1 P LA N 1 Contents Introduction ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 2 General requirements ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 21 Levels of development intensity ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 27 Plan area maps ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 38 Appendixes ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 46 Disclaimer and a cknowledgements The Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency prepared this Plan. For information about the Agency , see Appendix D: About CCRPA .This plan (and all related documents) are subject to chang e. This version was released on October 7 th, 2 013 and adopted by CCRPA’s Board on October 3 rd, 2 013 . The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under an award with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accu racy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily refle ct the views of the Government. I ntroduction For centuries, resources were treated as limitless . Years of growth, however, are resulting in extraordinary pressure on the environment that sustains all life. If the vitality of the environment and of the societies and economy that depend on it are to be guaranteed over the long term, natural resources must be used sustainably. This plan takes a step in that direction, by laying out a vision for the sustainable use of the most basic resource of all ,land over the next ten years i ncentral Connecticut. 3 About this p lan This plan is intended to fulfill in part CCRPA’s obligations under the Sustainable Knowledge Corridor and to meet the requirem ents of Section 8.35a of the Connecticut General Statutes, which states: “At least once every ten years, each regional planning agency shall make a plan of conservation and develop- ment for its area of operation, showing its recommenda- tions for the general use of the area including land use ….” This Plan represents the culmination of over 45 years of land use planning by CCRPA .CCRPA adopted the region’s first Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) on May 1, 1969. This Plan supersedes all preceding plan s, including the to -now current plan (adopted May 3, 2007). CCRPA developed this plan in consultation with a variety of stakeholders intended to reflect the region’s diversity. Among others, these include its member municipalities , the cities of Bristol and New Britain ,and the towns of Berlin, Burlington, Plainv ille, Plymouth, and Southington. Founded in 1966, one of CCRPA’s core responsibilities is to draw up regional plans such as this one .In addition to a regional POCD, CCRPA also develops and mainta ins several other regional plans. These include:  Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) , which charts a course for and enables funding for the future of the region’s transportation system  Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) ,which prioritizes and provides access to funding for economic development projects  Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan, which prepares the region for storm and disaster damage and provides access to funds for mitigation and reconstruction CCRPA also conducts an d coordinates a variety of studies and grants for its member municipalities. This Plan was not created in a vacuum. CCRPA received considerable assistance and support from local, regional, state, and federal partners .Funding for the Sustainable Knowledge Corridor, including development of this Plan, in part was provided by the Sustainable Communities In- itiative, a program jointly run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Deve lopment, Department of Trans- portation, and Environmental Protection Agency .As part of the Sustainable Knowledge Corridor (SKC) project, CCRPA, the Capitol Region Council of Governments (of 4 Hartford), and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (of Springfield) are updating regional plans to integrate sustainability principles. Public engagement was key to the development of this plan. In addition to consultation with local governments , public input was sought to shape the content of this plan. Input gathered during other planning exercises was taken into consideration, and new input was sought through public meetings. The function of the p la n This is the regional land use plan for cent ral Connecticut . It is not a plan of transportation, economic development, or hazard mitigation; separate plans (developed by the same agency and using the same physical boundaries) cover those topics. This plan is designed to complement those existing doc uments, not to duplicate their content. It shares many of the same principles of sustainability , such as prioritizing maintenance of existing facilities over new development ,that those plans embrace , but applies them to land use . For the purposes of the S KC, this plan should be read in concert with those plans (namely the regional LRTP, CEDS, and related subject area plans). The primary purpose of the plan is to provide guidance to local decision makers when their land use actions may have regional impacts . Co nnecticut General Statutes (Sec . 8 -3b ) require municipalities to give 30 -day advance written notice to a regional planning organization (RPO) prior to adopting a zone change or change to zoning regulations that will affect property within five hundred feet (500’) of a municipality in that RPO’s area. The RPO is directed to study the proposal and submit comments before a public hearing on the proposal. For proposed subdivisions that abut or include another municipality, Mattatuck Trail and Buttermilk Falls in Plymouth 5 the statutes (Sec. 8 -26b) likewise require the municipality to inform and give the RPO the opportunity to comment. By law (Sec. 8 -23(f)4), municipalities must also submit proposed amendments or revisions to local POCDs, with a 65 -day advance, to the RPO for review and comment. In all three cases, RPO comments are purely advisory. Regional plans also serve as a bridge between local and State plans .Public Act 10 -138 requires the Connecticut Off ice of Policy and Management (OPM) to implement a “cross -acceptance” policy for the Connecticut POCD. This policy is defined as “a process by which planning policies of different levels of government are compared and dif- ferences between policies are reconc iled with the pur- pose of attaining compatibility between local, regional and state plans.” As part of this process, this plan and the state plan will be compared and differences reconciled. As such, this plan may be able to influence state policies. The me chanics of the plan Being regional in nature, a broader approach to land use is required in this plan than would be in a municipal plan. CCRPA’s mandate is to encourage regional cooperation and ensure that development in one municipality does not burden or disadvantage surrounding communities. This plan is not concerned with the precise location or looks of corner stores, industrial facilities, schools, parks, and homes in a neighborhood. Local concerns such as these are the affair of individual communities ; the re- quirement s contained in this plan are not intended to supplant local zoning or serve as design guidelines. However, when a n industrial facility threatens a water supply, a commercial center will cause traffic congestion, or housing development will fra gment natural habitats, Hogans Cider Mill in Burlington 6 the entire region is affected. It is these impacts that this plan is designed to mitigate. Referrals ( proposed changes to land use plans, maps, and/or