household in 1990. Southbury was the only town to experience growth in average household size in the CNVR during the decade. The trend was driven by growth in the town, particularly the construction of non- age-restricted single family houses. Geographic Area Number of Households  000 Change Since  0 Average Household Size  000 Change Since 0 CNVR 103,1555.6% 2.64-1.4% Waterbury 42,622-1.3% 2.52- 0.3% Remainder of r Region 60,53310.4% 2.73-2 . 6% Beacon Falls 2,0327.0% 2.58-4.1% Bethlehem 1,24610.4% 2.75-0.1% Cheshire 9,34910.8% 3.05-0.9% Middlebury 2,3987.1% 2.69-2.5% Naugatuck 11,8294.2% 2.62-3.1% Oxford 3,34315.8% 2.94-4.8% Prospect 3,02015.4% 2.88-5.2% Southbury 7,22514.1% 2.570.9% Thomaston 2,9169.7% 2.57-2.5% Watertown 8,0469.8% 2.69-4.5% Wolcott 5,41414.4% 2.81-4.9% Woodbury 3,71512.8% 2.48-1.4% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 000 Census Table . CNVR Households The number of married couple households in the CNVR declined between 1990 and 2000. The proportion of all CNVR households that are comprised of married couple households (with or without children) also declined 4.5 percentage points from 57.0% to 52.5%. Similar percent- age declines were observed in all towns except Southbury which had a larger proportion of married couple house – holds in 2000 than in 1990. During the same timeframe, the number of single person, single parent householders, and non-family households in the CNVR all increased. In 2000, Waterbury had the highest proportion of single parent households (24.3%) and single person households (31.4%) (see Table 3.9). Beacon Falls had the highest proportion of non-family households (5.7%). Waterbury Green Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Demographic Trends  Income and Pofer t y The regional median household income was $49,855 in 1999 12 (see table 3.10). Cheshire was the wealthiest mu- nicipality, with a median household income of $80,466. Oxford and Middlebury followed with median household incomes of $77,126 and $70,469. Waterbury was the poorest municipality with a median household income of $34,285. Between 1989 and 1999 the income gap grew as the median household incomes in the CNVR’s six wealthiest towns grew and incomes dropped in the re – maining seven towns. In 1999, Cheshire’s median house – hold income was 2.3 times larger than Waterbury’s, up from 1.9 times in 1989. When corrected for inflation, median incomes for households in the CNVR dropped 6.7% between 1989 and 1999. 13 Municipalities Single Person  or More Person Households Married Couples Single Householder / No Spouse Non-Family Households CNVR 25.9.5.9% 4.6% Waterbury 31.4.8.3% 5.4% Remainder of r Region 22.1% 62.2.7% 4.0% Beacon Falls 23.0.2.1% 5.7% Bethlehem 19.6.7%9.5%5.3% Cheshire 19.4.5% 9.1%3.0% Middlebury 20.1.3%9.1%3.5% Naugatuck 24.9.3.8% 4.9% Oxford 12.6.8%9.9%3.7% Prospect 15.1.1.4% 3.4% Southbury 29.8.8%7.0%3.3% Thomaston 24.0.5.4% 5.1% Watertown 21.7.7.8% 3.8% Wolcott 18.0.0.5% 3.5% Woodbury 25.4.9.4% 5.4% Ssource: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Table . CNVR Household Types In 1999, 22,832 CNVR residents or 8.6% of the region’s population assessed by the Census, lived in poverty. 14 The CNVR had a greater incidence of poverty than Connecti – cut as a whole, which had a rate of 7.9% and a slightly lower incidence of poverty than the nation as a whole, which had a rate of 12.4%. The incidence of poverty in the CNVR had grown by 28.4% between 1989 and 1999. 15 Statewide incidence of poverty also grew, but only 15.9%, while at the same time that incidence of poverty nationwide dropped by 5.5%. The ranks of those just above the poverty line (earning no more than 150% of the poverty line), commonly called the working poor, numbered 16,597 or 6.2% of  – Demographic Trends Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Figure . Persons Below 0% Poverty Level Central Naugatuck Valley Region “¥ Woodbury § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 Oxford Southbury Cheshire Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls Ü 0 2 4 1 Miles Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) POPDENSQMI 0 – 499 500 – 999 1,000 – 3,999 4,000 – 240,000 Limited Access Expressway Regional Arterial Persons per square mile Figure . Population Density Central Naugatuck Valley Region ” ¥ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 Woodbury Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown WolcottCheshire Prospect Beacon Falls Naugatuck Middlebury Southbury Oxford Woodbury Waterbury 0 2 41 Miles Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census SF-3 table P88, Census TIGER Line files, 2000 Data based on block group geography. Includes any person who was part of a household that reported having a medianhousehold income 150% or below the Census poverty threshold, by family size, on their 2000 Census form. The poverty statistics do not include institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old. Central Naugatuck Valley Region Average = 14.8% Block Group Boundary Percentage of Persons Below 150% of Poverty Level Town Boundary 30.1 – 100% 20.1 – 30.0% 10.1 – 20.0% 0.0 – 10.0 % Ü Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Demographic Trends  Major Demographic Trends Continued population growth, but slowing In-migration from other regions (Stamford, New Ha- ven, and New York City) Increased and continued immigration from outside U. S. Aging population Shortage of young workers Shrinking households and families (empty nest / child- less families) Growing income disparities between wealthy and poor Income growth not keeping pace with inflation Growing incidence of poverty and working poor Poverty growth outside Waterbury Increasingly racial and ethnic diversity in regional pop – ulation Racial and ethnic isolation 1 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-1 2 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-1 3 Connecticut Department of Public Health 4 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-3 table P22 5 U. S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, STF-3 table P036 6 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-3 tables PCT20 and P21 7 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-3 table PCT20 8 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-1 table P12 and 1990 Census, SF-1 table P011 9 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-110 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-1 table P1711 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-1 tables P003 and P015 12 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-3 table P5313 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-3 table P8514 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, SF-3 table P88 15 U. S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, STF-3 table P121 • • • • • • • • • • • • Geographic Area   (in  Dollars)* Percent Change CNVR $49,855$53,437 – 6 .7% Waterbury $34,285$41,193-16 . 8% Remainder of r Region $62,534 $63,190 -1.0 % Beacon Falls $56,592$58,882 -3.9% Bethlehem $68,542$64,740 5.9% Cheshire $80,466$78,588 2.4% Middlebury $70,469$66,815 5.5% Naugatuck $51,247$53,834 -4.8% Oxford $77,126$73,458 5.0% Prospect $67,560$65,373 3.3% Southbury $61,919$63,862 -3.0% Thomaston $54,297$55,114 -1.5% Watertown $59,420$61,741 -3.8% Wolcott $61,376$65,443 -6.2% Woodbury $68,322$67,897 0.6% *Adjusted using the Consumer Price Index Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and COGCNV Staff Analysis Table .0 Median Household Income the region’s population in 1999, up from 4.4% in 1989. Most of the region’s poverty is concentrated in Waterbury with 73.5% of the region’s poor and 67.5% of the region’s working poor living there in 1999. Nevertheless, pov – erty is a regional issue with growth in the number and percentage of CNVR residents living in poverty or near poverty being observed in all towns, except Bethlehem, Middlebury, Prospect, and Watertown between 1989 and 1999. In fact between 1989 and 1999 poverty rates grew faster outside of Waterbury as the relative percentage of regional poor living in Waterbury declined from 75.7% to 73.5%. Overall, growing income disparities and incidence of pov – erty in the CNVR are trends that are continuing. They are regional issues of concern.  – Demographic Trends Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  The Central Naugatuck Valley Region encompasses about 200,800 acres (314 square miles). As of 2000, about 48 percent was developed or committed to a long term use, 43 percent was either vacant, not committed to a specific use, or a waterbody, and 9 percent was used for agricul- tural or resource extraction uses. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.3 summarize how the area was used in 2000 based on aerial photographs, USGS maps, field surveys, previous regional and local land use surveys, and information from town planners. Location of Grow th The location of growth is a major issue in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. While Waterbury is the resi – dential, economic, institutional, and cultural center, the region is changing from a center city surrounded by residential suburbs to a metropolitan area with dispersed employment and generally low density housing develop – ments. Residential growth in the region during the 1990s was slower than in the 1970s or the 1980s. The pace of resi – dential growth was faster in outlying communities (8.7 percent) than it was in Waterbury (-1.6 percent) and re – gionally about the same as the state as a whole (3.6 per – cent). This suburban growth pattern is expected to continue during the planning period due to: Perceptions of quality of life, community character, and education. Availability of automobile transportation to most of the population. Social and economic influences. Availability of vacant land. • • • • While outlying communities are, or have been, heralded for their rural character and availability of vacant land, the changing form of the region reduces the amount of vacant land (often perceived as open space). Continu – ation of current patterns of development threatens the very features that attract people to these areas. Dispersed suburban and rural growth can result in: Under-use of infrastructure capacity in urban areas. Increased demand for costly infrastructure in previously undeveloped areas. Increased intergovernmental funding for the provision of new services. Fewer economies of scale in the provision of municipal services. Increased demand for development in outlying areas in order to expand the tax base or provide goods and services. Loss of prime and important farmland. Negative environmental impacts (air, water, and en – ergy). Adverse effects on aquifers and watersheds. • • • • • • • • b. Land Use & Grow th Pat terns Farming meets Residential Development in Cheshire Current Conditions Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 -Land Use & Growth Patterns 00 Table . Central Naugatuck Valley Region Land Use: 000 Build-Out Over 65,000 acres of residentially zoned land remains to be developed in the region. In 2007, working with the University of Connecticut’s Center for Land Use Educa – tion and Research, staff performed a build-out analysis using three approaches: a standard mathematical calcu – lation, a GIS model using readily available data, and a parcel specific model (Community Viz) for Woodbury. The Community Viz program requires up-to-date digital parcel information that was only available for Woodbury. All the models used existing zoning regulations and an efficiency factor to reflect new roads, lot configuation, re – quired open space, and other factors. The purpose of the build-out is to project the potential population growth under existing zoning, not at any specific time. The GIS model projects the potential population using a formula that included all remaining land that can be residentially developed in each municipality, the number of acres re – quired for development in each zoning district, average household size, and an efficiency factor. Note that Wa – terbury’s potential population reflects the permitted high zoning densities under the City’s present zoning regula – tions. The resulting population projections at full build- out are shown in Table 4.2. Existing Land Use AcresPercent of Developed LandPercent of Total Land Residential High Density 9901.0%0.5% Medium Density 11,72012.1%5.8% Low Density 57,69059.4.7% Business Commercial – Trades and Services 2,7702.9%1.4% Industrial 4,0404.2%2.0% Public & Institutional Uses Community Facilities/Institutional 3,2003.3%1.6% Open Space and Recreation 14,05014.5%7.0% Transportation/Utilities 2,6702.7%1.3% Developed / Committed 97,130100.3% Other Uses Agriculture 16,200 8.1% Resource Extraction/Production 1,780 0.9% Water 4,410 2.2% Vacant / Remaining Potential 81,360 40.5% Total Land Area 200,880 100.0% Source: Central Naugatuck Valley Region 2000 Land Use Survey  – Land Use & Growth Patterns Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Excludes: •Environmental Constraints Wetlands and water bodies Floodplains Steep slopes •Committed Open Space •Existing Developed Areas (COGCNV Land Use 2000) •Non-residentially zoned buildable land Buildable Area in Residential zones Municipality  00  Population Estimates Efficiency Factor Total Build-out Population Mathematical (non-GIS) Basic GIS Using Land Use Beacon Falls 5,59650% 9,120 9,060 Bethlehem 3,59650% 4,610 6,280 Cheshire 29,09760.280 35,100 Middlebur y 6,97450% 11,600 12,030 Naugatuck 31,86460,340 44,610 Oxford 11,70950,410 19,470 Prospect 9,23450% 11,760 12,320 Southbur y 19,67750,410 25,400 Thomaston 7,93860% 13,280 12,350 Waterbur y 107,902706,230 175,790 Water town 22,33060,440 31,480 Wolcott 16,22860,440 21,730 Woodbur y 9,73450% 15,440 16,320 CNVR 281,879 535,360421,940 COGCNV Staff Analysis Table . CNVR Build-Out Final Results Figure . Basic GIS CNVR Build-Out COGCNV Staff Analysis Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 -Land Use & Growth Patterns  Figure . Land in Agricultural Use and Prime and Important Farmland Soils Central Naugatuck Valley Region B R I D G E W A T E R ” ¥ ” ¥ ” § ”  ” Í “Î ” Ò ” Ñ ” Ó ” Å ” Ì ” × ” ð “½ ” × ” Ý ” Ü £ t ” ì ” ¬ ” e ” Í ” Í ” ½ ” Ð ” Ð ”  ”  ” ¥ ” Ì £ t t ” Ó ” e ” Ò ” ð ” Ò ” Ñ ” ½ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” Í ” Ñ ” Î M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M OU R N E W T O W N P L Y M OU T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 24 1 Miles Municipal Boundary Limited Access Expressway Regional Arterial Source: Prime & Important Farmland Soils, DEP Agricultural Land Use identified by COGCNV using 2000 State Aerials Land in Agricultural Use Agriculture Land in Agricultural Use on Prime and Important Farmland Soil Prime and Important Farmland Soils  – Land Use & Growth Patterns Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley B R I D G E W A T E R ” ¥ ” ¥ ” § ”  ” Í ” Î ” Ò ” Ñ ” Ó ” Å ” Ì ” × ” ð ” ½ ” × ” Ý ” Ü £ t ” ì ” ¬ ” e ” Í ” Í ” ½ ” Ð ” Ð ”  ”  ” ¥ ” Ì £ t £ t ” Ó ” e ” Ò ” ð ” Ò ” Ñ ” ½ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 ” Í ” Ñ ” Î Bethlehem Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Woodbury WaterburyWolcott Cheshire Prospect Naugatuck BeaconFalls Oxford Southbury M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I DE N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C HF I E LD W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N ³ 0 24 1 Miles Source: Central Naugatuck Valley Region 2000 Land Use Survey Disclaimer: This map is intended for general planning purposes only. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY Municipal Boundary Limited Access Expressway Regional Arterial Local Roads Landuse RX Resource Extraction TU Transportation & Utilities UL Undeveloped Land W Water AG Agriculture CF Institutional CM Commercial IN Industrial RC Recreational Urban High Density > 8 Units/Acre Urban Low Density 2-8 Units/Acre Suburban High Density 1-2 Units/Acre Suburban Low Density 1/2 Unit/Acre Estate < 1/2 Unit/Acre Figure 4.3 Generalized Land Use Central Naugatuck Valley Region 2000 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 2008 5 - Land Use & Growth Patterns Generalized Land Use  Major Recommendations Guide the location of growth in the region towards the regional center and areas with infrastructure. More compact settlement patterns that take advantage of available infrastructure (water, sewer, and transportation) will prove to be a more economical and efficient growth strategy for the future of the region. Often called “smart growth,” significant efforts will be required to make such changes since land in suburban parts of the region may be more available, easier to develop, and have lower taxes at present. Recommendations 1. Encourage growth in areas where adequate infrastruc - ture, including the transportation network, is avail - able. 2. Discourage large-scale residential, commercial, and industrial development in rural development areas. 3. Continue to address issues associated with suburban growth pressure. 4. Consideration of potential impacts in development of emergencies caused by natural disasters. 5. Encourage municipalities to undertake pre-disaster mitigation planning activities. 6. Preserve scenic beauty and habitat values of the re - gion’s rivers, tributaries and wetlands. Educate municipal commissions and others about the fiscal impacts of growth within the region. All communities in the region rely on the property tax for revenue generation. Due to local differences, some com - munities fare better than others, and this results in fis - cal inequality, unequal tax burdens, and lack of regional cooperation in areas of common concern. This results in pressure to permit developments that appear to provide net positive tax benefits in the short term for municipali - ties, such as over 55 housing. Aerial View of Downtown Waterbury The Council of Governments commissioned the plan - ning firm, Planimetrics of Avon, in 1999 to do a fiscal impact study of land uses. The study concluded: Residential uses typically received more in services than they provide in tax revenue. The key determinant of whether a residential use will produce a fiscal surplus is whether it produces public school pupils. Municipal services are generally configured to benefit residents (voters) while revenue comes from a variety of sources. To maximize fiscal benefits to existing residents, most communities want to attract new non-residential de- velopment, receive more state aid and generate more revenue from non-tax sources. Recommendations 1. Encourage communities to cooperate in obtaining fiscal benefits that will benefit all residents of the re - gion. Encourage periodic review of local land use regulations. Land use regulations are the most effective way to shape land use patterns in the region. However, this will only be effective if local regulations are periodically reviewed to ensure that they meet community and regional needs. • • • Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 -Land Use & Growth Patterns  B R I D G E W A T E R " ¥ " ¥ " § "  " Í " Î " Ò " Ñ " Ó " Å " Ì " × " ð " ½ " × " Ý " Ü t " ì " ¬ " e " Í " Í " ½ " Ð " Ð "  "  " ¥ " Ì t t " Ó " e " Ò " ð " Ò " Ñ " ½ §¨ ¦84 §¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 " Í " Ñ " Î M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H IN G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U TH I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 2 4 1 Miles Municipal Boundary Limited Access Expressway Regional Arterial Community Centers Major Economic Areas Regional Core Figure . Economic and Community Centers Central Naugatuck Valley Region Recommendations 1. Assist communities in periodic reviews of their land use regulations to ensure that the changing needs of the region’s population can be met (such as affordable housing development or accessory apartment regula- tions). 2. Discourage policies that reinforce patterns of racial, social, or economic segregation or concentration. 3. Encourage protection of natural and cultural resources (historic and archeological). Water resources should be a high priority. Encourage settlement patterns that reduce the rate of land consumption in the region. Most of the growth in the region is low density residential growth that consumes land at a faster rate than historic settlement patterns. This pattern reduces the amount of vacant land (perceived as open space), changes the char - acter of the region, and contributes to problems with air quality, traffic, energy consumption, and the efficient provision of services. The amount of low density use in - creased by almost 20,000 acres between 1990 and 2000. Low density residential development increases the cost of housing. While high cost, low density, owner-occupied, single family homes are usually preferred by those who can afford them, many people are excluded and commu - nity diversity (social, racial, economic) can be adversely affected. Low density development also places farming in jeopardy as farming needs a critical mass to supply ser - vices and create a “farm friendly” atmosphere.  - Land Use & Growth Patterns Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Recommendations 1. Encourage settlement patterns that efficiently use the region’s infrastructure and preserve open space and natural resources. 2. Encourage mixed use developments in regional and community centers. 3. Encourage cluster development in appropriate areas where soil and environmental conditions would per - mit. 4. Encourage affordable housing and social, racial, and economic diversity. 5. Work to maintain the environment necessary for farms and the farming industry. 6. Explore land use tools such as the transfer of devel - opment rights as a means to reduce the rate of land consumption. Recognize farmland as an important natural resource worthy of conserving for farming ac - tivity as well as its present aesthetic and eco - nomic benefits to the community. Agriculture is important in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region for its aesthetic and economic value. There are over 11,000 acres of prime and important farmland soil in agricultural use. Agriculture can help bolster tour - ism, act as a barrier to development, and provide a local food source. Also, farms are generally a fiscal surplus for a community as a commercial land use, depending on the impact on local schools. However, land in agricultural use has decreased by 13 percent between 1990 and 2000, and there is a conflict between agricultural use and subur - ban development when they become neighbors. COGCNV funded an agricultural land research study on this topic through its coordination with the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition, where loss of farmland in the watershed has a close correlation to the increased demand for available, clean water and rapid development. The study found significant public support for farming, both statewide and in the watershed communities (Bethlehem, Woodbury, and Southbury). Recommendations 1. Work with groups involved in preserving agricultural soils and farming as a viable land use in the region or to meet open space targets. 