regulations) and (re)development proposals that come before CCRPA will be evaluated for consistency with this plan. Referrals and proposals that are deter- mined to be in violation of one or more key (‘must’) com- ponents of this plan or that are inconsistent with prepon- derance of this plan’s requirement s,shall be found in conflict with this plan. Those that do not present such violations shall be found not in conflict. In addition to determining consistency or conflict with this plan (and the state plan, as needed) , CCRPA may also provide writ- ten comments on referrals and (re)development pro- posals. These comments may include recommendations to improve consistency with this plan, the State plan, or with other plans, projects, or concerns. Lastly, where a re- ferral or a proposal is found to be in conflict, but said conflict may be avoided through a reasonable modifica- tion , CCRPA may find the referral or proposal condition- ally not in conflict, contingent on acceptance of the mod- ification reco mmended by CCRPA. (Should the recom- mendation modification not be accepted, the referral or proposal will be deemed to be in conflict.) Like the State Plan of Conservation and Development, Central Connecticut’s POCD is divided into two parts. The first is t he “general requirement s.”This is a text list of “should” and “must” statements. To conform to this plan, a referral or proposal may not violate any “must” state- ments. The second part is a map that serves as a guide to where development should occur, and where it should not. While most POCDs mirror this structure, t his plan takes an approach unique to Connecticut . All land in the region is placed in one of five categories based on the intensity Skiing at Mount Southington in Southington 7 of development the land and surrounding infrastructure are ap propriate for and can reasonably accommodate. The five categories (‘plan areas ’) are: preservation/ con- servation, rural, low, medium, and high. Furthermore, in central places, such as downtowns, town centers, and vil lage s,an overlay applies. The overlay is designed to fo- cus development in tradi tional centers, encourage mix- ing of uses ,stimulate reuse/rehabilitation of existing buildings, and protect and enhance the character of cen- tral Connecticut’s central places. As with traditional zoning, the specifications and limits given by the plan areas are not intended to be area -wide averages. They apply to each proposal that comes before CCRPA on its own. For example, a subdivision in a me- dium intensity plan area must meet the requirements of that plan area , regardless of the actual intensity of devel- opment currently realized in the rest of the plan area .Just because a neighboring property is less developed does not give one the right t o develop a one’s own property at a higher intensity. (However, where limits on develop- ment on the neighboring property is part of the pro- posal, CCRPA will include the size of this property in its calculations to determine the intensity of the proposal and its consistency with the plan area .) Should incon- sistency exist between the map and the general require- ment s (for example, the map shows a critical habitat area as being in a high intensity plan area ), the general re- quirement s take precedence. The importa nce of intensity One starting point for many land use plan s, including the last version of this plan, is a build -out analysis . This type of analysis quantifies how much more development can be absorbed before a place literally runs out of land. Former Landers, Frary, & Clark Factory (demolished) in New Britain 8 While this technique may have served in the past, by yok- ing economic and population growth to land conversion, it not only promotes the fallacy that growth takes sprawl, but it explicitly promotes unsustainable development. As a sustainable land use plan, this plan does not ask “how much more can we build until we run out of land?” In- stead, it asks whether we are using land sustainably and, if not, how we can begin to do so. For central Connecticut, the answer is sobering. Between 19 85 and 20 10 , the amount of ‘developed’ land in cen tral Connecticut increased by 18.4 %; the amount of ‘turf and grass’ (usually associated with lawns) increased by 24.2 %. From 1985 to 2010, however, the population of the re- gion increased by just 6.3 %.In other words , in 1990 ther e was one acre of developed land per 8.07 residents; be- tween 19 85 and 2010 the region developed land at a rate of one acre per 2 .77 new residents. During this period, employment growth was basically stagnant. These data show an unsustainable rate of land d evelopment. The rate of land development is not only environmentally unsustainable, but economically unsustainable as well. Greater land development brings g reater costs. As new homes and businesses are built, sewer, road, water, and electric infrastructure must also be built. Greater land consumption on a per capita basis also increases runoff (from greater impervious surface coverage), increasing demands on storm water systems. The costs of land development As development consumed land with increasing speed , municipal expenditures in Connecticut also rose .Munic- ipal expenditures rose an inflation -adjusted 70 .9% from 1985 to 2010 (100.6 % if averaged among municipalities) , Figure 1. Growth in population versus in developed land (1985 -2010) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% State Region Population change Developed land change 9 far exceeding grow th in population and developed land . This compares to an 11.8% increase in population and an 18.7% increase in developed land over the same period. While an analysis of the interactions between land use, expenditures, pop ulation growth, and employment are beyond the scope of this plan, strong evidence suggest s that the pattern of development influences expenditure s. Studies have found that, holding other factors constant, low -density, “sprawl” -type development results in h igher per capita municipal costs. One study found that, in a typical county, a 25% increase in density could result in annual savings of $1.18 million. In an era of declining federal and state support, local res- idents and businesses must assume a greater share of municipal expenditures .If costs grow faster than popu- lation, the result will be higher per capita expenditures and thus a higher financial burden on local taxpayers. Adjusted for inflation, expenditures per capita increased by 15% region -wide bet ween 1995 and 2010. Increases range from a low of 9% in New Britain to 21% in Plainville. (See Figure 2.) Expenditure growth is not necessarily a problem as long as th e ability to pay, i.e. per capita income, rise sin parallel over the long term. (M ore affluent residents may desire, and be willing to pay for, more services ).However, that has not been the case in central Connecticut. Region – wide, per capita income grew by 4% between 1990 and 2010 , from a low of -17% in New Britain to a high of 15% in Burlington. In every municipality , per capita income growth has lagged expe nditure growth . Even when ac- counting for income growth, the burden of municipal services has grown in central Connecticut. Regionwide, Figure 2. Growth in per capita expenditures and income (1995 -2010) -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent growth in expenditures per capita Percent growth in per capita income 10 residential property taxes consumed 0.9% more of per- sonal income in 2010 than in 1995. The growth in this tax burden rang es from 