2. Encourage the incorporation of agriculture in local plans of conservation and development, including in - ventories of farm businesses and farmland. 3. Help develop specific tax, zoning, and land use strat - egies to address farm retention and reduce impedi- ments to farming activities. Facilitate sustained and coordinated efforts to renovate contaminated sites. The re-use of many well-located industrial sites in the re - gion is impeded by environmental contamination from Former Plume & Atwood Brass Mill, Thomaston Platt Farm, Southbury Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 -Land Use & Growth Patterns  Thomaston Opera House, circa 1884 prior uses. Such sites need to be viewed as challenges rather than as obstacles to economic growth in the re- gion. Absent the contamination, the majority of these sites have a superior location relative to highway access, rail access, and access to public water and sewer facilities. Sustained and coordinated efforts will be necessary to bring these sites back to productive use. Recommendations 1. COGCNV should serve as a clearinghouse for infor - mation on state and federal funds available for the clean-up of contaminated sites. 2. COGCNV, in its legislative efforts, should lobby an - nually for bond funds to address local clean-up of contaminated sites. Hotchkiss House, Prospect Encourage preservation of cultural resources. The region contains a variety of historical, archeological, and other cultural resources that are worthy of preserva - tion. Recommendations 1. Encourage efforts to preserve important historical and cultural resources in the region.  - Land Use & Growth Patterns Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  5. Natural Resource Conservation O ferfiew Significant natural resources in the region include the major north-south ridges and river valleys that define the landform of the region, the soils that support land uses and activities, water resources that sustain the region, the air that we breathe, and the plants and animals that inhabit this area. Conservation of these resources is an important element of the Regional Plan of Conservation & Development. Current Conditions Environmental constraints are an important criterion for future land use. They provide a method for setting pa- rameters for the intensity of development — areas with more severe constraints should be developed at lower in - tensities. The following table summarizes the natural resources that most affect conservation and development efforts and the rationale for their consideration in the Plan. Resource Category Rationale for Conservation Landform Hilltop, ridgeline, valley, or water body. Scenic views, community character. Steep Slopes 15 percent or more Slope stability, potential for erosion, structural concerns. Soils Poorly Drained (Wetlands) Habitat, water quality, and flood storage functions. Groundwater impairs septic systems and buildings. Hardpan Groundwater impairs septic functions and buildings. Shallow and Rocky Shallow soils impair septic function and construction. Excessively Drained Susceptible to contamination. Floodplains Watercourse Periodic flooding, threat to life and property. Water Quality Surface Protect supply watersheds, prevent pollution. Groundwater Protect supply aquifers, prevent pollution. Aquifers Water Quantity Provide adequate water supply. Water Quality Provide safe water supply. Air Air Quality Provides healthy environment. Plants Diversity Plant habitat, endangered species, forestry. Animals Diversity Animal habitat, endangered species, migration. Table . Summary of Resources Affecting Conservation and Development Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Natural Resource Conser vation 00 The following table and map show how these resources can be used to estimate constraints to development. Nat- ural resources have been classified as to whether they pose minimal, moderate, severe, or prohibitive constraints to development. Conversely, these areas can be considered to present low, modest, important, or significant oppor - tunities for natural resource conservation. This type of analysis suggests areas where, in the absence of public water supply or public sewer service, land use intensity should reflect the natural capabilities of the land. In other words, it can be the starting point for zoning cat -egories that consider soil type, terrain, and infrastructure capacity. While these resources influence development patterns and densities, development can also adversely affect sensi - tive natural resources. The impact of land uses on public water supply watersheds, areas of high groundwater avail- ability, and areas of excessively drained soils (all poten - tially subject to contamination) need to be considered. Natural diversity areas, sites with endangered plant and animal species and unique habitats, should also be pro - tected from adverse impacts of development activities. Table . Natural Resources Summary Table Development Constraint Conser vation Oppor tunity Definition Resource Condition Minimal LowHaving only fe w or slight environ - mental constraints to development. Most difficult to conser ve from development. Excessively drained soils Well drained soils, less than 15% slopes Moderate ModestHaving moderate or localized severe restrictions on development which may be overcome with environmental planning and mitigation. Difficult to conser ve from development. Well drained soils, 15-25% slopes Well drained soils, high seasonal water table Hardpan soils, less than 15% slopes Shallow or rocky soils, less than 15% slopes Severe Impor tantHaving some severe or ver y severe limitations on development which may be difficult to overcome with environmental planning and mitiga - tion. Present many oppor tunities to conser ve impor tant natural resources and functions. Any soil with slopes in excess of 25% Shallow or rocky soils, 15-25% slopes Hardpan soils, 15-25% slopes Hardpan soils, high seasonal water table Floodplain (500-year, 0.2% probability) Prohibitive SignificantHaving only severe or ver y severe limitations on development. Repre - sent areas where it is most impor tant to conser ve natural resources and functions. Watercourses and waterbodies Poorly drained soils (wetlands) Floodplain (100-year, 1.0% probability)  - Natural Resource Conser vation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Figure . Natural Resource Constraints and Areas Sensitive to Development Central Naugatuck Valley Region B R I D G E W A T E R " ¥ " ¥ " § "  " Í "Î " Ò " Ñ " Ó "Å "Ì " × " ð "½ " × " Ý " Ü £t " ì " ¬ " e " Í " Í " ½ " Ð " Ð "  "  " ¥ " Ì £ t t " Ó " e " Ò " ð " Ò " Ñ " ½ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 " Í " Ñ " Î M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U TH I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 24 1 Miles Aquifer Protection Areas High Ground Water Availablity Natural Diversity Database Area Municipal Boundary Limited Access Expressway Regional Arterial Constraints Minimal Moderate Severe Prohibitive For general planning purposes only. Detailed review of specific field conditions is required Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Natural Resource Conser vation  Land Use Intensit y Guidelines The preceding natural resource information suggests the following land use intensity guidelines for development in the region.The tables can be interpreted as follows:·Recommended minimum lot size in an area of moderate development constraints that is served by private septic systems and wells would be 1.5 acres per lot (or a maxi- mum density of 0.67 units per acre). Recommended maximum lot size in an area of moderate development constraints that is served by public sewer and public water would be one-half acre (or a minimum density of 2.0 units per acre). These are general guidelines. Detailed review of field con- ditions and/or design of an engineered septic system may be cause to reevaluate these guidelines. • • Private Septic Systems Maximum Density (units/acre) Minimum Lot Size (acres) Constraint Level Private WellPublic Water Private WellPublic Water Minimal 1.01.33 1.00.75 Moderate 0.671.01.51.0 Severe 0.50.67 2.01.5 Prohibitive **** * No development is recommended in areas of prohibitive constraints. Public Sewer Systems Constraint Level Minimum Density (units/acre) Maximum Lot Size (acres) Private Well Public Water Private WellPublic Water Minimal 1.332.00.75 0.5 Moderate 1.332.00.75 0.5 Severe 0.671.01.51.0 Prohibitive **** * No development is recommended in areas of prohibitive constraints. Table . Recommended Land Use Intensity Ranges Aerial View of Golf Community, Oxford Aerial View of Subdivision, Oxford  - Natural Resource Conser vation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  5th Street damage after storm, Waterbury Pre-disaster Mitigation Natural hazard emergencies often arise from increased impervious surface, improper building locations, or poor site design, coupled with major storms. FEMA’s Pre-Di- saster Mitigation program provides planning funds to communities to identify likely natural hazards and proj - ects to reduce the potential damage from natural hazard emergencies. All CNVR municipalities have approved pre-disaster mitigation plans or are in the process of cre - ating them. Most of the mitigation projects in the plans focus on water impacts such as flooding, storm drainage, and icing. With approved plans, the municipalities will be eligible for state and federal assistance for some of their priority mitigation projects. Imperfious Sur faces An impervious surface limits the ability of water to drain into the soil, increasing the speed, temperature, and pol - lutant carrying capacity of the runoff. Over time, increased sediment loads cause streams to change form, destroying valuable riparian and streambed habitat. An impervious surface can be a roof, road, driveway, parking lot, hard packed soil, and other surfaces that seal the soil surface, preventing rainwater from soaking into the ground. The amount of impervious surface in a local watershed is a significant factor in the health of the watershed. There are 576 local watersheds located, wholly or in part, in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. According to research provided by the University of Connecticut CLEAR project, a watershed is harmed when it becomes over 10% impervious. At 25% impervious, major deg - radation occurs, which is extremely expensive to remedi - ate. Currently, 22% of the region is already affected by impervious surfaces and 6% is degraded. Under current zoning regulations, if the region becomes fully built-out, these proportions rise to 43% and 16%. Major Recommendations Protect water resources in the region. Surface water and groundwater quality is an important resource issue in the region for: Abundant, clean water for residents and businesses. Recreational and other amenities in the region. The health of the area ecosystem. Water quality is affected by land use and development activities. Increased development and increased percent- ages of impervious surfaces swell the amount and rate of runoff and escalate the amount and concentration of pol - lutants entering watercourses. While reducing non-point source pollution is difficult to achieve, it is instrumen - tal in improving the region’s water quality as well as that of Long Island Sound’s. Other water resources such as floodplains and wetlands must also continue to be pro- tected. These resources provide important functions such as flood control, water quality, aquifer recharge, and wild - life habitat. Watersheds provide a good basis for environmental man - agement strategies since the outlet is a barometer of the activities in the watershed. Land use management and water quality protection efforts will be enhanced by un - dertaking and implementing comprehensive watershed management plans. Scientific research such as that un - dertaken by the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition helps set statewide parameters for water resource plan - ning. • • • Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Natural Resource Conser vation  Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury WaterburyWolcott Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Study conducted with support from NEMO (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials.) Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury WaterburyWolcott Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls Potential Future Imperviousness Existing Imperviousness ³ 0 4 8 2 Miles Build-out Methodology Available buildable land was determined by removing those areas that cannot be built upon in the future due to environmental or regulatory limitions. The buildable acreage in each zoning category was multiplied by a zoning-based coefficient which represents the expected percentage imperviousness that will result when built out. This "new " imperviousness, summarized by local basin, was added to the existing percentage imperviousness to calculate the potential future percentage imperviousness for each local basin at build-out. Imperviousness summarized by basin 0 - 10 % 10 - 25 % 25 - 100 % Local Basin Boundaries Municipal Boundaries Streams are generally protected Streams are impacted Streams are degraded Figure . Imperviousness of Local Basins (Watersheds) Central Naugatuck Valley Region  - Natural Resource Conser vation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Recommendations 1. Protect surface and groundwater quality throughout the region by: Controlling land use to avoid contamination, mini - mize impervious areas, and maximize ground-water recharge. Reducing disruption of natural drainage and veg - etation, establishing buffers and setbacks for high priority resources, and continuing to regulate activi - ties that affect wetlands and watercourses. Continuing hazardous waste collection programs. Mapping aquifer protection areas and regulating their land uses. Controlling development in public water supply watersheds and protecting public supply well re - charge areas. • • • • • Working with the State and local agencies such as the Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition to study, improve, and maintain water quality in the region. 2. Evaluate and manage natural resources on a watershed basis. 3. Continue to implement floodplain protection mea - sures. 4. Encourage and educate communities to update land use and stormwater protection policies to address non-point source pollution by utilizing best manage - ment practices (BMPs) such as detention basins, grass swales, and sedimentation structures. 5. Consider the cumulative impact of land use decisions on water quality as well as downstream implications (such as impact to Long Island Sound). • Figure . Major and Regional Watersheds Central Naugatuck Valley Region Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury BeaconFalls Naugatuck ProspectCheshire Wolcott Watertown Oxford Middlebury Thomaston Waterbury Main Rivers Major Watershed Boundaries Regional Watersheds Housatonic Main Stem Naugatuck Pomperaug Quinnipiac Shepaug S. Central West. Complex ³ 0 2.5 5 Miles HOUSATONIC MAJOR BASIN SOUTH CENTRAL COASTMAJOR BASIN Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Natural Resource Conser vation  Secondar y Recommendations Support efforts to protect natural resources. If important natural resources are to be protected, efforts must continue to identify and understand them. Early identification and protection is important for the region to maintain a balance between the use of land and the need to protect and preserve significant:Natural resources that provide important functions. Natural features that enhance the aesthetic setting and quality of life. Also, incremental land use decisions in the region have the potential to cumulatively affect air quality, water re - sources, and plant and animal habitats. Recommendations 1. Support efforts to identify and protect important nat - ural resources. 2. Continue to identify and preserve scenic areas within the region. 3. Encourage preservation efforts that mitigate areas where negative impacts have resulted. 4. Consider the cumulative implications of land use de - cisions in the region on: Water resources. Farmland. Forests. Air quality. Other biological resources. • • • • • • • Relate land use intensity to the capability of the land. The ability of the land to support development varies due to the natural constraints such as soil type, slope, and wa - ter resources. While certain constraints may be mitigated by providing public sewer and/or water, environmental constraints should still have a significant influence on land use type and intensity. To avoid installing sewers for low intensity uses, municipal plans should consider soil type and terrain in determining lot sizes. Recommendations 1. Increase allowed development intensity where it is compatible with natural resources and infrastructure (water, sewer, roads). 2. Decrease allowed development intensity where it may exceed the natural capabilities of the land and infra - structure is not, or will not be, available. Naugatuck River, Naugatuck  - Natural Resource Conser vation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  6. Housing Condominiums in Cheshire The Central Naugatuck Valley Region faces a range of housing challenges. The region needs adequate and af- fordable housing in order to retain workers and young adults. High housing costs hamper economic growth, as businesses decide to locate or expand in places with a lower cost of living. The social fabric of communities can be disrupted if young families and the elderly are forced to move elsewhere to find suitable housing. As the population ages and energy prices rise, there is a need for a variety of housing types, including housing built to enable transportation choice. The continued low density development of the region’s outlying areas comes with fis - cal and environmental costs. Development in rural areas of the region can weaken existing neighborhoods and the regional core. Current Conditions The growth in housing has roughly kept pace with popu- lation growth. In 2006, the region had an estimated total of 114,312 housing units. The number of housing units in the region grew by 2.9% since 2000, up 7.8% since 1990. New home construction has mainly been in the region’s suburban towns. In Waterbury more housing has been torn down since 1990 than built. Nevertheless, housing construction in Waterbury, and the region as a whole, has accelerated since 2000. Median house prices have risen significantly in the CNVR since 2000. The region’s estimated 2006 median sale price was 88% higher than estimated 2000 U.S. Census median home value. In 2006, the regional estimated median sale price of single family houses was $229,500. Southbury had the highest median sale price of $426,250, and Wa - terbury had the lowest with $159,900 (See Table 6.1). In 2000, most of the region’s housing units were owner occupied. Slightly more than half of Waterbury’s housing units were renter occupied. This is a decline from 1990 when the majority of Waterbury’s housing units were owner occupied. Two-thirds of the region’s rental prop - erties were located in Waterbury in 2000. In all other CNVR municipalities, the vast majority of housing was owner occupied (See Table 6.2). Housing Policies The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development have set goals to increase homeownership, support community development, and increase access to affordable housing. Regional housing recommendations are made in the context of the federal and state goals and are intended to provide guidance to municipal land use commissions which enact housing policies through planning and zoning regulations. Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Housing  Multi-Family Homes, Beacon Falls Table . CNVR Housing Data, by Municipality: 00 Geographic AreaNumber of Housing Units  00  Median House Sale Price c 000 Median House Value d 00  a 000 b CNVR 114,312109,780 $229,477 e $122,011 e Waterbur y 47,32546,827 $159,900$89,900 Remainder of Region 66,987 62,953 $244,232 e $156,080 e Beacon Falls 2,2852,104 $275,000$160,000 Bethlehem 1,4581,388 $342,500$174,000 Cheshire 9,8869,588 $340,000$215,000 Middlebur y 2,8362,494 $330,000$193,500 Naugatuck 12,75812,341 $233,580$132,250 Oxford 4,3093,420 $385,000$239,000 Prospect 3,2573,094 $270,000$175,000 Southbur y 8,2817,799 $426,250$269,195 Thomaston 3,1733,014 $219,500$135,500 Water town 8,6468,298 $242,700$145,000 Wolcott 5,9725,544 $240,000$130,500 Woodbur y 4,1263,869 $400,000$280,000 Sources: aCT Depar tment of Economic and Community Development, Housing Inventor y 2006 bU.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summar y File 1 (SF1) cThe Warren Group website (http://www.the warrengroup.com) dU.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Summar y File 3 (SF3) eEstimation Single Family Home, Wolcott  - Housing Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Geographic AreaPercent Renter Occupied Units 2000 1990 CNVR 32.7.7% Waterbur y 52.4.0% Remainder of Region 18.8% 19.9% Beacon Falls 21.6.4% Bethlehem 14.5.4% Cheshire 13.4.8% Middlebur y 11.0.1% Naugatuck 33.5.9% Oxford 9.0%8.0% Prospect 7.4%6.9% Southbur y 10.5.0% Thomaston 26.2.1% Water town 20.6.8% Wolcott 11.8.0% Woodbur y 25.0.8% Connecticut 33.2.4% Table . Tenure in the CNVR, by Municipality: 0, 000 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population and Housing: 1990 and 2000 Major Recommendations Increase opportunities for affordable housing in the region. The availability and distribution of affordable housing in the CNVR remains an important issue. As of 2006, 78% of the region’s 12,417 publicly assisted housing units were located in Waterbury. The state’s Affordable Housing Ap - peals Act (CGS 8-30g) sets a minimum goal of 10% of a municipality’s housing units to be publicly assisted. As of 2006, only Waterbury (21%) exceeded the Act’s goal. The rest of the region’s housing units averaged 4% pub - licly assisted. The number of qualifying affordable hous- ing units in each CNVR municipality is reported in the annual Profile of the CNVR (See Table 6.3). The Affordable Housing Appeals Act is intended to en- courage the construction of new affordable housing by re - moving roadblocks in local land use regulations. The Act shifts the burden of proof in the zoning and subdivision appeals process from the developer to the municipality in municipalities where less than 10% of housing units are deemed affordable housing units. Since going into effect in 1990, the Act has not adequately encouraged the con - struction of affordable housing. The burden-of-proof advantage given by the Appeals Act to developers proposing affordable housing projects discourages cooperation between developers and munici - palities. In most cases, the adversarial situation created by the Act does more to hinder projects and stigmatize them than to promote the construction of affordable housing units. Recommendations 1. Consider participating in the state affordable housing financial incentive program. 