0.2% in Berlin to 1.4% in Burlington. While development is often billed as a means to lighten the property tax burden on residents and businesses, this analysis does not support such a conclusion .Instead, it finds that , in all municipalities :  Land has been developed much faster than pop- ulation growth ,  Municipal expenditures have grown much faster than incomes, and the  Per capita burden of municipal expenditures on residents has grown substantially This indicates that revenues from new development have been insufficient to cover increases in the cost of provid- ing municipal service s.The development experience d by the region over the last 25 years has not succeeded in stabilizing the tax burden. Indir ect costs of development patterns Recent development has not only failed to stabilize taxes , it has also created new costs .While some of the latter stem from development -associated population changes (e.g., construction of family housing may attract famil ies with children, driving up teaching costs ), others re sul t from the form or pattern of development (e.g., construc- tion of subdivisions beyond walking distance from school, thus requiring additional busing). Housing costs in the region exhibit a strong co nnection to development patterns ; a s houses and lots have grown in size, so, too, have housing costs. Large homes on large lots cost more up front , requiring larger mortgages. Due to their size, they also cost more over time — there simply is more to heat, cool, mow, and maintain. (Some of these More sustainable development in New Britain 11 factors compound, e.g. the expansive lawns these homes often feature are devoid of mature trees, which can mod- erate cooling, heating, drainage, and lawn care needs.) The effect of the shift towards big houses on big lots — whether market -or zoning -driven — has been an increase in household indebtedness and corresponding decreases in disposable income and financial resilience. While the trend of ever -larger homes had been building for some time ,fueled and concealed by credit, its effects have become hard to ignore. The global financial crisis that began in 2007 and is still unwinding started as a housing bubble in the United States . People bought more house and land than they could pay for. When mortgage rates increased, and payments rose, stagnant (if not declining )incomes were unable to cover m onthly payments . A wave of foreclosures followed , imperiling in- dividual , corporate, and government finances. The economic i mpacts of this crisis have reached far and wide .People have less disposable income ;many homes are worth less than the mortgages that paid for them ; and many homeowners have simply lost their homes. Furthermore, the drive to build bigger, more expensive homes has shut many would -be homeowners out of the market and, in many cases, out of the state. Facing a short supply of starter homes, and incomes that have remained stagnant, young profe ssionals are forced to turn to a tight rental market. Similarly, many empty nesters who wish to downsize cannot find high -quality, well -located housing .Evidence that this is happening is plentiful. Connecticut is already losing a greater percentage of its you ng adults than any other state; it also loses a large proportion of its retirees. If this trend is not reversed, the result will be a shrinking workforce , shrinking revenues, and weaker economic competitiveness. Less sustainable development in Berlin 12 The patte rn of recent land development , which has fa- vored large buildings on even larger tracts of land lo- cated far from urban and town centers , also drives up transportation costs . While this phenomenon is by no means confined to the region — it has occurred all ove r the country — it has resulted in neighborhoods in which no resident can walk to a store or a job, and shops and workplaces to which nobody can walk. Moreover, it has not only made driving mandatory for an increasing share of trips in the region , but has al so lengthened people’s commutes, costing them time and money .For example, in 2002, 61.2% of central Connecticut workers commuted less than 10 miles to work. That percentage fell to 57.8% in 2009. During the same period, an extra 1,000 workers began commut ing 50 miles or more (a 50% increase). At the same time, gas prices have been increasing, hitting 30 -year high sin 2008 and 2012 .The increasing number and length of trips made by car also exacerbates conges- tion, further increasing the duratio n and cost of travel. Long commutes such as these negatively impact society. The more time people spend in their cars, the less time they have for other activities, from spending time with family and friends and volunteering in civic organizations to exercising, working, and patronizing local businesses. Together, the dispersal of housing out of town centers and downtowns, and the transformation o f foot traffic into car traffic, has seriously undermined the commercial viabili ty and vibrancy of these areas. In many places, once -thriving town and city centers have been reduced to government offices, vacant storefronts, and housing for the socioeconom ically isolated (who, in many cases, are poor because they are too poor to afford a car and , consequently, have limited employment options ). By increasing the use of and exposure to automobiles , development patterns such as that experienced by the Interstate 84 in Hartford 13 region i n recent years also negatively affect public health. When cars replace active transportation such as walking or biking , or when commutes deprive people of time for exercise , the prevalence of lifestyle -linked diseases, such as obesity, diabetes, heart dise ase , and certain cancers, rises. The air pollution produced by cars can also elevate the rates of cancer and cardiopulmonary diseas e. Of course, the most direct health impacts — and perhaps the costliest — of all are car accidents, which can damage property, m aim, and kill, and whose frequency increases with miles driven. Significant environmental consequences also accompany sprawl -style development .While this plan cannot discuss these in depth or quantify them , they include:  Air pollution (emissions from vehicle, heating fuel combustion, and electricity generation)  Soil and water contamination ( accumulation of pollutants such as vehicle fluids, road chemicals, and lawn treatments)  Reduced ecosystem services, including cleaning of air and water (loss of trees and vegetation that help to maintain air and water quality)  Decreased recharge and potential depletion of rivers, surface reservoirs, and aquifers (reduced ground infiltration and higher use for watering)  Flooding and erosion from surface runoff (through increases in impervious surface)  Species extinction (through habitat disturbance and loss, chemical use, vehicle -caused mortality, and spread of invasive species)  Climate change (through increase d greenhouse gas emissions). Opportunity costs Finally, the direct and indirect costs associated with the types of development patterns experienced in central Amtrak and future high -speed/commuter rail line in Berlin 14 Connecticut (and much of the rest of the county) reduce the ability of individuals and businesses to pursue other opportunities. Land taken for large lots could be used for more environmentally or economically productive pur- poses, such as open space, agriculture, and industry. When houses are onl y built on large lots, not only is the total number of lots limited, but land is developed faster , reducing supply . These supply limitations drive