2. Offer density bonuses that make building affordable housing units profitable to developers. 3. Combat the stigma of affordable housing by requiring quality and attractive affordable housing units. 4. Intersperse affordable units with market rate housing units. 5. Encourage the creation of accessory units. 6. Work with not-for-profit organizations dedicated to creating more affordable housing. 7. Amend the Affordable Housing Appeals Act to more accurately count and successfully encourage the con- struction of affordable housing. Promote a variety of housing types in the re - gion. Demand for new housing units in the CNVR will con - tinue into the future. Regional population is projected to grow over six percent between 2005 and 2025, making it one of the faster growing urban regions in the state. Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Housing 0 Shrinking household size will mean that more housing units will be needed to house the same number of people. The relative affordability of the CNVR to neighboring regions may continue to attract new residents and add to the demand for new housing. In addition to simply building more housing units, there is a need and potential demand for specialized housing types. Young adults and families need decent, attractive, and affordable housing options. The CNVR has a short - age of luxury urban housing and mixed use developments. Such housing types could attract young professionals and empty nesters to the region’s urban core. As life expectancies lengthen and baby boomers age, there will be increased demand for housing designed to allow residents to age in place. These units should be built with “universal design” attributes that reduce barriers within a house and typically add little to construction costs. Hous -ing developments meant for older adults should be de - signed and located in close proximity to grocery stores, community centers, libraries, places of worship, and medical offices. Walkability and transit / paratransit ac - cess is also very important. Such development, although oriented to older adults, need not be age restricted, since these design attributes are universally beneficial. Many older adults may prefer to live in neighborhoods with a mixture of age groups if suitable housing is available. Age-restricted housing has recently come to dominate new construction in some towns in the CNVR. Develop - ers and municipalities have promoted aged 55 and older “active adult” age-restricted housing as a fiscal positive for municipalities, since it may limit the growth in school age children in the community. Nevertheless, as the residents of age-restricted housing become older, municipalities could experience demands for new senior services and Table . Governmentally Assisted Housing Units in CNVR, by Municipality: 00 Geographic Area Housing Units Assisted Units as Percent of Total Housing Government Assisted CHFA Mor tgages Deed Restricted Total Assisted CNVR 8,8903,039 48812,417 11.3% Waterbur y 6,9232,269 4369,628 20.6% Remainder of Region 1,967 770522,789 4.4% Beacon Falls 421 -25 1.2% Bethlehem 24--24 1.7% Cheshire 2326744343 3.6% Middlebur y 768892 3.7% Naugatuck 807302 -1,109 9.0% Oxford 356-41 1.2% Prospect 213 -15 0.5% Southbur y 8913 -102 1.3% Thomaston 9788 -185 6.1% Water town 225114 -339 4.1% Wolcott 313121 -434 7.8% Woodbur y 6317 -80 2.1% Connecticut 118,75624,0963,214146,066 10.5% Source: Connecticut Depar tment of Economic and Community Development: 2006  - Housing Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  transportation. Municipalities should limit the construc - tion of age-restricted housing to avoid future vacancies and pressure to lift age-restrictions, as the proportion of elderly in the population declines. With delayed marriage, high divorce rates, and longer life spans, the number of single people living in the CNVR is growing. As of 2000, there were 26,708 single person households in the region. Accessory apartments, built into existing or new housing, can provide an affordable and attractive housing alternative for single people in the CNVR. In the region’s suburban and rural towns, acces- sory apartments provide opportunities for single people to live in the community. Municipal restrictions that limit who can live in accessory apartments should be re - moved to encourage their use. Recommendations 1. Promote an adequate supply of housing for popula - tion needs. 2. Encourage smaller unit sizes in response to decreasing household size. 3. Promote the construction of decent, attractive, and affordable housing options for young adults, families, the elderly, the disabled and the homeless. 4. Promote the construction and rehabilitation of a va - riety of housing types and sizes to fulfill the needs of the region’s diverse households. 5. Encourage mixed use developments. 6. Locate active adult, age-restricted housing near com - munity services and amenities. 7. Ensure that the number of age-restricted housing units does not exceed the local or regional market for such units. 8. Encourage the inclusion of “universal design” features in new housing units. 9. Allow accessory apartments in existing homes or their outbuildings, or built into new structures, without re - stricting who may rent the units. Promote housing that allows for a variety of transportation choices. As energy prices rise and the CNVR’s population ages, housing that provides residents with a variety of trans -portation options will become increasingly important. Most of the types and location of new housing being built in the CNVR create a dependency on automobiles for nearly all trips. Housing designed to promote alterna - tive transportation modes (bus, rail, walking, bicycling) allows residents to access destinations without using an automobile. Transportation choice can be promoted by locating new housing near existing development such as employment, retail, and community centers. Amenities such as sidewalks, walking paths, and bicycle paths can be used to allow residents access to these nearby destina - tions. Greater transportation options can be realized by build - ing housing near existing bus routes and train stations Avalon Farms Subdivision, Middlebury Multi-family Homes, Naugatuck Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Housing  and providing access to appropriate pedestrian connec - tions. In areas with limited or no public transit service, housing can be built at densities and configurations that could facilitate future bus service. Age-restricted and se - nior housing should be located in paratransit service ar - eas. Mixed use development that incorporates commercial and institutional uses within residential ones can foster transportation choice by bringing employment, educa - tion, and shopping within walking distance. In many municipalities, zoning and subdivision regulations may need to be changed to accommodate mixed use develop - ment. Mixed use development should be considered for urban and suburban infill projects. Allowing small scale home occupations may be a more realistic approach to mixed use in rural communities. Development around the CNVR’s three commuter rail stations (Waterbury, Naugatuck, and Beacon Falls) should include pedestrian connections to the stations. If in the future rail service increases on the Waterbury Branch Line, there may be potential for more transit ori - ented types of development around these stations. Recommendations 1. Encourage the construction of housing that provides residents with a choice of transportation options. 2. Locate new housing near existing development and employment, retail, and community centers. 3. Provide pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit ameni - ties in new and existing development. 4. Promote the construction of mixed use development. 5. Allow small scale home occupations. 6. Promote pedestrian connections around commuter rail stations. Secondar y Recommendations Encourage settlement patterns that utilize ex - isting infrastructure. New residential development in rural parts of the region continues to consume open space, alter community char - acter, increase service and transportation demands, and impact the environment. Directing development to un - derutilized land and brownfields within community cen - ters can help minimize the pressure and costs associated with rural development. Infill development can take ad - vantage of existing services and infrastructure and reduce demand for costly utility and road extensions. According to COGCNV’s 2004 regional land use sur - vey, 22,526 acres of land in the region were developed between 1990 and 2004 for new residential development – a 47% increase in residential acreage. The vast major - ity of the new residential was low density single family houses. During the 14 year period, an average of 2.7 acres of land was developed per housing unit built. The rate of land development has outpaced regional growth in population and housing units over the same time period. Overall, the trend has been for increasingly more land be - ing developed to accommodate less growth. Recommendations 1. Encourage housing at appropriate densities to take advantage of existing services and infrastructure. 2. Encourage infill development within the regional core and in and near community centers. Residential/Commercial Building on East Main Street, Waterbury  - Housing Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Lakefront Homes, Wolcott 3. Promote the redevelopment of brownfield sites. 4. Discourage extensions of infrastructure and services to new developments at inappropriate densities, es - pecially in outlying areas. 5. Review development proposals in undeveloped ar - eas with an eye towards the impact on existing open space, natural resources, and scenic vistas. 6. Encourage environmentally sensitive and low impact development techniques. Continue efforts to enhance the character of our communities and revitalize urban hous - ing units and neighborhoods. Residents of the region take great pride in the character of their communities. Efforts to protect and enhance the unique character of each community and neighbor - hood should continue. Special efforts are needed in urban neighborhoods to create safe and attractive environments and to help resi - dents address housing, health, public safety, recreation, public services, and other issues. The adequacy of the housing stock is a significant factor in maintaining and improving urban neighborhoods. State and federal pro - grams are available to help address issues faced by the re - gion’s urban neighborhoods. Entitlement communities can benefit from defining Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas (NRSA) through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Within these desig- nated areas, the community is afforded greater flexibil - ity in the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Recommendations 1. Promote sound planning and design practices for all housing construction and rehabilitation which complement or improve the character of the neigh - borhood, each community, and the region’s built and natural environment. 2. Work with municipalities and community groups developing comprehensive neighborhood revitaliza - tion strategies. 3. Assist municipalities and community groups in pursu - ing sources of grant money for community improve - ments. 4. Initiate a strategic planning process to help stabilize urban neighborhoods. 5. Advocate for neighborhood improvement and orderly housing growth which does not impair the economic or environmental health of the town, neighborhood, or residents. Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Housing  New Subdivision in Watertown  - Housing Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  7. Economic Development Economic land uses provide employment and enhance the municipal tax base. The location of early industries influenced residential and business development patterns in the region. Municipalities within the region and be- yond form an interdependent economy. Current Conditions Since 1990 employment growth in the region, the state, and the Northeast has not kept pace with the southern and western parts of the country. Outsourcing to other countries has also taken its toll. Fabricated metals, which has been the region’s core industry, remain prominent, but employment continues to decline as the economy shifts to the service sector. In 2003, the leading employ- ers were health services, business services, educational services, and fabricated metal products. Viewed in terms of sales, the leading sectors were banking, chemicals, au- tomotive retail, and fabricated metal products. Precision manufacturing stays competitive in the region despite global competition. After decades of growth, the region’s labor force declined in the 1990s, but returned to its 1990 level by 2006. Res - idents of the thirteen municipalities fill most jobs in the region, but the region is a net exporter of workers. More residents commute to jobs beyond the CNVR, than residents from other regions commute into the CNVR to work. In 2000, 71% of the region’s workers lived in the region. But only 55% of CNVR employed residents worked within the region, a marked drop from 1990 when 64% worked for CNVR employers. The greatest commuting is with the New Haven-Meriden area. Major Recommendations Nurture the region’s strength as a center of precision manufacturing. Over the past thirty years, the region has shifted from a manufacturing-based economy to a more service-based economy. Since 1970, manufacturing employment has decreased from about one-half to about one-quarter of all jobs, while service employment has increased from about one-eighth to about one third of all jobs. Nevertheless, the region continues to enjoy a significant concentra - tion of manufacturing jobs. Despite the overall decline in manufacturing employment, precision manufacturing — particularly the eyelet and screw machine industries — is an important regional industrial cluster. The skill level of its workers has made the Central Naugatuck Val - ley Region a focal point for precision manufacturing. O ferfiew Photo courtesy of Stevens Company Inc., Thomaston Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Economic Development  115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 Year Persons Labor Force Employed Residents Figure . CNVR Labor Force Figure . Percent Unemployment for the CNVR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 9 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 Year Percent Unemployed Source: Connecticut Depar tment of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Force Data Source: Connecticut Depar tment of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Force Data  - Economic Development Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Geographic AreaLabor ForceEmployed Residents Unemployed Residents Percent Unemployed CNVR 143,307136,287 7,0204.9% Waterbur y 49,89146,495 3,3966.8% Remainder of Region 93,41689,792 3,6243.9% Beacon Falls 3,2353,099 1364.2% Bethlehem 2,0351,967 683.3% Cheshire 14,60214,109 4933.4% Middlebur y 3,7723,654 1183.1% Naugatuck 17,10616,291 8154.8% Oxford 6,8786,647 2313.4% Prospect 5,2645,065 1993.8% Southbur y 9,0318,720 3113.4% Thomaston 4,6204,404 2164.7% Water town 12,39211,878 5144.1% Wolcott 8,9758,615 3604.0% Woodbur y 5,5065,343 1633.0% Source: Connecticut Depar tment of Labor, Office of Research, Labor Force Data Table . Estimated CNVR Labor Force Status, by Place of Residence: 00 Pratt & Whitney. Cheshire Commercial Buildings, Wolcott 115,000 120,000 125,000 130,000 135,000 140,000 145,000 150,000 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 Year Persons Labor Force Employed Residents Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Economic Development  Industr yPercent of Total  00  Employment Percent Change  00  00  000 000- 00  Total Nonagricultural 100,600 69,20072,100 -4.9% Goods Producing 18.7,800 13,20017,600 -27.3% Constr uction, Nat. Resources, & Mining 4.1%2,800 2,9002,900 -3.4% Manufacturing 14.6,000 10,40014,700 -32.0% Ser vice Producing 81.5,900 56,00054.500 2.6% Trade, Transp., & Utilities 19.7,500 13,70014,000 -3.6% Information 1.309001,000 -10.0% Financial Activities 3.8%2,600 2,6003,100 -16.1% Professional & Business Ser vices 9.5%6,500 6,5006,000 8.3% Education & Health Ser vices 21.1,500 14,20013,100 10.7% Leisure & Hospitality 7.3%5,000 4,9005,300 -5.7% Other Ser vices 4.1%2,800 2,7002,800 0.0% Government 14.6,000 10,400 9,200 8.7% Note: In this table, Waterbur y LMA consists of seven municipalities in the CNVR (Beacon Falls, Middlebur y, Naugatuck, Prospect, Waterbur y, Water town, Wolcott). The Waterbur y LMA changed from 10 municipalities to 7 municipalities in 2002. Data is rounded to the nearest hundred. Source: Connecticut Depar tment of Labor, Office of Research Table . Estimated Nonagricultural Employment by Industry, for the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 000, 00, 00 Webster Bank, Waterbury Protocol Integrated Direct Marketing, Cheshire  - Economic Development Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Table . Leading Industries in the CNVR: 00 - First Quarter Ranked by Employment Rank Industry Employment Percent of Total Total Sales (Millions) Percent of Total No. of Businesses Percent of Total 1 Health Services 9,0979.2% $439.34.4% 6316.2% 2 Business Services 7,4947.6% $351.93.5% 6776.6% 3 Educational Services 6,2366.3% $233.32.3% 1741.7% 4 Fabricated Metal Prdcts, Except Machinery & Transport Eqpmnt 5,250 5.3% $549.15.5% 1611.6% 5 Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management & Related Svcs 4,356 4.4% $204.42.0% 4454.4% 6 Construction - Special Trade Contractors 3,620 3.7% $331.53.3% 9028.8% 7 Executive, Legislative & General Government, Except Finance 3,615 3.7% N/AN/A 180.2% 8 Electronic, Elctrcl Eqpmnt & Cmpnts, Excpt Computer Eqpmnt 3,386 3.4% $378.53.8% 580.6% 9 Eating and Drinking Places 3,3353.4% $75.40.8% 4674.6% 10 Miscellaneous Retail 3,0823.1% $197.82.0% 6346.2% Ranked by Sales Rank Industry Total Sales (Millions) Percent of Total Employment Percent of Total No. of Businesses Percent of Total 1 Depository Institutions $1,821.418.2% 1,4111.4% 1131.1% 2 Chemicals and Allied Products $836.88.4% 6380.6% 190.2% 3 Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations $660.2 6.6% 1,6481.7% 2192.1% 4 Fabricated Metal Prdcts, Except Machinery & Transport Eqpmnt $549.1 5.5% 5,2505.3% 1611.6% 5 Wholesale Trade - Durable Goods $476.04.7% 2,5142.5% 3363.3% 6 Health Services $439.34.4% 9,0979.2% 6316.2% 7 Wholesale Trade - Nondurable Goods $412.84.1%1,4671.5% 1431.4% 8 Electronic, Elctrcl Eqpmnt & Cmpnts, Excpt Computer Eqpmnt $378.5 3.8% 3,3863.4% 580.6% 9 Business Services $351.93.5% 7,4947.6% 6776.6% 10 Construction - Special Trade Contractors $331.5 3.3% 3,6203.7% 9028.8% Source: Dunn & Bradstreet Solutions: 2003 - Q1, as tabulated by the Connecticut Economic Resource Center and the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley Table . Estimated Nonagricultural Employment by Industry, for the Waterbury Labor Market Area: 000, 00, 00 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Economic Development 00 3. Encourage efforts that enhance the visibility and per - ception of the region’s precision manufacturing fo - cus. Aggressively pursue economic development for the region. A strong regional economic development presence is vi - tal. This group could entail several regions, using the re - gional planning boundaries as building blocks. The lack of regional economic organization weakens the region and makes it less competitive in a global marketplace. While recognizing the importance of manufacturing, it is also essential that the region’s economy diversifies, given national economic sector trends. Recommendations 1. Seek to create a regional economic organization to as - sist existing businesses, market the region as a place for businesses to locate, and coordinate efforts of local economic development agencies. 2. Coordinate efforts with economic development agen - cies including local economic development corpora - tions and commissions and chambers of commerce. 3. Recognize that the majority of the region’s employ - ment growth will come from the expansion of existing firms. Guide the location of economic development to the regional center and major economic ar- eas. While employment was once concentrated in the re - gional core — Waterbury, Naugatuck, and the Oakville section of Watertown plus community centers along the Naugatuck River — automobile ownership and the shift from rail to truck for goods movement has increased loca - tional choices, and jobs are more dispersed in the region. Since 1960, most of the region’s job growth has been in communities outside of Waterbury. In addition to the city, the major employment areas are Cheshire, South - bury, Watertown, and Naugatuck. Keeping and nurturing existing firms in the region is es- sential for the strength of the region’s metal manufactur- ing cluster because of interdependence within the cluster. Manufacturing jobs are important to the wealth of the region since they typically pay higher wages than many service jobs. Recommendations 1. Promote the region’s precision manufacturing sector and develop a marketing strategy to retain existing firms and attract new ones. 2. Develop a strategic approach to industrial recruitment that focuses on precision manufacturing and related businesses. Industrial Area, Watertown Brass Mill Center, Waterbury  - Economic Development Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Land zoned for economic uses and already served by adequate water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure is available in the regional core and major economic ar- eas. Some of these sites, however, require environmental clean-up before being acceptable for new development. In the meantime, such sites must compete with land in the suburban portion of the region that may be cheaper, more abundant, easier to develop, closer to new residen - tial development, and taxed at a lower rate. Dispersed business locations can especially hurt residents who are dependent on transit. Public transportation cannot economically serve low density areas, preventing people without a private vehicle from accessing outlying employment opportunities. Recommendations 1. Encourage appropriate types of economic develop - ment in locations that are compatible with the regional future land use policy map: Regional business centers near major highways. Compact business areas in community centers. Small business areas for meeting neighborhood needs. 