up land values and make it difficult for other land uses to survive. The opportunity costs of sprawl -style de velopment are not inconsiderable. It is not unusual for an acre lot to cost $100,000. Splitting this lot among four homes could lessen the cost of land — and thus the sale price of each of four homes — by $75,000. Building at greater density within a short dis tance of jobs, schools, shops, and transit could reduce household costs by reducing the length of commutes or obviating the need for a car altogether. When households in the United States spend nearly 4% of their income on gasoline, and the cost of owning a car is approximately $10,000 per year in Connecticut, being able to get by without a second car can save a family $100,000 over ten years. Families are not the only ones who can benefit from more efficient land use. Singles, childless couples, and empty nesters , as well as the elderly, disabled, and those who work from home or mobile offices may gain even more. The large house on a large lot in a remote subdivision is often a suboptimal fit for these groups. As these groups grow (which they are doing rapi dly), the demand for other types of housing is expected to grow. These include high -quality smaller and starter homes, townhouses, apartments, and live -work and assisted living spaces, as well as homes in walkable neighborhoods and with good transit access .Yet w hile demand for other types of hous- ing has grown, the supply has not kept pace. In the face Transit -oriented development plan for New Britain 15 of this escalating demand, t he focus of residential devel- opment over the last several years of large houses on large lots ,has left many with few options to rent or buy. With regards to rentals, the lack of newer construction means as that, while the size may be good, in many cases the condition is not. In addition, the limited supply of many rental units, c ombined with the economic crisis, which has forced many households to turn to renting, has made high -quality rentals hard to find and expensive. Conversely, w hile the supply of homes for sale is better, prices, while lower than the peak of the housing bubb le, still are high by historical standards. As a consequence, homebuyers often find themselves forced to buy more house and land, and, provided they can get credit, carry more debt, than they need or want. In short, the result of this mismatch between hous ing supply and demand is twofold: homes that are a poor fit for many residents, and high costs for all residents. In the past, cost was not as large of a concern. Low -cost credit enabled households to live beyond their resources. This is no longer the case .Despite improvement, c redit remains hard to get ;household debt loads are still high . Having to own more home than one needs or to rent in an artificially tight market can cost households dearly by making funds unavailable for and making people choose am ong other uses with potentially far larger payoffs. These include such as saving for college, a rainy day fund, and retirement as well as investing in small business es. Inefficient land use can also force municipalities to make painful decisions .Large -lot development permanently takes land that could be used for other purposes — whether housing, commerce, industry, agriculture, or open space — off the market , limiting future options and potential .The higher transportation costs that residents Farmland and preserved open space in Berlin 16 of and visitors to such developments face are also shared by municipalities. Road maintenance, t rash pickup, school transportation, and emergency services all cost more to provide in sprawling areas . Whether municipali- ties choose to cover these costs through increased taxes, or through service cuts, they are forced to make sacrifices and forego other opportunities. The alternative These costs — direct, indirect, and opportunity — ca nnot be sustained ind efinitely and would not exist to the same extent with other development patterns. An alternative, that avoids many of these costs, is to integrate the con- cept of sustainable development into our land use plans . A more sustainable form of development would consider the total cost of development, to all parties, including so- ciety and the environment, during land -use decisions. It would seek to lessen impacts on the environment, con- serve resources, and preserve future opportunities for both residents and gover nments. Moving toward sustainability This plan is being funded as part of a Sustainable Com- munities Initiative project. As such, it is written to encour- age the region to pursue more sustainable form sof de- velopment. I n crafting the policies of this plan, CCRPA performed an extensive literature review on sustainabil- ity , in particular with regards to land use , to determine what sustainable development would mean at the re- gional level . Before delving into the details of the plan, it is important to discuss wh at sustainable development means .How one proceeds in creating a sustainability fo- cused plan depends on one’s definition of sustainability. The EPA provides this definition: “Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our su rvival and well -being depends, ei- ther directly or indirect ly, on our natural environment. Sus- tainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive har- mony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations. ” In simpler terms ,the World Commissio n on Environment and Development famously defined it thus : “ Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the 17 present without compromising the ability of future gen- erations to meet their own needs." The common thread is that for developmen t to be sus- tainable, it must meet current needs without preventing future generations from meeting their needs .At a mini- mum, this means protection of the natural systems that support all life . However, for people to thrive as opposed to merely survive, su stainable development also must address social and economic needs. Since there may be tension or trade -offs among the environment, society, and the economy, for development to be truly sustaina- ble, all three must be considered in concert. Sustainable regio nal development Striking a balance among these domains can be difficult. All people make demands on the economy, society, and the environment. Resource limitations , whether land, time, or money, make it impossible to meet all demands . This often results in unequal sharing of benefits and costs (e.g. ,economic growth through social or environmental exploitation ), potentially undermining the conditions necessary for prosperity and producing conflict. The pur- pose of regional planning is to ensure that the benefits that accrue to one party do not unduly burden another, such as neighbors or posterity. As a starting point, regional plan ssuch as this recogniz e that development is essential. Even where population growth is nonexistent to slow, as in central Con necticut , development will happen. Facilities and infrastructure will deteriorate and need replacement. A plan cannot stop these forces, but it can help guide them. A regional plan must also acknowledge that develop- ment comes with costs. As new development comes into a community, services and infrastructure will be required. For instance, r oads must be paved , water and sewer must be connected , schools must be staffed , and services, e.g. trash pickup ,must be provided .All of these cost money , Figure 3. Three components of sustainable development Economy Society Environment 