2. Make infrastructure and transportation improvements to encourage appropriate economic development in the regional center and major economic areas. 3. Continue to improve the region’s transportation sys - tem, both highway and transit, in order to serve eco - nomic development areas within the region and help businesses benefit from the region’s central location within the Northeast markets. 4. Seek to extend bus and job-access service to major employment areas. Prepare workers for current and future needs. While there are fewer manufacturing jobs than in the past, the jobs that are available pay higher wages and require more advanced skills. Many of these jobs go unfilled while untrained workers take service jobs. It is ironic that the very knowledge base that helped build the region into a center for precision manufacturing is at risk due to • • • UCONN Waterbury Campus a lack of knowledge, interest, or training. Strengthening educational achievement in the city school system is es - sential to ensure a workforce able to fill jobs in industries competitive in the global economy. Recommendations 1. Encourage and support education and training pro - grams that provide residents with the skills needed by businesses in the region, including school-to-career programs geared to metal manufacturing. 2. Work with businesses in the region to identify current and future needs for skilled employees. Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Economic Development  Hardware Store, Southbury Commercial Area, Watertown Commercial Building, Woodbury Commercial Building, Bethlehem St Mary’s Hospital, Waterbury  - Economic Development Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  8. Transportation O ferfiew The region’s transportation system (road, bus, rail, air, bi- cycle, and pedestrian facilities) supports the movement of people and goods on a local, regional and statewide level. The transportation system and regional development patterns are interconnected. Demand for development increases in areas where transportation facilities and ser- vices provide the best access and greatest mobility. As the region’s federally-recognized metropolitan planning orga- nization (MPO), COGCNV is responsible for preparing the region’s long range transportation plan. Current Conditions The automobile is the primary means of travel for most of the region’s population. In 2000, 80% of all households in Waterbury and 95% of all households in the rest of the region had access to an automobile. 1 Public transporta- tion in the region primarily serves Waterbury, where one in five households is without access to a vehicle. 2 Wide- spread auto ownership, coupled with the outward move - ment of housing and jobs into lower density, dispersed suburban locations, has caused a trend away from public transit. Outside Waterbury, there is little or no public transportation, and most households rely on automobiles for personal mobility. Recently, public transit ridership has increased as a result of rising fuel costs. Trafel Trends The average commuting trip for CNVR residents was 24.3 minutes in 2000, compared to 21.0 minutes in 1990. The increase in commuting time is accompanied by an increase in distance traveled as the percentage of residents working within the region has declined since 1990. 3 In 1980, 74% of CNVR workers commuted to jobs in the region; by 2000, only 55% of the region’s workers com - muted to jobs within the region. Figure 8.1 shows the most common workplace destinations in 2000. Streets and Highways A road network needs to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the region. A circulation plan consists of a hierarchy of road types, con - sistent with current and anticipated traffic conditions and surrounding land uses. The Connecticut Department of Transportation and COGCNV, working with local mu - nicipalities, update road circulation plans based on the federally-required functional classification of roads. Figure 8.2 shows the functional classification of roads within the region. There are five major classifications: Principal Arterial Expressways – Limited access high - ways, including interstate highways, which primarily serve longer interregional trips at higher speeds. Principal Arterial Highways – Major routes which pri - marily serve interregional trips and longer trips within the region. Minor Arterial – Routes which facilitate the flow of traffic across towns and between neighboring towns. • • • I-84 and Route 8 Interchange Area, Waterbury Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Transpor tation  Collector Roads – Roads that carry traffic at lower speeds, linking traffic from local roads to arterial routes. Local Roads – Roads that provide direct access, at low speeds, to properties, generally in residential or unde- veloped areas. Among these classifications, arterial roads function as the primary routes for handling relatively high speed service, longer trips, and higher traffic volumes. There is typically a greater emphasis on mobility along these roads, and ac - cess is often limited. Interstate 84 serves as an important gateway into Con - necticut and New England, linking the CNVR to Dan - bury and New York State to the west and Hartford and Massachusetts to the northeast. Within the CNVR, traf - fic volumes on I-84 peak through Waterbury where aver - • • age daily traffic (ADT) can reach as high as 125,700 ve - hicles. 4 I-84 is an alternative route to the more congested I-95 in southwestern Connecticut. The widening of I-84 is an ongoing project in the CNVR, and it is part of a larger state effort to increase the high - way’s capacity from Hartford to the New York State line. With its close proximity to the downtown area and the limited number of crossings over the Naugatuck River, I-84 accommodates a substantial amount of local traffic through the City of Waterbury. Southwest of downtown Waterbury, the interchange of I-84 and Route 8 complet - ed in the late 1960s, is expected to require major repairs or full replacement in the future. Route 8 links the region with I-95 in Bridgeport to the south and Torrington and Winsted to the north. Traf - fic volumes are greatest within the Waterbury section of Figure . Place of Employment of CNVR Residents, by Region: 000 14% 6% 55% 4% 4% 2% Remainder of State 2% Out of State 2% 5% 4% 2% Capitol Region Windham Midstate Southeastern Conn Litchfield Hills Northeastern Connecticut South Central Conn Housatonic ValleyNorth- western Conn Central Naugatuck Valley Southwestern Connecticut Valley Connecticut River Estuary Central Connecticut Greater Bridgeport Non- Member Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census  - Transpor tation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Figure . Functional Classification of Roads Central Naugatuck Valley Region B R I D G E W A T E R " ¥ " ¥ " § "  " Í " Î " Ò " Ñ " Ó " Å " Ì " × " ð "½ " × " Ý " Ü £ t "ì " ¬ " e " Í " Í " ½ " Ð " Ð "  "  " ¥ " Ì £ t t " Ó " e " Ò " ð " Ò " Ñ " ½ § ¨ ¦84 " Í " Ñ " Î § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H FI E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 2 4 1 Miles Municipal Boundary Functional Classification Principal Arterial -- Expressways Principal Arterial -- Highways Minor Arterial Collector Local Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Cartographic/Transportation Data, 2005 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Transpor tation  Route 8, where ADT in 2006 reached 79,400 vehicles. 5 Traffic volumes to the north of Waterbury are lower than those to the south. Interstate 691 serves as an expressway connector between I-84 in Cheshire and I-91 in Meriden. In 2006, average daily traffic along I-691 in Cheshire was estimated to be 55,100 vehicles. 6 Other principal highways in the CNVR are Routes 6, 10, 63, 67, 68, 69, and 70. To the southeast, Routes 10, 63, 68, and 69 provide connections to the New Haven met- ropolitan area. To the east, Route 70 connects the region with the City of Meriden. To the north, Routes 6 and 69 provide access to Bristol. Route 67 provides a link, in the southwest corner of the region, between I-84 and Route 8. Highway congestion impedes the flow of vehicles, causing motorist delays, greater risk of collisions, and increased fuel consumption and vehicle exhaust. The Federal High - way Administration defines congestion as “the level at which the transportation system performance is no lon- ger acceptable due to traffic interference.” Insufficient ca - pacity is the leading cause of congestion on our nation’s highways. A common measure of congestion levels is the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio, which compares peak hour traffic volumes on a road segment to its hourly vehicle capacity. V/C ratios above 0.90 indicate road segments operating close to capacity at peak hour, and those above 1.00 indicate bottlenecks. ConnDOT provides annual updates of v/c ratios on all state roads. Figure 8.3 shows the levels of congestion on state roads within the region. Commuter Lots Park-and-Ride lots help reduce some of the congestion experienced on the region’s highway network by facilitat- ing carpooling. There are thirteen commuter lots in the CNVR that can accommodate about 1,014 passenger ve - hicles. Some tend to be full or near capacity, while a few are only lightly used. Commuter express bus service to Hartford is offered from the Cheshire commuter lot. Public Transpor tation Systems The CNVR’s transit system is concentrated in the region’s center, where there is a higher population density and a significant transit dependent population: about one in five households lacks access to a vehicle. 7 Transportation options for those unable to drive, such as the elderly and disabled, are limited or nonexistent outside of the region’s center. Rail Travel Waterbury, Naugatuck, and Beacon Falls are served by commuter rail service on the Waterbury Branch of the New Haven Line. Metro-North operates the service which connects the CNVR to Bridgeport and the lower Naugatuck Valley. Traffic congestion on eastbound I-84 Train Station, Waterbury  - Transpor tation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  B R I D G E W A T ER " ¥ " ¥ " § "  " Í " Î " Ò " Ñ " Ó " Å " Ì " × " ð "½ " × " Ý " Ü £ t "ì " ¬ " e " Í " Í " ½ " Ð " Ð "  "  " ¥ " Ì £ t t " Ó " e " Ò " ð " Ò " Ñ " ½ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 " Í " Ñ " Î M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 24 1 Miles Highway Congestion volume-to-capacity 0.9 - 0.99 1.00 or greater Source: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Congestion Management System: 2007 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report, November 2007. Figure . Highway Congestion in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 00 Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Transpor tation  Bus at The Green, Waterbury In Bridgeport, connections can be made to mainline rail service to New Haven, Stamford, and New York City. In FY 2006, an estimated 168,400 passengers used the CNVR’s Waterbury Branch Line. 8 Fixed Route Bus System The CT Transit–Waterbury bus system, operated by the Northeast Transportation Co., has 24 fixed routes, cover- ing a service area of 23.2 square miles. The service carries 4,600 passengers per weekday and over one million pas - sengers per year. Most of the fixed routes operate within Waterbury, with service extending into Watertown, Mid - dlebury, and Wolcott. There is no evening fixed route bus service, with service ending by 6:30 PM. Two separate bus routes serve a large portion of Naugatuck, including its downtown area. CT Transit–New Haven operates a fixed route between New Haven and Waterbury. Special runs, referred to as “tripper routes” serve industrial parks and other major employment centers in the region. Intercity Buses CT Transit-New Haven operates bus service, leaving hourly from the Waterbury Green, between Waterbury and New Haven via Route 10 in Cheshire. This route provides a limited connection between Cheshire and the Waterbury bus system, but also links up to a peak-hour express bus to Hartford at the Cheshire commuter park - ing lot on Route 70 at I-84. Intercity bus service is also available to Hartford, Danbury, Torrington, Albany, and New York City. Airport shuttles run regularly to Bradley International and New York metropolitan airports. Elderly and Disabled Transportation Transportation for the elderly and disabled residents in the CNVR is provided by a variety of public and private organizations. The largest provider of transportation for the disabled is the Paratransit Division of CT Transit – Waterbury (formerly operated by the Greater Waterbury Transit District). The Paratransit Division offers para - transit services for the disabled and dial-a-ride services for the elderly and disabled in Cheshire, Naugatuck, Middle - bury, Prospect, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, and Wolcott. In FY 2007, 76,834 paratransit trips were pro - vided. The Greater Waterbury Transit District collects the local share of paratransit service costs and fees, oversees the dial-a-ride program, and is an advisory body for the Paratransit Division of CT Transit-Waterbury. Starting in FY 2007, the State began funding the Mu - nicipal Grant Program for Senior and Disabled Demand Responsive Transportation (CGS 13b-38bb). The eight municipalities in the GWTD were awarded funding to - wards a dial-a-ride service that would establish a coordi- nated transportation system for the elderly and disabled. During the first year of service, the GWTD Dial-A-Ride averaged 500 rides per month. Bethlehem, Oxford, and Southbury also received funding in FY 2007 to expand their dial-a-ride /senior transportation services.  - Transpor tation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Senior centers, public agencies, and private organizations within the region provide additional transportation ser- vices to the elderly and disabled using buses, minibuses, vans, or private passenger vehicles. Transportation is gen- erally provided to medical offices, shopping destinations, and social or entertainment destinations. Joblinks Joblinks is a job access program, transporting transit- dependent, low income individuals who need to reach employment opportunities outside of the service area of the fixed bus route system. The program also provides transportation during times when the fixed route system is not operating. Clients can also receive other assistance in the form of bus passes or discounted gas cards through the program. Proposed Intermodal Transportation Center A study is underway for a city-proposed intermodal transportation center in Waterbury. The center would serve the Metro North rail line, fixed route and intercity buses, taxis, shuttles (downtown, hotel, airport, etc.), and commuter travel. A key issue is the impact on bus passengers and bus operations if the bus pulse point is moved from the center of the downtown to Meadow St. A ConnDOT study of the Waterbury Branch Rail Line, which will evaluate future operations for the branch line, will affect the scale and desirability of the transportation center. Airpor t Facilities The Waterbury-Oxford Airport (OXC) is a state owned and operated general aviation airport, located seven miles southwest of Waterbury in Oxford near the Middlebury town-line. In 2006, 244 aircraft were based at the air - port. The airport handled an average of 164 flights a day, and approximately 60,000 flights a year. The runway was recently extended to 5,800 feet, increasing corporate in - terest in the airport. The lack of adequate hangar space, however, limits growth in use. Additional hangars and tie-down areas are proposed in the Waterbury-Oxford Airport Master Plan. In 2004, the airport provided ap -proximately 320 jobs throughout the local economy and had an economic impact of approximately $54 million, according to the study. A Federal Aviation Regulation Part 150 Noise Study found that the airport generates off-airport noise that ex - ceeds acceptable levels over residential areas in Middle - bury. The study recommends changes to flight operations and redirecting flights during the evening to alleviate noise disturbances to nearby residential properties. The study also recommends changes in local zoning to reduce existing and future noise exposure. Pedestrian & Bicycle Pathways In most areas, travel by bicycle is limited to road shoulders or to the sharing of travel lanes with vehicle traffic. Pedes - trian walkways are often disjointed and are mainly within the regional core and community centers. Improved pe - destrian and bicycle facilities are needed in the CNVR to provide transportation choice and increased opportuni - ties for physical activity and recreation in the region. Greenways The Farmington Canal Heritage Greenway in Cheshire and the Trolley Line recreation trail in Middlebury are the region’s two main recreational pedestrian and bicycle paths. The Larkin State Bridle trail passes through por- tions of Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, and Southbury. Waterbury Oxford Airport, Oxford photo courtesy of Clough, Harbour & Associates LLP Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Transpor tation 0 COGCNV is working with municipalities and neighbor - ing regions to plan the Naugatuck River Greenway. Other greenway trails have been proposed in the CNVR along the Housatonic River in Southbury and Oxford, the Mad River in Waterbury, the Pomperaug River in Woodbury, and Steele Brook in Watertown. The Pedestrian Network Well planned sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian sig - naling provide a direct link between the transportation system and employment, recreational, and shopping destinations. Sidewalks provide access to buildings from other buildings along the sidewalk network, as well as from on-street parking spaces, parking lots, and garages. Sidewalks with curb cuts, crosswalks, and pedestrian sig - nals allow for safer pedestrian crossings on roads in more developed areas. Pedestrian paths can also provide direct connections to destinations, avoiding circuitous street networks. Areas where sidewalks are deteriorating or the sidewalk network is disjointed can create serious safety risks. Major Recommendations Maintain and improve the region’s transpor - tation system. Future transportation planning should emphasize main - taining and improving the existing transportation system in the region rather than engaging in new construction. While our highways will remain the focal point of the transportation system, the role of public transit and ride - sharing should be enhanced as a means of diversifying transportation options. Greenways, bikeways, and side - walks and pedestrian paths can also serve as a transporta - tion alternative between residential areas and high prior- ity and scenic destinations. Figure 8.4 shows the different transportation options available in the region. Recommendations HIGHWAY SYSTEM 1. Monitor congestion within the region’s highway net - work, and emphasize highway projects that will help address congested corridors in a timely manner. 2. Seek to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption, and motor vehicle emissions. 3. Encourage access management techniques along arte - rial roads to improve highway capacity and safety. 4. Encourage proper maintenance of the region’s high - ways, including ongoing safety and pavement main- tenance. 5. Continue the evaluation and maintenance of the re - gion’s bridges. 6. Support context-sensitive design for the region’s high - way system improvements. 7. Increase awareness of commuter parking locations along major commuter routes, and expand lots where needed. TRANSIT & RAIL 1. Continue to refine bus services to better serve the re - gion and increase ridership. 2. Pursue stable funding for fixed route bus services to cover operating expenses. 3. Promote intercity express buses as a means of alleviat - Sidewalk East Street, Bethlehem Naugatuck River Greenway  - Transpor tation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Figure . Transportation Modes Central Naugatuck Valley Region o !!! B R I D G E W A T E R " ¥ " ¥ " § "  " Í " Î " Ò " Ñ " Ó " Å " Ì " × " ð " ½ " × " Ý " Ü £ t "ì " ¬ " e " Í " Í " ½ " Ð " Ð "  "  " ¥ " Ì £ t t " Ó " e " Ò " ð " Ò " Ñ " ½ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 " Í " Ñ " Î I 2 I 2 I 2 I 2 M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P !P ³ 0 24 1 Miles Commuter Parking Lots ! Rail Station o Public Airport Rail Line Bus Routes Greenways Federal and State Highways Municipal Boundary Greater Waterbury Transit District ADA 3/4 mile paratransit service area Note: Sidewalks are typically found in the regional core and in the community centers. The Region also contains paths, trails, and bikeways on public open space and private land. !P Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Transpor tation  I-84 Crossing the Housatonic River, Southbury ing congestion on the region’s expressways. 4. Support continued paratransit services (such as dial-a- ride) to meet the specialized needs of residents. 5. Encourage efforts to increase rail passenger ridership in the region. 6. Maintain and expand regional rail freight facilities and services. WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS 1. Coordinate with municipalities and neighboring RPOs on interregional greenway projects. 2. Encourage provision of walkways and bikeways, where appropriate. 3. Provide areas for bicycle use as part of road projects, as appropriate. 4. Encourage activities that provide for a regional net - work of contiguous pedestrian and bicycle paths. AIRPORTS 1. Continue to identify and make improvements that encourage use of the Waterbury-Oxford Airport, while limiting land use conflicts. Coordinate land use and transportation ac - tions. Coordinated transportation planning and land use plan - ning is essential for supporting desirable growth patterns at the local and regional levels. Uncoordinated, scattered development results in longer trips and higher traffic volumes. A land use plan should be complemented by planned transportation facilities, allowing people to en - joy urban amenities, attractive public spaces, and an ad- equate degree of mobility. Recommendations 1. Encourage coordinated land use and transportation planning so that transportation investments can be prudently planned for anticipated development. 2. Encourage transit-oriented development towards ex - isting transit corridors. 3. Continue efforts to encourage transit use and ride- sharing. 4. Assure adequate mobility to employment and services for transit-oriented populations. 5. Consider the transportation implications of proposed developments, and propose projects as needed. 6. Consider the environmental and land use implica - tions of transportation projects, and mitigate their ef - fects as needed. 7. Discourage residential development within close proximity to the Waterbury-Oxford Airport. Emphasize connectivity in developing local roads. Connecting roads within communities is an important means of enhancing future traffic circulation. While un - connected streets are often favored by developers and residents, each community should develop an overall traffic circulation plan to meet future needs. The pres - ence of an excessive number of unconnected roads con - centrates traffic on a few main roads in a municipality. Local street connections, in addition to pedestrian paths between neighborhoods, help bind communities togeth - er, increase social opportunities for children, and reduce parental “chauffeuring” of children. In addition, a lack of alternate traffic circulation routes can create problems for emergency services. Recommendations 1. Encourage communities to plan road networks for fu - ture circulation needs.  - Transpor tation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Continue to plan for needed transportation improvements. The Regional Transportation Plan, updated every five years by COGCNV, identifies transportation needs in the region and sets priorities for recommended improve- ments. The Transportation Improvement Program con- tains a five-year funding schedule of priority transporta - tion projects. These planning documents are integral to obtaining state and federal funding and setting regional priorities for transportation projects. Recommendations 1. Continue to set priorities for transportation projects in the region in response to local and regional needs. 2. Continue to pursue available transportation funding for the region. Construction on Route 8N before I-84 interchange Transit 1. Ensure continued and stable funding to cover operating expenses for the local bus service and regional transportation services for the disabled and job access. Expressways 1. Interstate 84 — Upgrade I-84 in CNVR, widening it to three lanes in each direction and improve inter - changes. 2. I-84/Route 8 interchange — Upgrade the interchange in Waterbury, including improved downtown traf - fic circulation and connections to the expressways. 3. Route 8 — Investigate the feasibility of re-designating Route 8 as an Interstate to improve the visability of the CNVR in the national and international workplace. State Highways 1. Route 10 — Improve Route 10 in southern Cheshire at Route 42 and sections north to Route 70.68 and south to Cooks Hill Rd. In northern Cheshire, improve in the vicinity of I-691 as well as between Maple Ave. and Sandbank Rd. 2. Route 64/Route 63 intersection — Reconfigure Routes 63 and 64 between I-84 and the Route 64/63 intersection in Middlebury. 3. Route 69 — Improve Route 69 in Waterbury from Harper’s Ferry Rd./Pearl Lake Rd. to I-84, and key intersections from E. Main St. to Lakewood Rd. as recommended in the COGCNV Route 69 Traffic Operations Study. 4. Route 73 — Replace the Tomkins S. intersection with Route 73 in Waterbury by reconnecting Hunting - don Ave. to Route 73 and implement recommended improvements in COGCNV Route 73 Corridor Study. Urban Highways 1. Waterbury, Homer St./Chase Ave. — Reconstruct and widen from Waterville Rd. to N. Main St. 2. Waterbury, Aurora St. — Widen from Bunker Hill Rd. to Watertown Ave. 3. Prospect, Scott Rd. — Connect Scott Rd. to Austin Rd. in Waterbury and reconstruct and widen Scott Rd. from Waterbury-Prospect town line to Route 69. 4. Naugatuck, Cross St. — Reconstruct and widen from Route 8 to Route 63. Table . Priority Highway Projects from the COGCNV Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan: 00- Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Transpor tation  1U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Transportation Planning Package: CTTP 2000 2U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, Summary File 3. 3U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Transportation Planning Package: CTTP 2000. 4Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2007 Congestion Screening & Monitoring Report. 5Ibid. 6Ibid. 78,294 households. U.S. Bureau of the Census: Census 2000. 8Rail ridership figures from Report and Recommendations of the Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board, January 2007. Farmington Canal, Cheshire  - Transpor tation Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  This component of the Plan is intended to recommend the preservation of open space areas of regional signifi- cance that can: Enhance regional character and quality of life. Preserve lands for parks and recreational uses. Conserve important natural resources. Provide fiscal and economic benefits. Shape development patterns. Current Conditions Open space is defined as land that is preserved or restrict- ed for park, recreation, cemetery, or conservation use. This definition varies from the perception of many resi - dents that undeveloped land is “open space” even though it may be developed at a future time. About 16 percent of the entire region’s land area is some type of open space. Of this, 84 percent is committed open space owned by water companies, land trusts, government entities, cemeteries, and private organizations such as clubs. The remainder of the open space, 16%, is not committed to preserva - tion. These percentages do not include undeveloped pri - vate land, but do include municipally owned land used as open space but not permanently protected. Within the state, the proportion of open space varies by the type of municipality. As the 2005 Statewide Com - prehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) states, smaller towns (Beacon Falls and Thomaston) have much larger amounts of recreational acreage than either urban centers (Waterbury) or towns near urban municipalities (Naugatuck), the two municipal categories with the least amount of recreational acr eage. All remaining municipal - ities in the CNVR are classified by SCORP as suburban, the category which has the second largest recreational acreage. • • • • • Acquisition of open space is strongly supported by the citizens of Connecticut. The Department of Environ- mental Protection (DEP) alone owns 66% of the total recreational acreage in the state. While the largest unmet need of Connecticut households reported by the SCORP plan is for multi-use trails, 85% of all households use some type of water-based recreation, and the acquisition of water-based recreational properties is DEP’s highest priority. In its draft Green Plan, which identifies sensitive types of ecological areas and unique features that merit protec - tion, DEP’s vision is stated as providing: A diverse landscape of protected open space that offers outdoor recreation to Connecticut’s citizens, protects water supplies, preserves natural communities and habitats for plants and animals, offers green spaces accessible to all residents, whether residing in ur- ban, suburban or rural communities, and provides a working natural landscape for the harvest of farm and forest products. 9. Open Space Flander’s Nature Center, Woodbury Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Open Space  TownFederalStateMunicipal Private*Cemeter y Land Tr usts Golf Courses Water Company Total Committed Open Space (Acres) Beacon Falls 01,181 2590342 0211,506 Bethlehem 04 149 08391 0206 758 Cheshire 0316 1,441 297 20470 01,426 3,970 Middlebur y 22928 057 4881 01131,312 Naugatuck 21,009 270118 27 02351,418 Oxford 01,233 55101225 001,821 Prospect 01 88 0378 02,198 2,368 Southbur y 01,202 1,155 944 20767 064,094 Thomaston 573723 172 060 002891,817 Waterbur y 261409 253 27329 00 01,279 Water town 621,877 64928178145 06483,587 Wolcott 00 00 50 0833 838 Woodbur y 00 152 785 301,667 03973,031 CNVR 1,1277,983 4,8962,138 7894,493 06,372 27,799 Uncommitted Open Space (Acres) Beacon Falls 00 056 00 0 056 Bethlehem 00 21307 00 0 0328 Cheshire 00 036 0034 070 Middlebur y 09 311 25 00453 0798 Naugatuck 00 165 20073 227467 Oxford 00 273 376 00 038687 Prospect 00 20 00033 217270 Southbur y 00 00 00238 0238 Thomaston 00 53 23 00 0 076 Waterbur y 00 377 42 00492 56967 Water town 00 32 49 00186 79346 Wolcott 00 204 299 0081 0584 Woodbur y 00 401 0073 00474 CNVR 091,857 1,215 0731,590 6175,361 Total 1,1277,992 6,7533,353 7904,566 1,590 6,989 33,160 Note: *Included Audubon land, Roxbur y land tr ust, easements, homeowner’s associations, etc Source: COGCNV Staff with assistance from municipalities and local land tr usts Table . Open Space in the CNVR, by Municipality: 00  - Open Space Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Figure .. Open Space Central Naugatuck Valley B R I D G E W AT E R " ¥ " ¥ " § "  " Í " Î " Ò " Ñ " Ó "Å " Ì " × " ð "½ " × " Ý " Ü £ t " ì " ¬ " e " Í " Í " ½ " Ð " Ð "  "  " ¥ " Ì £ t t " Ó " e " Ò " ð " Ò " Ñ " ½ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 " Í " Ñ " Î § ¨ ¦84 M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 24 1 Miles Proposed Open Space Action Areas and Greenways Preserved Open Space Other Open Space Major Roads Municipal Boundary - This does not include detailed planning by town or land trust. - This includes protected federal, state, municipal, private, cemetery, land trust, and water company Class I and II land. - This includes unprotected state, municipal, private and land trust lands, golf courses, and water company Class III land. Source: COGCNV staff with assistance from municipalities and local land trusts Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Open Space  For DEP, the goal is: To continue to acquire and protect land to satisfy a variety of needs as expressed in Connecticut General Statutes 23-8(b) and in various State plans, includ- ing the Conservation and Development Policies Plan of Connecticut 2005-2010 and to support lo- cal and regional plans, where available.” The acquisition tools available to DEP are the Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust Program and the Open Space and Watershed Land Acquisition Grant Program. Major Recommendations Protect more open space in the region. In 1998, the State set a goal of 21% of the total land area, or 673,210 acres, to be preserved as open space by 2023 with 10% by the state and 11% by municipalities, water companies, and conservation organizations. As of Janu - ary 2005, 78% percent of the state goal and 65% of the non-state goal have been met. These goals compete with housing, commercial, industrial, and other land uses for diminishing available land. Recommendations 1. Encourage activities to identify and preserve impor - tant open space areas before they are threatened by development. 2. Retain existing private open space through public ac - quisition, use of open space requirements in subdivi - sion regulations, easements, or other means. 3. Assist the state, municipalities, and land trusts in their efforts to meet the state’s open space goal. Coordinate and prioritize open space preser- vation throughout the region. In addition, efforts at preserving open space should not simply be directed to acquiring a certain percentage of land as open space. Instead, efforts should be devoted to creating a meaningful open space system with priority given to the establishment of greenways, open space con - nections, and the preservation of visible parcels (ridge - lines, scenic view areas, steep slopes, agricultural land, and historical or archeological sites). Some municipalities and organizations, such as the Southbury Land Trust, are working to prioritize land for preservation. Recommendations 1. Maximize the benefits of open space by giving priority to: Establishment of greenways (for wetland protection and wildlife habitat), open space connections (in - cluding trails and wildlife corridors), and forests. Multi-purpose areas. Preservation of visible parcels (ridgelines, scenic view areas, steep slopes, and historical or archeologi- cal sites). Protection of water resources and lands which pro- tect water quality. 2. Address the difficulty of providing adequate open space in urban areas by: Providing small public greens and “pocket parks”. Enhancing and upgrading existing public greens. Promoting street tree programs. 3. Where feasible, encourage creation of: Multi-purpose trail systems (pedestrian, bicycle, bridle, cross-country ski, as appropriate) that link recreational and open space areas. • • • • • • • • Fulton Park, Waterbury  - Open Space Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Pedestrian and bike paths that link residential, re - tail, and employment areas. 4. Work to coordinate open space preservation with for - ests, agriculture, and lands with minimum land use impacts. Focus efforts on obtaining sites for water- based recreation. One of the region’s most pressing recreational needs is wa - ter access to local rivers and lakes, especially new beaches. Lake Quassapaug, the Naugatuck River, and the Quin - nipiac River are examples of major water resources in the region that do not have major public access. Recommendations 1. Encourage efforts to address the region’s needs for ac - cess to local rivers and lakes, especially new beaches. Preserve declassified water company land as open space. Some of the land that residents may believe is protected as open space is at risk. Almost 10%, over 3,400 acres, of the region’s total existing open space is in private owner - ship (such as water companies, golf courses, private clubs) and is not permanently committed open space. Some of this land, as well as some municipal holdings, could po - tentially be developed in the future. In addition, many people believe that agricultural land registered under Public Act 490 protects open space, when, in fact, it only enables the property owner to feel less pressure to sell im - mediately. It does not preserve land long term. Recommendations 1. Work with local communities including land trusts, the state, and other organizations such as the Trust for Public Land and Connecticut Farmland Trust to preserve land, especially Class III and other watershed lands, as open space and/or potential future water supply sources. 2. Undertake education programs on the fiscal benefits of open space protection and use of Public Act 490. • Lake Quassapaug, Middlebury Middlebury Greenway on Route 64, Middlebury Secondar y Recommendations Encourage use of a broad range of tools to protect open space. While open space preservation has been shown to be a cost-effective investment for many communities, public acquisition is not the only method available. Open space can also be preserved through the activities of private land trusts, settlement patterns (cluster development), purchase of development rights, transfer of development rights, easements, or other methods. Where public open space protection is desirable and identified, it can be facil - itated through the annual budgeting of funds, bonding, or fees in lieu of open space in subdivisions. Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Open Space 00 Recommendations 1. Promote open space preservation in the region by public and private agencies. 2. Assist local land trusts and other non-profit organiza - tions (such as the Connecticut Land Alliance, Flan- der’s Nature Center, Southbury Land Trust, Prospect Land Trust, etc.) that preserve open space in the re - gion. 3. Encourage communities to budget funds each year for open space acquisition, to aggressively seek open space acquisition grants, and to require open space set-asides in subdivisions. 4. Encourage communities in the region to inventory their preserved open space. 5. Encourage communities to use land use techniques that promote open space protection, such as: Open space set-asides in residential subdivisions. Cluster-type residential developments. Ridgeline protection provisions within zoning regu - lations. Transfer of development rights. Other flexible land use regulations. • • • • • Manage open space effectively to maximize benefits. Open space should be accessible to all residents of the region. People dependent on public transportation will need open space near bus routes. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires public facilities to provide equal opportunities to all persons to participate in activities. At the same time, each facility must be managed to prevent unwanted damage (such as soil erosion, trampled veg - etation, litter, or fires). Lower income people may need facilities without admission fees. The SCORP points out the need for additional parking, improved restrooms, shelters, and other accessibility issues at many public open space areas. Recommendations 1. Encourage appropriate access to open space and recre - ational facilities for all residents of the region. 2. Encourage appropriate activities in open space areas to avoid unwanted damage, such as soil erosion, tram - pled vegetation, litter, fires, and ensure proper man - agement. Encourage efforts to preserve open space ac- tion areas, critical environmental areas, and areas threatened by development. The following areas are recommended for consideration by the region’s municipalities in determining priorities in recreation and open space lands. Many of these propos - als were identified in the 1963, 1977, and 1998 Regional Plans. 1. Water-Based Recreational Sites — locate and pre - serve sites for water-based recreation, especially ac - cess points for boating, fishing, or swimming. This may include acquisition of existing watershed lands and reservoirs being considered for abandonment, sites along the Naugatuck, Quinnipiac, Pomperaug or Housatonic Rivers, or other water bodies such as Lake Quassapaug. 2. Greenways (region-wide) — create, extend, and en - hance greenways in the region, especially along river corridors (such as the proposed greenway along the Nonnewaug Falls, Woodbury  - Open Space Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Volunteer Park, Beacon Falls Naugatuck River in Waterbury, the Housatonic Riv- er in Southbury, the Quinnipiac River in Cheshire, Steele Brook in Watertown and Waterbury, and the Pomperaug River in Southbury and Woodbury). 3. Recreation Trails (region-wide) — protect, create, ex - tend, and enhance recreational trails throughout the region, the Farmington Canal trail in Cheshire, the trolley line trail in Middlebury, and the Larkin Bridle Trail in Middlebury, Oxford, and Southbury. Encour - age the preservation of trail corridors maintained by the Connecticut Forest and Park Association and oth - er groups. 4. Ridgelines — Assist the region’s communities in pro - tecting ridgeline areas. 