18 and regardless of whether a municipality, developer, or property owner initially foots the bill, in the end society (and the environment) ultimately bears the expense. These costs show up in a variety of forms, such as higher taxes, housing costs, and utility bills. How land is developed influences the infrastructure and service needs of a community. For instance, low -density rural development may call for fewer municipal services , but often spell longer commutes and higher housing and transportation costs. Suburban development , in contrast, may shorten commutes but increase infrastructure costs (e.g., substituting sewers for septic tanks) .Finally, while urban development generally entails the highest level of public investment ,the higher density of urban areas al- lows infrastructure and services to be shared among many more people, improving utilization and reducing per capita costs . Environmental impacts also vary with the form that de- velopment takes. For example, e xtensive road networks and large bu ilding and parking lot foot prints make for high levels of impervious surface cover. Water pooling on these surfaces can flood .While storm water systems can mitigate these impacts ,construction and maintenance of these can be costly .Moreover, the runoff created by im- pervious surfaces (and discharges from these systems) can cause erosion and transport contaminants into lakes, ponds, river s, and streams .Additional investment may be necessary to adequately compensate for these impacts. In contrast, pervious landscapes permit water to infiltrate into the soil, preventing runoff and erosion ,recharging ground water ,and allowing contaminants to be trapped and broken down . Plymouth Reservoir in Plymouth 19 Density limits can reduce the severity of environmental impacts such as these . However, limiting the density of development also has the effect sof dispersing the latter, i.e. creating ‘sprawl.’ Because sprawling developments are generally squat, far, and challenging to impossible to rea ch other than by car, more road mileage and building and parking lot square footage are necessary to provide the same amount of usable space. As a consequence, the total impervious surface and, hence, environmental foot- print of low -density areas can outstrip that of socioeco- nomically comparable high -density areas of similar pop- ulation , even if the impacts of the latter are locally acute r. The sprawl of low -density development over large areas also means that, in addition to producing diffus er and cumulatively larger impacts, it can also generate entirely new impacts. Habitat fragmentation, which results from the punctuation of the landscape by development, limits animals ’ mobility and reduces their supplies of food . Compact development, such as has historically defined cities, town centers, and villages , on the other hand, has relatively limited impact son habitat . Density restrictions may also leave little room for growth and lead to poor socioeconomic outcomes. For instance, large lots may deplete available land reserves, driving up the cost of land uses from farming to housing to industry. Conversely, a lack of adequate infrastructure may result in low costs for tax payers, but may turn away employers . Discussion of the interactions among th e environment, society, and the economy, could go on for hundreds of pages. The key point for a land use plan such as this, Questions to ask Before a conservation or development proposal is approved, questions such as those listed below should be asked. (This is not an exhaustive list.) What new services and infrastructure, if any, will new de- velopment demand in the present and the future? How much will new services and infrastructure cost, who will pay for them, how will they funded, and how will they be maintained? Will new services and infrastructure induce additional de- mand that will neces sitate additional expansions? Where will resources and raw materials come from? Will new development cause adverse environmental, so- cial, or economic impacts? Whom will they affect? How will these impacts be prevented or mitigated? 20 however, is that if a region is to develop sustainably, it must use consider the panoply of impacts that develop- ment will have . A su stainable land use plan must ensure that infrastructure required for new development can be provided without saddling future generations with debt. It must also ensure that adequate social opportunities can be created. Finally, it must ensure that developm ent does not burden the natural environment. A more sustainable Central Connecticut Central Connecticut’s modest population growth (3.6% over the past decade), and the financial pinch felt by gov- ernments at all levels, necessitates a thoughtful, me as- ured approach to development. Development over the past few decades has consumed an ever increasing share of resources while population and economic growth have stagnated . The environmental consequences can be seen in the diminished quality of the region’s wate r and air , as well as the loss of its open space . The budgetary impacts can be seen in higher tax rates and increased debt loads. This dynamic cannot be sustained indefinitely. The purpose of this plan is to provide guidance so that future development in central Connecticut incorporate s all three elements of sustainability. It does this through a series of general requirement s and a locational map that fit development to the capacity of the region’s environ- ment and manmade infrastructure .Both the require- ment sand the map have been designed to leave future generations with a positive legacy by protecting the re- gion’ s environment, building on its ric h social and cul- tural heritage, and allowing for sustainable growth. Main Street Diner in Plainville G eneral r equirements The plan re quirements are intended to serve as basic conditions for the conservation and development of the region . They complement and were informed by the livability principles of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, Connecti- cut’s growth manage ment principles , and Connecticut’s responsible growth criteria ( see Appendix A: Principles ). The plan requirement s are also intended to integrate with regional plans for the Capitol Region Council of Governments and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission to advance a shared vision of a healthy and vibrant central Connecticut and beyond . 22 The general requirements fall into eight categories :nat- ural resourc es, land use, transportation, infrastructure, agricu lture, community character, housing , and legal . The categories are interconnected, with requirement s within each category intended to support and promote each othe r. The requirements are to be used in the eval- uation of referrals ( proposed changes to land use plans, maps, and /or regulations )and in the review of (re)devel- opment proposals. Strict adherence is required for all “must” requirement s. Referrals and proposals that do not adhere to the “must” re quirements shall be considered in conflict with the Plan. Some of the requirements fur- thermore differentiate between development and re de- velopment. This plan defines d evelopment as any per- manent new building (including st ructures and surfaces) on previously conserved or unused land; redevelopment refers to construction, rehabilitation, or reuse of an al- ready developed facility .Land that has reverted or been restored to a state of or reasonably approximating wil- derness is considered to be undeveloped. The plan requirement s are accompanied by a map. The map provides a comprehensive view of the region, show- ing appropriate levels of intensity of development and conservation across its entirety .Due to the potentia l for incomp leteness or inaccuracy in the underlying data , the map is not intended to be used as the sole t ool to eval- uate the congruence of referrals and proposals with the plan .The map serves as a visual guide and an important first step in evaluating a referral or (re)development pro- posal .The General requirement sin this section take prec- edence over the map and shall serve as the basis for de- terminations on consistency with the plan for all referrals and proposals . Additional information on the determina- tion evalu ations can be found under The me chanics of the plan (p. 5).The general requirement s are as follows: Corner of Center Street and Queen Street in Southington 23 Natural resources 1. Development must not occur in the following areas: 1.1. Mountain and hilltops 1.2. Ridgelines 1.3. Perennial bodies of water and watercourses 1.4. Floodways 1.5. Slopes 25% and greater 1.6. Highly erodible soils 1.7. Critica l habitat 2. Development must not occur in the following areas, unless mitigation sufficient to compensate for the adverse impacts of the development is included: 2.1. Wetlands 2.2. Intermittent bodies of water and watercourses 3. Development should not occur in the following ar- eas: 3.1. Ephemeral bodies of water and watercourses 3.2. Prime or important farmland soils 3.3. Slopes 15% and greater 4. Development must not cover more than 10% of the land in watersheds with impervious surfaces; if im- pervious surfaces already cover more tha n 10%, conservation and (re)development should decrease effective impervious surface cover 5. Development must not occur in the floodway or in- crease the amount of impervious surface sin the 100 -year floodplain s 6. Development must provide a natural buffer of at least 100 feet surrounding wetlands, rivers, streams, and bodies of water 7. Development should avoid fragmentation of natural resources such as large tracts of relatively undevel- oped land 8. Conservation and (re)development should promote habitat connectivity 9. Industrial uses should be limited in aquifer protec- tion areas; (re)development in such areas must be of moderate or low to moderate intensity and must prohibit potential contaminant sources (e.g. under- ground fuel storage tanks, vehicle service facilities, and facilities that generate or handle hazardous waste) (Connecticut Department of Public Health 4). 10. (Re)development should not generate noise and light pollution 24 Land u se 1. Development should use land efficiently (e.g. be compact) to minimize environmental impacts and preserve sufficient land for other uses 2. In central places: 2.1. Mixed use development should be encourage d 2.2. Vacant lots should be developed as infill projects (or conserved as public space) 3. Development should avoid undeveloped land 4. Brownfields, grayfields, and barren sites should be redeveloped when environmentally appropriate 5. Rehabilitation, including adaptive reuse, should take precedence over new construction where applicable and appropriate 6. (Re)development expected to generate significant freight traffic should concentrate along rail lines 7. (Re)development expected to generate significant passenger traffic should concentrate around major transportation corridors and nodes, especially transit, and/or be design ed to prevent such traffic generation Agriculture 1. Existing agricultural lands and active farms should be preserved 2. Agricultural opportunities should be permitted in all areas, including livestock keeping; in areas of low or higher development intensity, a dverse impacts to neighboring properties must be no greater than those of other allowed uses Farmland in Burlington, CT 25 Transportation 1. (Re)development and conservation: 1.1. Must accommodate current trail corridors 1.2. Should allow for future trail corridors 1.3. Should preserve, and where applic able, enhance, regional greenways 2. Facilities (including roads, streets, intersections, side- walks, and cyclist infrastructure )must be appropri- ate to the surrounding context 3. Improvements must be safe for all users and pro- mote mode choice 4. (Re)development mu st accommodate all types of users, except as exempted under the State’s Com- plete Streets Law (Public Act 09 -154) 5. (Re)d evelopment must avoid or compensate for un- desirable traffic impacts 6. (Re)development that is expected to generate signif- icant traffic shoul d employ access and/or demand management strategies 7. (Re)development should concentrate around trans- portation corridors and nodes 8. Existing and former transportation corridors and sig- nificant rights -of -way should be preserved for future use 9. (Re)development should not impede the extension of rail service to appropriate locations 10. (Re)development on designated scenic roads should not detract from the quality of the scenic road Infrastructure 1. (Re)development should implement low impact de- velopment/green infrastructure strategies where ap- plicable 2. (Re)development should be prioritized in areas served by existing infrastructure 3. (Re)development should minimize future infrastruc- ture needs and maintenance costs 26 Community c haracter 1. (Re)development or conservation should be context – sensitive 2. (Re)development in historic districts should preserve the quality of the historic district 3. Historic structures and sites of cultural significance should be preserved Housing 1. A mix of housing types (including single family, two – family, and multi -family homes) and tenure options should be built where appropriate 2. Accessory units should be encouraged in under -or unused space (e.g., attics, basements, carriage houses, and garages) 3. Housing (particularly high intensity and mixed use) should concentrate around major transit nodes Legal 1. (Re)d evelopment must conform to all applicable state and federal laws 2. Definitions used in regulations must be based on state and federal law or the best available science 3. (Re)d evelopment must abide by valid and legally enforceable covenants, deed restrictions, easements, and the like Levels of development intensity As the map sin Plan area maps (p. 38 )show , all land in the region is classified into one of five intensity plan areas : preserva- tion/conservation, rural, low, medium, and high. Each plan area ,with the excepti on of preservation/conservation, also has an associated “central place overlay” to allow and foster mixed -use, closer -together development in neighborhood, village, town, and city centers. The following pages give d etails and sample illustrations for each of the plan areas , along with the associated central place overlays . 