5. Other Recommended Action Areas — In 1967, the Regional Planning Agency of the Central Naugatuck Valley proposed seven open space action areas (see Figure 9.1). One of these, the Lake Quassapaug Ac - tion Area, has largely been protected through the ef - forts of the Flander’s Nature Center in Woodbury. Regionwide, over 5,290 acres within the action areas remain available for development and almost 2,940 acres have been preserved. Expand the existing open space preserve at the Non - newaug Falls area in Bethlehem, Watertown, and Woodbury (Figure 9.2). Create a major open space area near Straits Turn - pike in Waterbury, Middlebury, and Watertown (Figure 9.3). Improve access to existing facilities in the Hop Brook area (Middlebur y, Naugatuck, Waterbury) containing 703 acres of existing open space (Figure 9.4). Create a major community and regional open space area in Wolcott as recommended in Wolcott’s 1973 Plan of Development (Figure 9.5). Enhance existing open space (477 ac.) preserved by the Town of Cheshire with additional lands near I-84 and Route 70 (Figure 9.6). Enhance existing open space on Peck Mountain in Cheshire and Prospect (1,160 ac.) with acquisition of watershed lands or other lands (Figure 9.7). • • • • • • While these areas represent resources of potential regional significance due to their size or location, additional open space preservation efforts at the local level and the state level will also be important to the region. Farmington Canal, Cheshire Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  - Open Space  " )61 " )63 £ ¤6 Watertown Bethlehem Woodbury ² Legend Major RoadsLocal Roads Developed LandAvailable Land For DevelopmentAction Area BoundaryTown Boundary Committed Open Space 0 0.25 0.5Miles Figure . Nonnewaug Falls Open Space Action Area Figure . Straits Turnpike Open Space Action Area Figure . Hop Brook Open Space Action Area Figure . I- Connecticut Route 0 Open Space Action Area Figure . Peck Mountain Open Space Action Area Figure . Boundline Road Open Space Action Area " )63 " )73 § ¨ ¦84 Watertown Waterbury Middlebury ² Legend Major RoadsLocal Roads Developed LandAvailable Land For DevelopmentAction Area BoundaryTown Boundary Committed Open Space 00.25 0.5 Miles Naugatuck Waterbury Middlebury " )63 " )188 ² § ¨ ¦84 " )64 Legend Major RoadsLocal Roads Developed LandAvailable Land For DevelopmentAction Area BoundaryTown Boundary Committed Open Space 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Wolcott " )69 ² " )322 Legend Major RoadsLocal Roads Developed LandAvailable Land For DevelopmentAction Area BoundaryTown Boundary Committed Open Space 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Prospect Waterbury Cheshire ² § ¨ ¦84 " )70 Legend Major RoadsLocal Roads Developed LandAvailable Land For DevelopmentAction Area BoundaryTown Boundary Committed Open Space 00.25 0.5 Miles Prospect Cheshire " )68 " )42 ² 0 0.25 0.5 Miles " )70 Legend Major RoadsLocal Roads Developed LandAvailable Land For DevelopmentAction Area BoundaryTown Boundary Committed Open Space  - Open Space Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  10. Water Supply & Sewer Service O ferfiew The region’s infrastructure includes water supply and wastewater disposal systems. These utility services are important to:Ensure a water supply of adequate quality and quantity to maintain the health and safety of the residents of the region. Provide public facilities to accommodate the needs of the region’s residents. Guide the location of development in the region. Protect areas vital to water supply watersheds. Current Conditions An estimated 70% of the region’s households are served by both public water and sewer. Water Serfice Over 80% of CNVR households are served by public wa- ter. In addition, many business and industrial uses within the water service area use public water. Other residences and businesses use private wells. Issues related to water service in the region include:Maintaining drinking water sources. Protecting drinking water sources from conflicts among multiple uses (such as withdrawal, discharges, and rec - reational uses) in the Quinnipiac River basin. Coordinating major suppliers in the allocation of water through the water utility coordination committees. Implementing the state mandated aquifer protection program regulating land uses in the vicinity of public water supply wells. Limitations of the Pomperaug River aquifer while water demand increases. Protecting water quality from pollution stemming from urban runoff, fuel storage tanks, prescription drugs, personal care products, and other sources. • • • • • • • • • • Planning for catastrophic water system failures (includ - ing redundancy and potential interconnections). Sewage Serfice Nine wastewater treatment plants in the CNVR serve de - velopment in twelve of the region’s communities. These facilities rely on mechanical, chemical, and/or biological treatment of wastewater before, typically, discharge into watercourses. Four of the facilities are publicly owned and operated, one (Southbury Training School) is state- operated, one is municipally owned and contractually op- erated, and three are associated with private development. In addition, there are three systems, two in Southbury and one in Woodbury, that pre-treat prior to discharge into the ground. • Wastewater Treatment Plant, Cheshire Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 0 - Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice  B R I D G E W A T E R " ¥ " ¥ " § "  " Í "Î " Ò " Ñ " Ó "Å "Ì " × " ð "½ " × " Ý " Ü £ t "ì " ¬ "e " Í " Í " ½ " Ð " Ð "  "  " ¥ "Ì £ t t " Ó "e " Ò " ð " Ò " Ñ " ½ § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 " Í " Ñ " Î M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R I S B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O U T H W A S H I N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I N G F O R D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 24 1 Miles Municipal Boundary Limited Access Expressway Regional Arterial Both Sewer and Water Service Sewer Service Area Only Public Water Service Area Only Source: COGCNV staff with assistance from municipalities Figure 0. Existing Sewer and Public Water Service Area Central Naugatuck Valley Region 0- Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Source: Department of Environmental Protection MunicipalityFacility by Owner/Operator Permitted Flow (mgd) Estimated 00  Average Flow (mgd) Beacon Falls municipal/municipal 0.710.277 Bethlehem none ---- Cheshire municipal/municipal 3.52.5 Middlebur y none ---- Naugatuck municipal/contractor 10.34.85 Oxford none ---- Prospect none ---- Southbur y state/state 0.30.235 private/private 0.780.425 private/private 0.830.025 Thomaston municipal/municipal 1.380.951 Waterbur y municipal/municipal 2718.5 Water town none ---- Wolcott none ---- Woodbur y private/private nana Table 0. Sewage Treatment Facilities in the CNVR: 00 An estimated 80% percent of the region’s housing units are served by public or community sewers. Some con - cerns, particularly in the Naugatuck River basin, remain as to the effect of discharges on the recreational use of the river and on Long Island Sound. The Quinnipiac River Basin, part of the South Central Coastal Basin, also has conflicts of uses for supply versus disposal. Land uses not served by wastewater treatment plants are served by septic tank systems that rely primarily on bio - logical treatment and typically discharge into the ground by leaching fields or other subsurface disposal system. Major Recommendations Protect the quality of the region’s water sup - ply. Protection of the region’s drinking water supply is dif - ficult due to the variety of land uses and activities that have the potential to harm water quality. While new fed -eral surface water filtration standards and local aquifer protection programs will help to protect water resources in the region, new development increases the risk of pol - lution from non-point sources such as road runoff. (See Impervious Surface discussion in the Natural Resources Section.) The State of Connecticut has made a major attempt to protect source water (wells) through the EPA approved Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). Under the program, the Department of Public Health (DPH) de - lineated source water protection areas for each public drinking water source, inventoried significant potential contaminant sources within these areas, and assessed the relative susceptibility of each public drinking water source. This sensitive information has been distributed to the municipal chief elected officials. The key indicators of susceptibility are sensitivity to certain contaminants, vulnerability to land development, and the presence of additional source protection measures. In 2007 DPH was in the implementation phase of SWAP. Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 0 - Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice  Recommendations 1. Identify and protect the water resources in the region — the existing and potential future water supply wa - tersheds and aquifer protection areas — from pollu - tion or degradation. 2. Monitor the extent of impervious surface near water supplies and aquifer areas. 3. Encourage best management practices to reduce pol - lution from non-point and other sources. 4. Protect water quality and availability through the ac - quisition of property and the use of best management practices (BMP) in developments. Ensure an adequate supply of water for the region. Future growth in the region may strain the ability of some water sources to provide an adequate quantity of potable water. Presently, demands on the water supply in the Pomperaug River aquifer are a concern for the future development in the western section of the region. Over - all, inadequate supply storage, undercapitalized water companies, absentee ownership, competing recreational uses, lack of sufficient scientific data on availability and usage, and increasing regulatory requirements have the potential to affect the region’s water supply. Recommendations 1. Encourage efforts to provide an adequate supply of water for the region. 2. Vigorously encourage the preservation of existing and potential water supply resources (such as reservoirs) for the region’s future water supply needs. 3. Encourage the adequate provision of water in rapidly growing areas through interconnections, cooperation, and other means. 4. Work to resolve conflicts among suppliers, users, and regulators of water supply in the region. 5. Assist communities in the transition from reservoir sources to groundwater wells. 6. Help in the development of scientific data for water supply decision-making. 7. Encourage efforts to develop a regional water institute or water museum. Water Sampling, Pomperaug River The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protec - tion (DEP) has undertaken an Aquifer Protection Pro - gram, as mandated by the state legislature. Under this program, water companies map the 13 CNVR aquifer protection areas, which cover 45 drinking-water wells in the region. Municipalities then adopt regulations for the well areas, following a DEP-supplied model. When cer - tain specified land uses are present within the approved area, the municipality registers them and monitors their activity. Certain new uses are prohibited within the aqui - fer protection areas. All CNVR municipalities except Waterbury, Wolcott, and Middlebury contain aquifer protection areas. Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Naugatuck Middlebury Prospect Thomaston BeaconFalls Aquifer Protection Areas 0- Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Reduce the impacts of sewage discharges. Sewage discharges can hurt water quality for recreational, scenic, and other uses. Studies of Long Island Sound have shown that sewage discharges from throughout the state have had cumulative impacts on this resource, especially in the discharge of excessive nitrogen. The same is true for rivers in the region. Polluted stormwater runoff can be transported to mu- nicipal separate storm sewer systems and discharged into rivers and streams without treatment. In order to reduce discharges to the maximum extent possible, protect water quality, and satisfy the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) instituted a five-year permitting system, called Phase II Stormwater, for discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems, serving less than 100,000 and certain construction sites. It aims to reduce the quantity of pol - lutants — such as soil, grease, pesticides and trash — in the waste water system from entering rivers and streams. The program emphasizes best management practices (BMPs), education and outreach, good municipal house - keeping, and construction site erosion control measures. It covers the urbanized areas within twelve municipalities, excluding Bethlehem. COGCNV has worked with the municipalities to develop maps and data of GPS 1 located outfalls, and provided educational brochures, staff train - ing, and cable television public information spots. As the program expands to the entire area of a municipality over the permitting period, COGCNV may offer additional assistance. Recommendations 1. Encourage efforts to improve the treatment of waste - water prior to discharge. 2. Work to reduce nitrogen discharge regionwide. 3. Assist municipalities with adherence to the EPA Phase II Stormwater requirements. Use the infrastructure system to guide growth. The public water distribution system can effectively sup - port and guide regional settlement patterns. While it is Outfall, Beacon Falls not possible to provide public water supply for all loca - tions or uses, certain uses and intensities may require public water supply. Since sewers are the preferred disposal method for indus - trial, commercial, and intense residential land uses, such " Ó " )69 " )69 " )68 " )68 ³ 0 0.5 1 Miles Urbanized Areas and Storm Water Outfalls >= 15″ in Diameter Prospect For general planning purposes only. Delineations may not be exact. Source:”Roads”, GDT “Town Boundary”, “Hydrography”, “Wetlands”, DEP “Urbanized Area Boundary”, U. S. Census Bureau”Outfalls”, Collected by Town January 2006 Outfalls Local Roads Major RoadsWater Urbanized AreaWetlandsWater bodies Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 0 – Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice  uses should be located in sewer service areas. Sewer exten – sions are costly, especially in lower density areas. Recommendations 1. Encourage the development of sewer and water infra – structure that serves the desired concept of regional land use. 2. Relate development intensity to the capabilities of the sewer and water infrastructure. 3. Encourage land development in areas served by infra – structure, including sewer and water. 4. Encourage sewer extensions only in areas of signifi – cant commercial and industrial growth and contigu – ous, high density residential development. 5. Provide a forum for regional cooperation and assis – tance in the EPA Phase II stormwater program. Carefully manage existing infrastructure sys- tems. Portions of the region’s infrastructure system may be in need of repair or upgrade. Also, infiltration and inflow are problems in the older systems, causing water to un – dergo costly water filtration which is not always neces – sary. Infiltration is unwanted water that enters a sewer (such as from leaks into the pipe). Inflow is an unwanted connection to the sewer (such as from floor drains). These problems consume valuable sewage treatment capacity and reduce the life of a treatment facility. Potential infrastructure issues are: Water supply systems — leakage, undersized pipes, in – appropriate pipe materials (lead or asbestos cement), or dead end pipes. Sewer pipes — undersized pipe, brittle pipe, areas with combined waste water and storm sewers or infiltration and inflow. Sewage treatment plants — upgrading for reliability and efficiency as well as level of treatment OTHER SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS In addition to municipal sewage systems and subsurface sewage disposal systems 2, the Department of Environ – mental Protection has regulatory authority over commu – nity sewerage systems and alternative sewage treatment systems. Community sewerage systems are those serving two or more residences in separate structures that are not connected to a municipal sewerage system. Community systems may utilize either a subsurface sewage disposal system or an alternative sewage treatment system. Alter – native sewage treatment systems are those serving one or more buildings that discharge into the groundwater and use a method of treatment other than a subsurface sew – age disposal system. Alternative sewage treatment systems can be sized to meet the needs of an individual home up to a large residential or commercial development. Alternative systems can be used for nutrient reduction and solids and organic removal. Since alternative systems generally include biological and chemical processes, they require more monitoring and maintenance than subsur- face sewage disposal systems. Alternative sewage treatment systems are generally prohibited in public water supply watersheds, but could be used for residential communi – ties, schools, malls, assisted living, and other uses. Because of this variety, alternative sewage treatment systems have the potential of decentralizing development and creating sprawl. They should be used with careful knowledge of the impacts on land use and the service area planning of a water pollution control authority. • • • Storm Drain 0- Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Recommendations 1. Encourage efforts and programs to improve and main – tain the region’s public water distribution system. 2. Encourage efforts and programs to improve and main – tain the region’s sewer systems and treatment plants for greater efficiency and capacity. 3. Avoid installing costly new infrastructure in rural ar – eas or in water supply watersheds. 4. Assist municipalities and water pollution control au – thorities in balancing the use of alternative sewage treatment systems with land use impacts. Secondar y Recommendations Encourage private maintenance of septic sys – tems. Septic system failures are a continuing problem in the region. While most areas of widespread failures have been addressed, new problems continue to arise from the conversion of summer homes to year-round units, poor maintenance, inadequate or improper construction, in – appropriate use of the systems, and age. It is more cost effective in the long term to encourage the maintenance of private septic systems than to extend public sewers. Recommendations 1. Educate homeowners on the importance of mainte – nance and care of their septic systems to avoid costly repairs and replacements. 2. Educate homeowners on the importance of water conservation. 3. Educate homeowners about substances that should not be disposed of in septic systems. 4. Encourage the use of the regional household hazard – ous waste program. 5. Encourage purchasers of existing homes to check with the local health department to learn the history of their system. 6. Assist municipalities in drafting ordinances to prop – erly regulate the inspection and maintenance of septic systems. Encourage water conservation in the region. Water conservation efforts that can extend the existing supply are difficult to implement since some utility pro – viders do not meter flows to encourage conservation. Improvements from the required use of low-flow fixtures have been offset by increases in lawn irrigation. Op – portunities for cooperation among water service provid – ers seem to hold promise for ensuring the region’s water needs are met efficiently and economically. In addition, the lack of water conservation increases flow to sewage treatment plants, reducing the plant’s capacity to treat wastewater. Recommendations 1. Undertake educational efforts to encourage water conservation, working with local environmental orga – nizations and water providers. 2. Encourage water conservation improvements (flow meters, efficient fixtures, and management). 3. Encourage water conservation by the region’s house – holds and commercial, industrial, and municipal us – ers in order to: Reduce the amount of effluent (sewer or septic) to be treated. Help extend the life of sewage treatment plants and septic systems. Help protect water quality throughout the region. • • • • Well Field, Woodbury Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 0 – Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice 00 Wigwam Reservoir, Thomaston 1 GPS: Global Positioning System 2A subsurface sewage disposal system is a house or collection sewer and a septic tank followed by a leaching system. 0- Water Supply & Se wer Ser vice Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  11. Future Regional Form O ferfiew The recommendations of the preceding chapters are com- bined in this chapter to present the overall future regional form for the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. The Concept of the Future Regional Form The future regional form was developed by considering: Existing land use patterns, environmental constraints, and existing and proposed infrastructure (water and sewer). Local desires (as evidenced by local plans of conserva – tion & development and local zoning regulations and maps). State guidelines (as presented in the State Plan of Con- servation & Development). Regional considerations (such as regional land use is – sues, regional goals and policies, and a concept of the desirable regional form). The basic concept of the regional form is to focus de – velopment in a strong Waterbury-Naugatuck-Watertown regional core along the Naugatuck River where land use intensity reflects the availability of adequate infrastruc – ture (water, sewer, transportation). Additional develop – ment in the region should be located in economic areas, community centers, and growth areas. The concentration of development minimizes costly expansions of public in – frastructure, as areas of moderate land use intensity will be served by existing or planned infrastructure. A more intense density pattern promotes public transportation, energy conservation, and air quality goals by minimiz – ing travel distances between places. With distance from the core area and subregional centers, the intensity of development decreases until some of these services are no longer required. Under the Plan, land use intensity • • • • should be highest in the regional core to promote greatest economies of scale. Growth areas are anticipated to be developed primarily as residential areas with some institutional uses and neigh- borhood trade and service establishments located at ma- jor intersecting roads. Land use intensity in suburban and rural areas will also be higher in areas served with adequate infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation), as in community centers and em – ployment centers. New major infrastructure investments (water, sewer, transportation) should be minimized out – side these centers. Major infrastructure investments are not anticipated in conservation areas. Future development in emerging sub – urbs and rural areas should be at the lowest densities since there is little or no infrastructure. Pockets of good soils in these areas can accommodate more development. Areas of desirable open space or significant natural resources should be preserved. Age Restricted Housing, Middlebury Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Future Regional Form  Pumpkin Patch, Bethlehem Land Use Categories This section provides the framework for the categories in the plan. Development Areas Regional Core An area of mixed uses that is the primary focus of employ- ment, commercial, institutional, and cultural activity in the region because of the significant investment in infrastructure, facilities, and services. This area has an intensity of devel – opment to warrant local bus service. Location: Waterbury, Naugatuck, and Watertown (Oakville). Major Economic Areas Areas outside the regional core that have developed, or are in – tended, as major economic development locations. These ar- eas may support limited transit (such as commuter buses and/or para-transit). Water and sewer infrastructure are typically available. Location: northern Cheshire, the Airport/Route 188 Area in Oxford, and the southwestern corner of Middlebury. Community Centers Community centers in outlying towns where mixed uses such as commerce, community activities, and housing with lim – ited transit (such as commuter busses and/or para-transit). Some have water and sewer infrastructure. Major Community Centers: Cheshire, Watertown, and Southbury. Smaller Community Centers: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Middlebury, Oxford, Prospect, Wolcott, and Woodbury. Growth Areas/Infill Growth areas accommodate the bulk of future regional growth. Water and/or sewer infrastructure is, or could be, provided. Infill is anticipated within neighborhoods or areas with infrastructure already available and where greater densities exist. Transit service may be available in both areas. Conservation Areas Rural Areas Areas where rural characteristics should be preserved. Any development should respect natural resource and envi – ronmental constraints. Rural areas include: farms, resi – dential uses, and small, interspersed community service areas. Intensity depends on the availability of infrastruc – ture and other appropriate support services. Major public investment is discouraged. Downtown Waterbury  – Future Regional Form Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Prohibitive Environmental Constraints Areas of watercourses and waterbodies, poorly drained soils (wetlands), or 100-year floodplains (subject to field verifica- tion). Existing Committed Open Space Land permanantly preserved as open space (such as local, state, or federal-dedicated open space, homeowners’ associa – tion open space, land trust preserves, Class I and II water company land, cemeteries). These areas do not include some areas perceived as open space that are in private or municipal ownership and not protected (such as Class III water company land, municipal parks not designated for preservation, schools, and golf courses). Proposed Open Space Areas recommended for permanent, large scale, regional open space or regional greenways. Rel ation To Other Pl ans The Plan was compared with local plans of conservation & development including recent draft plans, and the 2005-2010 State Conservation & Development Policies Plan. The six policies of the state plan were taken into account when developing the regional plan. While some areas of difference remain, minor inconsistencies can be attributed to: Scale of the mapping. Differences in definitions of desirable uses or develop – ment densities. Regional (as opposed to local or state) perspectives on future growth and development in the Central Nau – gatuck Valley Region. • • • East Mountain Reservoir, Prospect Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Future Regional Form  Cifil Rights – Enfironmental Justice The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin that can limit the opportunity of minorities to gain equal access to services and programs. Recipients of federally assisted programs, such as COGCNV, cannot, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, either directly or through contractual means:Deny program services, aids, or benefits; Provide a different service, aid, or benefit, or provide them in a manner different than they are provided to others; or Segregate or separately treat individuals in any manner related to the receipt of any service, aid, or benefit. Effective planning and decision making depends on un- • • • derstanding and properly addressing the unique needs of different socioeconomic groups. Figure 11.1 identifies census block groups in the region where: More than 50% of the residents considered themselves Non-White or Hispanic on their 2000 Census form, and More than 20% of the residents were part of a house – hold that reported having a median household income 150% or below the Census poverty threshold, by family size, on their 2000 Census form. Block groups meeting both these criteria are all located in the city of Waterbury. • • Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Wolcott Waterbury Watertown Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston Beacon Falls ³ 0 24 1 Miles Block Group BoundaryTown Boundary Minority and Low-Income Block Groups Target area includes 36,636 people or 13.4% of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region’s population and 47.4% of the regional minority population. Does not include prison populations in Cheshire. Figure . Minority and Low-Income Target Area Central Naugatuck Valley Region Source: COGCNV, Long Range Regional Transpor tation Plan: 2007-2035, Section VI Civil Rights – Environmental Justice  – Future Regional Form Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! !! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !!! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! !!!! !!!! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! !! ! !!! !! !!! !!!!! !! ! !!!! !! !!!!! !!! !! !!!! !! !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! !! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !! !! !! !!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! !!!!! !!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! !! !!!!!!! !!! !!!!! ! !!!!!! !!!!!!! !! !!! ! ! !! ! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! ! !!!!!!! !!!! o B R I D G E W A T E R § ¨ ¦84 § ¨ ¦691 § ¨ ¦84 ” ¥ ” ¥ ” § ”  ” Í ” Î ” Ò ” Ñ ” Ó ” Å ” Ì ” × ” ð ” ½ ” × ” Ý ” Ü £ t ” ì ” ¬ ” e ” Í ” Í ” ½ ” Ð ” Ð ”  ”  ” ¥ ” Ì £t £ t ” Ó ” e ” Ò ” ð ” Ò ” Ñ ” ½ ” Í ” Ñ ” Î M O N R O E H A M D E N M O R R IS B R I S T O L R O X B U R Y M E R I D E N B E T H A N Y S E Y M O U R N E W T O W N P L Y M O UT H W A S HI N G T O N L I T C H F I E L D W A L L I NG F OR D S O U T H I N G T O N Oxford Southbury Cheshire Woodbury Waterbury Watertown Wolcott Bethlehem Middlebury Prospect Naugatuck Thomaston BeaconFalls ³ 0 24 1 Miles Plan Adoption: June 13, 2008 Disclaimer: This map is intended for general planning purposes only. Development Areas Growth Areas Major Economic Areas Community Centers Regional Core ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Municipal Boundary Local Road Regional Arterial Airport Transportation and Other o COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY Aquifer Protection Area Conservation Areas Rural Areas Prohibitive Environmental Constraints Committed Open Space Proposed Open Space Figure 11.2 Future Land Use Central Naugatuck Valley Region Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 2008 11 – Future Regional Form Future Land Use  12. Implementation Tools COGCNV has the primary responsibility for initiating implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. Some of the recommendations in the Regional Plan of Conserva- tion and Development can be accomplished by COGC – NV through funding requests, regional referrals, applica – tion reviews, and other means. Other recommendations require the cooperation of, and actions by, local boards and commissions in each community. Still other recom – mendations will be implemented with the assistance of state or federal agencies that will consider the recommen – dations of the Plan in their reviews and proposals. If the Plan is to be realized, it must serve as a guide to all residents, communities, commissions, boards, agencies, and individuals interested in the orderly growth of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. Regional Tools Due to the unique circumstances in Connecticut (small state, no county government, regional planning organiza- tions with advisory powers), limited tools are available at the regional level to implement the Plan. Coordination among the three levels of governments and other local, regional, and state agencies is essential for its impleme – nion. The Plan will guide COGCNV in setting priorities, re – viewing state, regional, and local proposals, implement – ing programs, and assisting member communities. The document will be used by COGCNV for: Review of projects that request federal or state fund – ing. Review of proposed interlocal agreements (CGS 8- 35d). Referrals of zoning and subdivision with intermunici – pal impacts (CGS 8-3b and 8-26b). • • • Educational seminars on plan-related topics. Funding of municipal economic development projects (CGS 32-224). Review of local plans of conservation & development. Review of proposals as may be requested by member municipalities. Source of information, locally and statewide. Communit y Tools Several tools are available to implement the Plan’s recom – mendations at the community level. These tools can in – fluence the pattern, character, and timing of future devel – opment in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region — both public and private — so that it is consistent with and promotes the goals and recommendations of the Regional Plan. Available tools include: Local plans of conservation and development. Zoning and subdivision regulations. Capital improvement programs. Referral of municipal improvements. Open space acquisitions. • • • • • • • • • • Dwight Merriam and Robert Sitkowski giving seminar on Due Process, Middlebury Library Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools  Plan of Conservation & Development The local Plan of Conservation & Development should be the basis for land use decisions by the local planning and/or zoning commission. Under state statutes, the lo- cal Plan must consider the recommendations of the Re- gional Plan, and thus help accomplish the goals and rec- ommendations of the Regional Plan. Zoning and Subdivision Regulations The zoning and the subdivision regulations provide spe – cific criteria for land development at the time of applica- tions. These regulations can be important tools to imple- ment the recommendations of the Regional Plan. Capital Improvement Program The Capital Improvement Program is a tool for planning major capital expenditures of a municipality so that local needs are identified, ranked, and scheduled for funding within local fiscal constraints. The Plan contains several proposals that may require the expenditure of municipal funds. The Plan recommends that these (and other)items be included in the municipal – ity’s Capital Improvement Program and that funding for them be included as part of the annual Capital Budget. Referral of Municipal Improvements Section 8-24 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that municipal improvements (defined in the statute) be referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission for a report before any local action is taken. A proposal dis – approved by the Commission can only be implemented after a two-thirds vote by the municipality’s legislative body. All local boards and agencies should be notified of Section 8-24 and its mandatory nature so that proposals can be considered and prepared in compliance with its requirements. Open Space Acquisition State funding programs, payments in lieu of open space set-asides, and other tools can assist in the implementa – tion of the Plan by guiding development. The setting of priorities for these land acquisitions should consider the Regional Plan’s goals. State Tools The Office of Policy & Management (OPM) is respon – sible for preparing the State Conservation & Develop – ment Policies Plan (C&D PP). The 2005-2010 C&D PP, which is prepared every five years, was adopted in 2005 by the General Assembly. The C&D Plan is considered by state agencies in under – taking projects in Connecticut. The Regional Plan of Conservation & Development will be considered by the Office of Policy & Management in preparing for future C&D Plans. Similarly, OPM and other state agencies may consider the Regional Plan when reviewing projects in the Central Naugatuck Valley Region. State agencies are directed to consider the state C&D PP when they prepare agency plans. In addition, agency pre – pared plans, when required by state or federal law, are to be submitted to OPM for a review of conformity with the Plan. State agencies are required to be consistent with the C&D PP when undertaking the following actions: State Conservation & Development Policies Plan, Prospect  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Acquisition of real property when the acquisition costs are in excess of two hundred thousand dollars. Development or improvement of real property when the development costs are in excess of two hundred thousand dollars. Acquisition of public transportation equipment or fa- cilities when the acquisition costs are in excess of two hundred thousand dollars. Authorization of any state grant for an amount in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for the acquisition, development, or improvement of any real property or for the acquisition of public transportation equipment or facilities. The Secretary of OPM also submits to the State Bond Commission, prior to the allocation of any bond funds for any of the above actions, an advisory statement com – menting on the extent to which such action conforms to the State Plan. Federal Tools Federal agencies may refer to the Regional Plan when considering major projects in the region. The Regional Plan has the greatest influence on trans- portation projects. Since COGCNV is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region, the Region – al Plan of Conservation & Development, the Regional Transportation Plan, the Transportation Improvement Program, and any special studies provide important in – formation to the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and other transportation agencies. Rel ated Pl anning Actifities The 2008 COGCNV Regional Plan of Conservation and Development relates to other local regional and state plan- ning activities. The following list, while by no means exhaustive, illustrates the wide range of planning efforts and documents which have been consulted and which provide the background for this Plan. The interaction of these documents provides implementation of this Plan. • • • • State Connecticut Conservation and Development Policies Plan 2005-2010 State of Connecticut Solid Waste Management Plan 2006 2005 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) Regional Profile of the CNVR 2007 CNVR Fiscal Impact Study: 2000 Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan 2007-2035 Transportation Trends and Characteristics of the CNVR 2000 Local Municipal Plans of Conservation and Development Beacon Falls, 2002 Bethlehem, 1999 Cheshire, 2002 Middlebury, 2000 Naugatuck, 2001 Oxford, 2007 Prospect, 2001 Southbury, 2002 Thomaston, 2005 Waterbury, 2005 Watertown, 1992 Wolcott, 1997 Woodbury, 1999 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools 0 Land Use & Grow th Pat terns LocalRegion StateOther Guide the location of growth in the region towards the regional center and areas with infrastr ucture. 1. Encourage growth in areas where adequate infrastructure, including the transportation network is available. Lead 2. Discourage large-scale residential, commercial, and industrial develop – ment in rural development areas. Lead 3. Continue to address issues associated with suburban growth pressure. Lead 4. Consideration of potential impacts in development of emergencies caused by natural disasters. Lead 5. Encourage municipalities to undertake pre-disaster mitigation planning activities. Lead 6. Preserve scenic beauty and habitat values of the region’s rivers, tributaries, and wetlands. Lead Educate municipal commissions and others about the fiscal impacts of growth within the region. 1. Encourage communities to cooperate in obtaining fiscal benefits that will benefit all residents of the region. Lead Encourage periodic review of local land use regulations. 1. Assist communities in periodic reviews of their land use regulations to en – sure that the changing needs of the region’s population can be met (such as affordable housing development or accessory apartment regulations). Lead 2. Discourage policies that reinforce patterns of racial, social, or economic segregation or concentration. Lead 3. Encourage protection of natural and cultural resources (historic and ar-cheological). Water resources should be a high priority. Lead Implementation Schedules Lead Lead agency for implementation GW TDGreater Waterbur y Transit District Provides assistance to Lead OSOpen Space Preser vation Groups CO Conser vation Organizations WPWater Providers NPHG Non-profit housing groups WUCCWater Utility Coordinating Committee WDC Waterbur y Development Corporation LHDLocal Health Depar tment CofC Chamber of Commerce WPCAWater Pollution Control Authority Legend  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Land use & Grow th Pat ternsLocalRegion StateOther Encourage settlement patter ns that reduce the rate of land consumption in the region. 1. Encourage settlement patterns that efficiently use the region’s infrastruc – ture and preserve open space and natural resources. Lead 2. Encourage mixed use developments in regional and community centers. Lead 3. Encourage cluster development in appropriate areas where soil and envi – ronmental conditions would permit. Lead 4. Encourage affordable housing and social, racial, and economic diversity. Lead 5. Work to maintain the environment necessary for farms and the farming industry. Lead 6. Explore land use tools such as the transfer of development rights as a means to reduce the rate of land consumption. Lead Recogniz e far mland as an impor tant natural resource wor thy of conser ving for far ming activity as well as its present aesthetic and economic benefits to the community. 1. Work with groups involved in preserving agricultural soils and farming as a viable land use in the region or to meet open space targets. Lead 2. Encourage the incorporation of agriculture in local plans of conservation and development, including inventories of farm business and farmland. Lead 3. Help develop specific tax, zoning, and land use strategies to address farm retention and reduced impediments to farming activities. Lead Facilitate sustained and coordinated effor ts to renovate contaminated sites. 1. COGCNV should serve as a clearinghouse for information on state and federal funds available for the clean-up of contaminated sites. Lead 2. COGCNV, in its legislative efforts, should lobby annually for bond funds to address local clean-up of contaminated sites. Lead Encourage preser vation of cultural resources. 1. Encourage efforts to preserve important historical and cultural resources in the region. Lead Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools  Natural Resource ConserfationLocalRegion StateOther Protect water resources in the region. 1. Protect surface and groundwater quality throughout the region. Lead 2. Evaluate and manage natural resources on a watershed. Lead 3. Continue to implement flood plain protection measures. Lead 4. Encourage and educate communities to update land use and stormwa – ter protection policies to address non-point source pollution by utiliz- ing best management practices (BMPs) such as detention basins, grass swales, and sedimentation structures. Lead 5. Consider the cumulative impacts of land use decisions on water qual – ity as well as downstream implications (such as impacts to Long Island Sound). Lead Relate land use intensity to the capability of the land. 1. Increase allowed development intensity where it is compatible with natu – ral resources and infrastructure (water, sewer,roads). Lead 2. Decrease allowed development intensity where it may exceed the natural capabilities of the land and infrastructure is not, or will not be, avail – able. Lead Suppor t effor ts to protect natural resources. 1. Support efforts to identify and protect scenic areas within the region. Lead CO 2. Continue to identify and preserve scenic areas within the region. Lead CO 3. Encourage preservation efforts that mitigate areas where negative impacts have resulted. Lead CO 4. Consider the cumulative implications of land use decisions in the region on water resources, farmland, forests, air quality, and other biological resources. Lead Lead Lead agency for implementation GWTDGreater Waterbury Transit District Provides assistance to Lead OSOpen Space Preservation Groups CO Conservation Organizations WPWater Providers NPHG Non-profit housing groups WUCCWater Utility Coordinating Committee WDC Waterbury Development Corporation LHDLocal Health Department CofC Chamber of Commerce WPCAWater Pollution Control Authority Legend  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  HousingLocalRegion StateOther Increase oppor tunties for affordable housing in the region. 1. Consider participating in the state affordable housing financial incentive program. Lead 2. Offer density bonuses that make building affordable housing units profit – able to developers. Lead 3. Combat the stigma of affordable housing by requiring quality and attrac – tive affordable housing units. Lead 4. Intersperse affordable units with market rate housing units. Lead NPHG 5. Encourage the creation of accessory units. Lead 6. Work with no t-for-profit organizations dedicated to creating more af – fordable housing. Lead NPHG 7. Amend the Affordable Housing Appeals Act to more accurately count and successfully encourage the construction of affordable housing. Lead Promote a variety of housing types in the region. 1. Promote an adequate supply of housing for population needs. Lead NPHG 2. Encourage smaller unit sizes in response to decreasing household size. Lead NPHG 3. Promote the construction of decent, attractive, and affordable housing options for young adults, families, the elderly, the disabled, and the homeless. Lead NPHG 4. Promote the construction and rehabilitiation of a variety of housing types and sizes to fulfill the needs of the region’s diverse households. Lead NPHG 5. Encourage mixed use developments. Lead 6. Locate active adult, age-restricted housing near community services and amenities. Lead 7. Ensure that the number of age-restricted housing units does not exceed the local or regional market for such units. Lead 8. Encourage the inclusion of “universal design” features in new housing units. Lead NPHG 9. Allow accessory apartments in existing homes or their outbuildings, or built into new structures, without restricting who may rent the units. Lead Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools  HousingLocalRegion StateOther Promote housing that allows for a variety of transpor tation choices. 1. Encourage the construction of housing that provides residents with a choice of transportation options. Lead 2. Locate new housing near existing development and employment, retail and community centers. Lead 3. Provide pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit amenities in new and exist – ing developments. Lead 4. Promote the construction of mixed use developments. Lead NPHG 5. Allow small scale home occupations. Lead 6. Promote pedestrian connections around commuter rail stations. Lead Encourage settlement patterns that utilize existing infrastructure. 1. Encourage housing at appropriate densities to take advantage of existing services and infrastructure. Lead 2. Encourage infill development within the regional core and in and near community centers. Lead 3. Promote the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Lead 4. Discourage extensions of infrastructure and services to new developments at inappropriate densities, especially in outlying areas. Lead 5. Review development proposals in undeveloped areas with an eye towards the impacts on existing open space, natural resources, and scenic vistas. Lead 6. Encourage environmentally sensitive and low impact development tech – niques. Lead Continue efforts to enhance the character of our communities and revitalize urban housing units and neighborhoods. 