28 Definitions Height : Number of stories ab ove ground; excludes attics and basements . Land Coverage : all impervious surface (building and parking); exceptions allowed for development that in- clude s“green infrastructure .” Density : only affects residential construction; commer- cial and industrial are governed by land coverage re- quirements . Setbacks : the maximum distance a building can be placed from the road . Central Place : A central place is any area within a town where a mix of uses is found. They function as the center of a village, town, neighborho od, or city. Criterion Preservation Conservation General Development (by intensity) Rural Low Medium High Density (units per acre) n/a 0to ½ (1 unit per 2 acres) ½ to 6 6 to 12 At least 12 Land coverage n/a 0% to 5% 5% to 25% 25% to 50% 25% to 90% Building height (stories) n/a 1 to 2 1 to 3 2 to 4 At least 2 Central Place Overlay (by intensity) Density (units per acre) n/a 24 max 48 max No max No max Land coverage n/a 0% to 80% max 50% min to 100% 75% to 100% 75% to 100% Typical building height (stories) n/a 1 to 3 1 to 3 2 to 5 At least 3 Front s etback n/a 48’ Max 18' Max 18' Max 12' Max 29 Preser vation/ c onser vation Land categorized as preservation/conservation should not be developed. The only development appropriate for these areas is passive recreation such as hiking, mountain biking, hunting, and fishing. Insofar as possible, conservation ef- forts should concentrat e on these areas. Agriculture , silvi- culture, and low -impact uses (e.g. seasonal camping, fish and game reserves) are also a permissible form of devel- opment in these areas, so long as the general requirement s of this plan are followed. A bird’s -eye view of Sessions Woods in Burlington, CT. A nature trail in Sessions Woods, Burlington, CT. The Metacomet Trail in Plainville, CT. 30 Rural Land categorized as rural is suited for ver y low intensity development. Appropriate development include sfarming , passive and active recreation, and residences such as farm- houses and lodges on large lots in agricultural or natural surroundings, and commercial amenities serving a local market. In some cases, industrial or institutional develop- ment may be appropriate, such as processing plants or re- treats . Development should not detract from the character of or heavily modify the landscape , nor should it require urban services such as wa ter, sewer, or high -capacity roads. A bird’s -eye view of a rural section of South Windsor, CT. Horsebarn Hill in Storrs, CT. Monastery on Mount Equinox, VT. 31 Rural — Central Place Overlay Even rural areas need central places from which to obtain daily goods and services . While a rural central place should not resemble an urban one, it will share many of the same characteristics. In a central place, d evelopment should be compact ,and buildings should be in walking distance. Small amounts of mixed use and/or multi -family housing may be appropriate to provide residences for those who wish to remain in the community without having to drive . A bird’s -eye view of Vi chel, Germany. Bellows Falls, VT. The town center of New Hartford, CT. 32 Low Areas categorized as low intensity are intended for pre- dominantly resid ential neighborhoods. With densities of up to six units per acre , small clusters of multi -family hous- ing may be appropriate. Traffic generation should be min- imal due to the low unit per acre densities. Urban runoff is also kept low by land coverage maximum s. A residential neighborhood near Unionville, CT. A quiet residential neighborhood in Litchfield, CT. A residential neighborhood in Yonkers, NY. 33 Low — Central Place Overlay Central places in low intensity areas will be village or neighborhood centers. Multi -use structures are preferred as ways of combining residential and commercial activity. Multi -family residences may be more plentiful due to higher allowable densities. Buildings will be located close together and may cover their entire lot. A bird’s -eye view of Guilford, CT. The historic center of Collinsville, CT. Main Street in Concord, MA. 34 Medium Areas delineated for medium intensity development are found in the region’s larger municipalities. Allowable resi- dential densities double (over low intensity are as), as do land coverage maximums. These areas transition from sub- urban to more urban development. Road infrastructure re- quirements will be greater, to handle increased traffic, and urban services such as sewer and water will be necessary. Brattleboro, V T from above. Federal Hill in Bristol, CT. Residential neighborhoods in Halifax, NS. 35 Medium — Central Place Overlay Central places in medium intensity areas will be town cen- ters or urban neighborhoods. No limit is placed on allow- able densities ,and land coverage should fall between 75% and 100%. Setbacks are to be kept at a minimum to pre- serve the walkability of the area. These areas are intended to be pedestrian a nd cyclist friendly. Mixed -use buildings will dominate, though some dedicated multi -family resi- dential structures or dedicated office buildings will be pre- sent. Blue Back Square in West Hartford, CT. Frederick, Maryland Nassau Street in Princeton, NJ. 36 High Areas delineated for high intensity development are found in the region’s largest cities. These are places where signif- icant investments in urban infrastructure have already been made. They should have easy highway access, good sidewalks, and tr ansit service to permit easy transporta- tion. These areas contain the most valuable land (for de- velopment) and should be developed at a high density, at least 12 units per acre. Land coverage should be high as well to maximize efficiency. A bird’s -eye view of a neighborhood in New Haven, CT. Biotech research facility in Seattle, WA. Natural gas cogeneration and apartments in Berlin, Germany. 37 High — Central Place Overlay Central places in high intensity areas are the region’s major urban cores. They contain high concentrations of urban services, such as stores, civic institutions, housing, and transportation options. Sewer, water, and road infrastruc- ture should already be present and of sufficient capacity. The existing level of services allows for high value -added development. A bird’s -eye view of the New Haven green. A tree -lined mixed -use street in New Haven, CT. Königstraße in Stuttgart, Germany. 38 Plan area maps The following pages reproduce maps for every municipality in the region. Due to printing constraints, maps are size -reduced. Larger scale maps are available in PDF format as well as in GIS formats upon request. These maps are intended to provide an overview of sustainable development intensities; for the purposes of referrals, they are adjunct to and do not replace the General requirements (p. 21 ). 39 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and theGIS User Community Plan area map Berlin 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles V High Medium Low Rural Conservation C e n t r a l p l a c e o v e r l a y Intensity 40 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and theGIS User Community Plan area map Bristol 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles V High Medium Low Rural Conservation C e n t r a l p l a c e o v e r l a y Intensity 41 42 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and theGIS User Community Plan area map New Britain 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles V High Medium Low Rural Conservation C e n t r a l p l a c e o v e r l a y Intensity 43 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and theGIS User Community Plan area map Plainville 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles V High Medium Low Rural Conservation C e n t r a l p l a c e o v e r l a y Intensity 44 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and theGIS User Community Plan area map Plymouth 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles V High Medium Low Rural Conservation C e n t r a l p l a c e o v e r l a y Intensity 45 Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS,NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and theGIS User Community Plan area map Southington 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles V High Medium Low Rural Conservation C e n t r a l p l a c e o v e r l a y Intensity 46 Appendix es Principles, sources, and credits . 47 Appendix A : Principles Livability Principles 1. Provide more transportation choices. 2. Develop safe, reliable, and economical transportation choices to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, im- prove air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote public health. 3. Promote equitable, affordable housing. 4. Expand location -and energy -efficient housing choices for all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to increase mobilit y and lower the combined cost of housing and transportation. 5. Enhance economic competitiveness. 6. Improve economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment centers, education opportunities, service and other basic needs by work- ers, as well as expanded business access to markets. 7. Support existing communities. Target federal funding toward existing communities — through strategies like transit oriented, mixed -use development, and land re- cycling — to increase community revitalization and the efficiency of public works investments and safeguard rural landscapes. 8. Coordinate and leverage federal policies and invest- ment. 9. Align federal policies and funding to remove barriers to collaboration, leverage funding, and increase the accountability and e ffectiveness of all levels of gov- ernment to plan for future growth, including making smart energy choices such as locally generated renew- able energy. 10. Value communities and neighborhoods. 11. Enhance the unique characteristics of all communities by investing i n healthy, safe, and walkable neighbor- hoods — rural, urban, or suburban. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment. “Six Livability Principles.” Web. 27 November 2012. Growth Management Principles 1. Redevelop and revitalize regional centers and areas with existing or currently planned physical infrastruc- ture 2. Expand housing opportunities and design choices to accommodate a variety of household types and needs 48 3. Concentrate development around transportation nodes and along major transportation corrid ors to support the viability of transportation options. 4. Conserve and restore the natural environment, cul- tural and historical resources, and traditional rural lands 5. Protect and ensure the integrity of environmental as- sets critical to public health and safe ty 6. Promote integrated planning across all levels of gov- ernment to address issues on a state wide, regional, and local basis Source: Office of Policy and Management. “Draft: Conserva- tion and Development Policies, a Plan for Connecticut.” 2013 -2018. Web. 27 November 2012. Responsible Growth Guidelines 1. Project activities should be in conformance with the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Con- necticut. 2. Locate Projects within existing developed areas and promote infill development. 3. Locate projects within existing public utilities service areas (water, sewer, etc.). 4. Projects outside of public utility services areas should be scaled to use on -site systems, where practicable, to manage unplanned development of adjacent land. 5. Promote transit -oriented development. 6. Promote energy/water conservation, energy efficiency and "green" building design. 7. Avoid impacts to natural and cultural resources and open space. 8. Promote mixed -use development and compatible land uses (pedestrian -friendly with access to multiple destinations within close proximity of each other). Source: Department of Economic and Community Develop- ment. “Responsible Growth Guidelines.” 2012. Web. 27 No- vember 2012. 49 Appendix B : Sources Code of F ederal Regulations. Title 44 — Emergency Man- agement and Assistance, Part 9 — Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands, Section 9.4 — Definitions. 2010. Web. 5 December 2012. Connecticut Environmental Conditions Online. “Connecti- cut Critical Habitats.” 20 11. Web. 30 October 2012. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. IS Data. Available from: http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2698& q=322898 &depNav_GID=1707&depNav=|#Soils Booth, Derek B. and C. Rhett Johnson. “Urbanization of Aquatic Systems: Degradation Thresholds, Stormwater De- tection, and the Limits of Mitigation.” Journal of the Amer- ican Water Resources Association 33.5 (October 1997): 1077 -1090. Web. 30 October 2012. Fuss & O’Neill. “Low Impact Development Appendix to Connecticut Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Con- trol .” Partners for the Connecticut Low Impact Develop- ment and Stormwater General Permit Evaluation. 2011. W eb. 30 October 2012. Murphy, Brian. “Position Statement, Utilization of 100 Foot Buffer Zones to Protect Riparian Areas in Connecticut.” In- land Fisheries Division. Web. 30 October 2012. Kotchen, Matthew J. and Schulte, Stacey L. “A Meta -Analy- sis of Cost o f Community Service Studies”. International Re- gional Science Review .32.3 (July 2009). Carruthers, John I. and Ulfarsson, Gudmundur F. “Does ‘Smart Growth’ Matter to Public Finance?” Urban Studies . (July 2007). 50 Appendix C : Photo c redits Unless otherwise indicated, all photos are presumed free for noncommercial use, or permission for their use has been given. Photos by page: Cover Downtown Bristol , Francis R. Pickering 1 Walnut Hill Park ,New Britain, Flickr use r bbcamericangirl 4 Francis R. Pickering 5 Town of Burlington 6 Flickr user brown_cardinal 7 newbritainstation.com 10, 11 Bing maps 12 Flickr user boboroshi 13 Flickr user jonlewis 14 City of New Britain 15 ,18 Francis R. Pickering 20 Flickr user muffet 21 Depot Square , Renaissance Downtowns 22 Flickr user brown_cardinal 24 Timothy Malone 27 Flickr user dougtone For pages 29 -37, credits are listed clockwise from top 29 Bing Maps, Timothy Malone, Timothy Malone 30 Bing Maps, Flickr user trinity, Flickr user johncudw 2399 31 Bernhard Langheinrich, Timothy Malone, Flickr user mema_nh 32 Bing Maps, Google Maps, Timothy Malone 33 Bing Maps, Flickr user imotov, Flickr user johncudw 2399 34 Bing Maps, Google Maps, Bing Maps 35 Flickr user ying_xiaoyur, Flickr use r Patrick_nouhailleur, Google Maps 36 Bing Maps, Bing Maps, Wikipedia 37 Bing Maps, Flickr user ian_yvr, Flickr user sean_marshall 38 Bicycle race in Plainville , Flickr user bikeride 45 New Britain, Flickr user joshmichtom 51 Appendix D : About CCRPA This plan is a product of the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency. CCRPA may be reached as follows. Contact information Online http://ccrpa.org Phone /fax 860 -589 -7820 Postal m ail 22 5North Main Street, Suite 304 Bristol, CT 06010 -4993. Agency staff Carl Stephani , Executive Director Francis R. Pickering, Deputy Director Cheri Bouchard -Duquette, Office and Financial Administrator Timothy Malone, Associate Planner Kristin Thoma s, Associate Planner Amanda Ryan, Assistant Planner Abigail St. Peter , Assistant Planner Jason Zheng, Assistant Planner Greg Martin, Paratransit Coordinator/Emergency Planner Ryan Ensling, Planning Aide Jessica Haerter, Planning Aide Kristin Hadjstylianos, Planning Aide Francis R. Pickering ser ved as Project Manager, with Timothy Malone as Lead Planner on this project. Agency Board Bart Bovee, Berlin Dennis Kern, Berlin (Chair) Rosie O’Brien Vojtek, Bristol Donald Padlo, Bristol John Pompei, Bristol Peter McBrien, Burlington Paul Rachielles, Burlington Marie Lausch, New Britain Donald Naples, New Britain (Treasurer) Steven P. Schiller, New Britain Jennifer Bartiss -Early, Plainville (Secretary) James Cassidy, Plainville Carl Johnson, Plymouth Stephen Mindera , Plymouth John Barry, Southington Rudy Cabata, Southington (Vice Chair) James Haigh, Southington