1. Promote sound planning and design practices for all housing construc – tion and rehabilitation which complement or improve the character of the neighborhood, each community, and the region’s built and natural environment. Lead 2. Work with municipalities and community groups developing compre – hensive neighborhood revitalization strategies. Lead 3. Assist municipalities and community groups in pursuing sources of grant money for community improvements. Lead 4. Initiate a strategic planning process to help stabilize urban neighbor – hoods. Lead 5. Advocate neighborhood improvements and orderly housing growith which does not impair the economic or environmental health or safety of the town, neighborhood, or residents. Lead  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Economic DefelopmentLocalRegion StateOther Nur ture the region’s strength as a center of precision manufacturing. 1. Promote the region’s precision manufacturing sector and develop a mar – keting strategy to retain existing firms and attract new ones. WDC/ CofC 2. Develop a strategic approach to industrial recruitment that focuses on precision manufacturing and related business. WDC/CofC 3. Encourage efforts that enhance the visibility and perception of the region’s precision manufacturing focus. WDC/CofC Aggressively pursue economic development for the region. 1. Seek to create a regional economic organization to assist existing busi – ness, market the region as a place for business to locate, and coordinate efforts of local economic development agencies. Lead WDC/ CofC 2. Coordinate efforts with economic development agencies including local economic development corporations and commissions and chambers of commerce. Lead WDC/ CofC 3. Recognize that the majority of the region’s employment growth will come from the expansion of existing firms. WDC/CofC Guide the location of economic development to the regional center and major economic areas. 1. Encourage appropriate types of economic development in locations that are compatible with the regional future land use policy map. Lead WDC 2. Make infrastructure and transportation improvements to encourage ap- propriate economic development in the regional center and major eco – nomic areas. Lead WDC 3. Continue to improve the region’s transportation system, both highway and transit, in order to serve economic development areas within the re – gion and help businesses benefit from the region’s central location within the Northeast markets. Lead WDC 4. Seek to extend bus and job-access service to major employment areas. LeadWDC Prepare workers for current and future needs. 1. Encourage and support education and training programs that provide residents with the skills needed by businesses in the region including school-to-career programs geared to metal manufacturing. Lead CofC 2. Work with businesses in the region to identify current and future needs for skilled employees. Lead CofC Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools  Transpor tationLocalRegion StateOther Maintain and improve the region’s transpor tation system. Highway System 1. Monitor congestion within the region’s highway network, and emphasize highway projects that will help address congested corridors in a timely manner. Lead 2. Seek to improve safety and reduce traffic congestion, energy consump – tion, and motor vehicle emissions. Lead 3. Encourage access management techniques along arterial roadways in or- der to improve roadway capacity. Lead 4. Encourage proper maintenance of the region’s highways, including ongo – ing safety and pavement maintenance. Lead 5. Continue the evaluation and maintenance of the region’s bridges. Lead 6. Support context-sensitive design for the region’s highway system im – provements. Lead 7. Increase awareness of commuter parking locations along major commuter routes. Lead Transit & Rail 1. Continue to refine bus services to serve the region and increase rider – ship. Lead GW TD 2. Pursue stable funding for fixed route bus services to cover operating ex – penses. Lead GWTD 3. Promote intercity express buses as a means of alleviating congestion on the region’s expressways. Lead GWTD 4. Support continued paratransit services (such as dial-a-ride) to meet the specialized needs of residents. Lead 5. Encourage efforts to increase rail passenger ridership in the region. Lead 6. Maintain and expand regional rail freight facilities and services. Lead Walkways & Bikeways 1. Coordinate with municipalities and neighboring RPOs on interregional greenway projects. Lead 2. Encourage provision of walkways and bikeways, where appropriate. Lead 3. Provide areas for bicycle use as part of r oad projects, as appropriate. Lead 4. Encourage activities that provide for a regional network of contiguou s pedestrian and bicycle paths. Lead Airports 1. Continue to identify and make improvements that encourage use of the Waterbury-Oxford Airport, while limiting land use conf licts. Lead  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Transpor tation LocalRegion StateOther Coordinate land use and transpor tation actions. 1. Encourage coordinated land use and transportation planning so that transportation investments can be prudently planned for anticipated de- velopment. Lead 2. Encourage transit-oriented development towards existing transit coori – dors. Lead 3. Continue efforts to encourage transit use and ride-sharing. Lead 4. Assure adequate mobility to employment and services for transit-oriented populations Lead 5. Consider the transportation implications of proposed developments, and propose projects as needed. Lead 6. Consider the environmental and land use implications of transportation projects, and mitigate their effects as needed. Lead 7. Discourage residential development within close proximity to the Water – bury-Oxford Airport. Lead Emphasize connectivity in developing local roads. 1. Encourage communities to plan road networks for future circulation needs. Lead Continue to plan for needed transportation improvements. 1. Continue to set priorities for transportation projects in the region in response to local and regional needs. Lead 2. Continue to pursue available transportation funding for the region. Lead Lead Lead agency for implementation GW TDGreater Waterbur y Transit District Provides assistance to Lead OSOpen Space Preser vation Groups CO Conser vation Organizations WPWater Providers NPHG Non-profit housing groups WUCCWater Utility Coordinating Committee WDC Waterbur y Development Corporation LHDLocal Health Depar tment CofC Chamber of Commerce WPCAWater Pollution Control Authority Legend Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools  Open Space LocalRegion StateOther Protect more open space in the region. 1. Encourage activities to identify and preserve important open space areas before they are threatened by development. Lead OS 2. Retain existing private open space through public acquisition, use of open space requirements in subdivision regulations, easements, or other means. Lead OS 3. Assist the state, municipalities, and land trusts in their efforts to meet the state’s open space goal. Lead Coordinate and prioritize open space preservation throughout the region. 1. Maximize the benefits of open space by giving priority to the establish – ment of greenways, open space connections, and forests, multi-purpose areas, the preservation of visible parcels, and the protection of water resources and lands which protect water quality. Lead OS 2. Address the difficulty of providing adequate open space in urban areas by providing for small public greens and “pocket parks,” enhancing and upgrading existing public greens, and promoting street tree programs. Lead 3. Where feasible, encourage creation of multi-purpose trail systems that link recreational and open space areas, and pedestrian and bike paths that link residential, retail, and employment areas. Lead OS 4. Work to coordinate open space preservation with forests, agriculture, and lands with minimum land use impacts. Lead Focus efforts on obtaining sites for water-based recreation. 1. Encourage efforts to address the region’s needs for access to local rivers and lakes, especially new beaches. Lead OS Preserve declassified water company land as open space. 1. Work with local communities including land trusts, the state, and other organizations such as the Trust for Public Land and Connecticut Fram – land Trust to preserve land, especially Class III and other watershed lands, as open space and/or potential future water supply sources. Lead OS 2. Undertake education programs on the fiscal benefits of open space protec – tion and use of Public Act 490. Lead OS Encourage use of a broad range of tools to protect open space. 1. Promote open space preservation in the region by public and private agencies. Lead OS 2. Assist local land trusts and other non-profit organizations that preserve open space in the region. Lead OS 3. Encourage communities to budget funds each year for open space acquisi – tion, aggressively seek open space acquisition grants, require open space requirements in subdivisions. Lead  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley  Open SpaceLocalRegion StateOther 4. Encourage communities in the region to inventory their preserved open space and to use land use techniques that promote open space protec- tion. Lead OS Manage open space effectively to maximize benefits. 1. Encourage appropriate access to open space and recreational facilities for all residents of the region. Lead OS 2. Encourage appropriate activities in open space areas to avoid unwanted damages, such as soil erosion, trampled vegetation, litter, fires, and en – sure proper management. Lead OS Encourage efforts to preserve open space action areas, critical environmental areas, and areas threatened by development. 1. Water-Based Recreational Sites — locate and preserve sites for water- based recreation, especially access points for boating fishing, or swim – ming. Lead OS 2. Greenways (region wide) — create, extend, and enhance greenways in the region, especially along river corridors. Lead OS 3. Recreation Trails (region-wide) — protect, create, extend, and enhance recreational trails throughout the region, the Farmington Canal trail in Cheshire, the trolley line in Middlebury, and the Larkin Bridle Trail in Middlebury, Oxford, and Southbury. Encourage the preservation of trail corridors maintained by such groups as the Connecticut Forest and Park Association. Lead OS 4. Ridgelines — Assist the region’s communities in protecting ridgeline areas. Lead 5. Other Recommended Action Areas — Work toward the preservation of the six open space action areas. Lead OS LeadLead agency for implementation GW TDGreater Waterbur y Transit District Provides assistance to Lead OSOpen Space Preser vation Groups CO Conser vation Organizations WPWater Providers NPHG Non-profit housing groups WUCCWater Utility Coordinating Committee WDC Waterbur y Development Corporation LHDLocal Health Depar tment CofC Chamber of Commerce WPCAWater Pollution Control Authority Legend Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools 00 Water Supply & Sewer Serfice LocalRegion StateOther Protect the quality of the region’s water supply. 1. Identify and protect the water resources in the region — the existing and potential future water supply watersheds and aquifer protection areas — from pollution or degradation. Lead 2. Monitor the extent of impervious surface near water supplies and aquifer areas. Lead 3. Encourage best management practices to reduce pollution from non-point and other sources. Lead 4. Protect water quality and availability through the acquisition of property and the use of best management practices (BMP) in developments. WP Ensure an adequate supply of water for the region. 1. Encourage efforts to provide an adequate supply of water for the region. Lead 2. Vigorously encourage the preservation of existing and potential water supply resources (such as reservoirs) for the region’s future water supply needs. Lead 3. Encourage the adequate provision of water in rapidly growing areas through interconnections, cooperation, and other means. Lead 4. Work to resolve conflicts among suppliers, users, and regulators of water supply in the region. WUCC 5. Assist communities in the transition from reservoir sources to ground – water wells. Lead 6. Help in the development of scientific data for water supply decision-mak – ing. CO 7. Encourage efforts to develop a regional water institute or water museum. Lead Reduce the impacts of sewage discharges. 1. Encourage effort s to improve the treatment of wastewater prior to dis – charge. Lead 2 Work to reduce nitrogen discharge regionwide. Lead 3. Assist municipalities with adherence to the EPA Phase II Stormwater requirements. Lead Use the infrastructure system to guide growth. 1. Encourage the development of sewer and water infrastructure that serves the desired concept of regional land use. Lead 2. Relate development intensity to the capabilities of the sewer and water infrastructure. Lead 3. Encourage land development in areas served by infrastructure, including sewer and water. Lead  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 0 Water supply & Sewer Serfice LocalRegion StateOther 4. Encourage s ewer extensions only in areas of significant commercial and industrial growth and contiguous, high density residential develop – ment. Lead 5. Provide a forum for regional cooperation and assistance in the EPA Phase II stormwater program. Lead Carefully manage existing infrastructure systems. 1. Encourage efforts and programs to improve and maintain the region’s public water distribution system. Lead WP 2. Encourage efforts and programs to improve and maintain the region’s sewer systems and treatment plants for greater efficiency and capacity. Lead WPCA 3. Avoid installing costly new infrastructure in rural areas or in water sup – ply watersheds. Lead 4. Assist municipalities and water pollution control authorities in balancing the use of alternative sewage treatment systems with land use impacts. Lead Encourage private maintenance of septic systems. 1. Educate homeowners on the importance of maintenance and care of their septic systems to avoid costly repairs and replacements. WPCA 2. Educate homeowners on the importance of water conservation. CO/WP 3. Educate homeowners about substances that should not be disposed of in septic systems. WP 4. Encourage the use of the regional household hazardous waste program. Lead 5. Encourage purchasers of existing homes to check with the local health department to learn the history of their system. Lead 6. Assist municipalities in drafting ordinances to properly regulate the in – spection and maintenance of septic systems. LHD Encourage water conservation in the region. 1. Undertake educational efforts to encourage water conservation, working with local environmental organizations and water providers. WP 2. Encourage water conservation improvements (f low meters, efficient fix – tures, and processes). WP 3. Encourage water conservation by the region’s households and commer – cial, industrial, and municipal users in order to reduce the amount of ef – f luent to be treated, help extend the life of sewage treatment plants and septic systems, and help protect water quality throughout the region. WP Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00  – Implementation Tools 0 Major Recommendations The planning process will be most successful when it serves as the foundation for implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. Implement the Pl an LocalRegion StateOther 1. Keep local officials familiar with the Regional Plan by providing a copy to newly elected or appointed officials in the region. Lead 2. Keep the Plan current, relevant, and “user-friendly” in order to promote its effectiveness at the local and regional level. Lead 3. Work to educate local officials and agencies about how the Plan can be of value to their community. Lead 4. Demonstrate the value of the Regional Plan by showing how its recom- mendations have helped the region. Lead Lead Lead agency for implementation GW TDGreater Waterbur y Transit District Provides assistance to Lead OSOpen Space Preser vation Groups CO Conser vation Organizations WPWater Providers NPHG Non-profit housing groups WUCCWater Utility Coordinating Committee WDC Waterbur y Development Corporation LHDLocal Health Depar tment CofC Chamber of Commerce WPCAWater Pollution Control Authority Legend  – Implementation Tools Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 0 1f. References Center for Watershed Protection, http://www.cwp.org COGCNV, A Profile of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2006 (January 2007) COGCNV, A Profile of the Central Naugatuck Valley Region: 2007 (December 2007) COGCNV, Central Naugatuck Valley Region Land Use Survey: 2000 COGCNV, Central Naugatuck Valley Regional Plan of Conservation and Development: 1998 (December 1998) COGCNV, Long Range Regional Transportation Plan: 2007-2035 (July 2007) COGCNV, prepared by Planimetrics, Central Naugatuck Valley Fiscal Impact: Regional Summary Report (August 2000) COGCNV, Transporation Trends and Characteristics of the Central Naugatuck Valley: 2000 (March 2004) Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development, Housing Inventory (2006) Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut Green Plan: Open Space Acquisition (July 2001) Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: 2005- 2010 (September 2005) Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Solid Waste Management Plan 2006 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Inland Water Resources, Waste Water Treatment Divisions, Aquifer Protection Model Regulations, Stormwater Management Program Connecticut Department of Public Health, SWAP Program Connecticut Department of Public Health, Vital Statistics (1990-2003) Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2007 Congestion Screening and Monitoring Report Connecticut Historical Commission, Historic Preservation in Connecticut, Vol. IV – Western Uplands: Historical Overview and Management Guide (1996) Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 0 Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 2005-2010 Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21st Century, Connecticut Economic Vitality and Competitive Cities (2006) Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21st Century, Connecticut: Strategic Economic Framework (1999) Connecticut water companies, Water supply plans Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board, Report and Recommendations (January 2007) Dunn & Bradstreet Solutions: 2003 – Q1 industry data for CNVR, as tabulated by the Connecticut Economic Resource Center and the Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley Griswold, Marion, The Role of Agriculture in the Preservation of Open Space and Protection of Water Resources: A Case Study of the Pomperaug River Watershed Mattatuck Museum, historical information on the region Pomperaug River Watershed Coalition, Impervious Surfaces, http://www.pomperaug.org The Warren Group, Town Stats: Median Home Sale Prices (2007), http://www.thewarrengroup.com University of Connecticut, Center for Land Use Education and Research [CLEAR], http://clear.uconn.edu University of Connecticut, CLEAR, Buildout Analysis in Connecticut: Assessing the Feasibility of a Statewide Buildout Analysis (June 2007) University of Connecticut, CLEAR, State of Connecticut Digital Orthophotos (2004) University of Connecticut, Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials [NEMO], Impervious Surfaces, http://nemo. uconn.edu/tools/impervious_surfaces/index.htm US Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Washington, DC (1990) US Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Washington, DC (2000) US Census Bureau, Census Transportation Planning Package: CTTP 2000, Washington, DC (2000) US Census Bureau, Population Estimates, Washington, DC (2006) US Census Bureau, State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 2004-2030, Washington, DC (2005) US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Topographic Maps Council of Governments of the Central Naugatuck Valley 0 VanDusen, Albert, Connecticut, A Fully Illustrated History of the State from the Seventeenth Century to the Present, Random House, New York (1961) Municipal Plans of Conservation and Development Beacon Falls, Plan of Conservation and Development (June 2002) Bethlehem, Plan of Conservation and Development (October 1999) Cheshire, Plan of Conservation and Development (October 2002) Middlebury, Plan of Conservation and Development (March 2001) Naugatuck, Plan of Conservation and Development (March 2001) Oxford, Plan of Conservation and Development (October 2007) Prospect, Plan of Conservation and Development Update (May 2001) Southbury, 2002 Plan of Conservation and Development (November 2002) Southford, 2006 Plan of Conservation and Development (September 2006) Thomaston, Plan of Conservation and Development (June 2005) Waterbury, Plan of Conservation and Development (November 2005) Watertown, Plan of Conservation and Development (December 2007) Wolcott, Plan of Development Update (March 1997) Woodbury, Plan of Conservation and Development (September 1999) Regional Plan of Conser vation & Development 00 MunicipalityChief Elected Official AlternateRegional Planning Commission Beacon Falls Susan Cable, First Selectman Karen Wilson Richard Minnick Jeff Burkitt Bethlehem Jeff Hamel, First Selectman Ellen Samoska Ellen Samoska Maria Hill Cheshire Matthe w Hall, Chairman, Town Council Michael Milone Mar tin Cobern Vacant Middlebur y Thomas Gormley, First Selectman Joseph Salvini Thomas Gormley Alice Hallaran Naugatuck Michael Bronko, Mayor Tamath Rossi Anthony Malone Joseph McEvoy O xford Mar y Ann Drayton-Rogers, First Selectman Margaret Potts Harold Cosgrove Herman Schuler Prospect Rober t Chatfield, Mayor Gina Ash Gil Graveline Gene McCar they Southbur y Mark Cooper, First Selectman Jennifer Naylor Harmon Andre ws Nancy van Norden Thomaston Maura Mar tin, First Selectman Rober t Flanagan Bill Guerrera Rober t Flanagan Waterbur y Michael Jarjura, Mayor Theresa Caldarone James Sequin Vacant Water town Elaine Adams, Chairman, Town Council Charles Frigon Ruth Mulcahy Vacant Wolcott Thomas Dunn, Mayor Elizabeth Gaudiosi Linda Fercodini Pamela Casagrande Woodbur y Paul Hinckley, First Selectman Vacant Kay Campbell Janet Bunch Council Members, Alternates, & Regional Pl anning Commission COGCNV Staff Peter Dorpalen, Executive Director Jeff Cormier, GIS Specialist/Regional Planner Virginia Mason, Assistant Director Patricia Bauer, Financial Manager Samuel Gold, Senior Planner Selma Alves, Administrative Assistant (Left 05/08) Joseph Perrelli, Regional Planner Lauren Rizzo, Administrative Assistant (Hired 05/08) Glenda Prentiss, GIS Coordinator COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS OF THE CENTRAL NAUGATUCK VALLEY