Regional Plan of Conservation and Development for the Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency (CCRPA) 2013

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

Valley Council of Governments (VCOG) Regional Plan of Conservation and Development 2008

Valley Council of Governments Strategic Plan of Conservation & Development FOR THE ALL-AMERICAN VALLEY 1 REGIONAL PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2008 June 24, 2008 Valley Council of Governments 12 Main Street Railroad Station Derby, CT 06418 Dear Board Members, We are please to submit this revised 2008 Regional Plan of Conservation and Development. We have incorporated the gr owth management principles in your local municipal plans and the 2005- 2010 State Plan of Conservation and Development. This Plan Update has been reviewed and found to be generally consistent with all of the re ferenced plans and principles therein. In addition, this plan represents the responsible growth and conservation-driven vision for the Valley Planning Region. We look forward to your review and commen t s to ensure a complete and thorough public process. Sincerely, Bartholomew Flaherty III Chairman, Valley Regional Planning Commission 2 REGIONAL PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 1 2 Conditions & Trends 8 3 Conserve Important Resources 18 4 Encourage Responsible Growth 29 5 Promote Economic Development 36 6 Address Transportation Needs 47 7 Address Infrastructure 57 8 Promote Regional Programs 61 9 Regional Goals for the Future 67 10 Implementation 71 11 Conclusion 74 3 REGIONAL PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2008 Maps & Graphics Index Introduction Regional Location Map 7 Conditions & Trends Generalized Land Use Map 10 Conserve Important Resources Conservation & Preservation Areas Map Natural Resources Plan Open Space Plan 19 21 25 Promote Econom ic Development Economic Development Plan 46 Address Transportation Needs Valley Transit District ADA Service area Transportation Plan VCOG Bike & Pedestrian Trails 50 52 56 Address Infrastructure Utilities Plan 59 Promote Regional Programs 61 Regional Goals for the Future Future Regional Form 69 4 REGIONAL PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 2008 Acknowledgements The Valley Regional Planning Commission would lik e to thank the Valley residents and the following individuals for their contributions to the Plan: Valley Regional Planning Commission Technical Assistance Bartholomew Flaherty III, Chairman, Ansonia representative David Elder, Senior Regional Planner & GIS Analyst Cliff Strum ello, Seymour representative Mathew Fulda, Regional Planner & GIS Analyst David Barboza II, Derby representative Jan Jadach, Administrative Assistant Virginia Harger, Shelton representative Tai Spargo, 2008 VCOG Project Assistant Valley Council of Governments Note: Special Thanks to Planimetrics; portions of this Plan are taken partly or entirely from the 2002 Regional Plan of Conservation and Development, originally prepared by Planimetrics VCOG Chairman Robert J. Koskelowski, First Selectman, Town of Seymour VCOG Vice-Chairman James T. DellaVolpe, Mayor, City of Ansonia VCOG Secretary/Treasurer Mark A. Lauretti, Mayor, City of Shelton Anthony Staffieri, Mayor, City of Derby VCOG Executive Director Richard T. Dunne 5 INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction to the Valley Region Valley COG This Regional Plan of Con- servation & Development has been prepared by and for the Valley Council of Govern- ments (COG): • The state defined re- gional planning organi- zation (RPO), and • The federally defined metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for transportation in the Valley Region. The Valley Council of Governments (COG) is the regional planning organization that serves the communities of Ansonia, Derby, Seymour, and Shelton in south central Connecticut. The 58 square-mile region is located northwest of the City of New Haven and south of the City of Waterbury, midway between Waterbury and Bridgeport. The Census reported that the region had a population of 84,500 people in the year 2000. In 2000, the Valley region and several ne ighboring towns were recognized for its regional activities by being chosen to receive an “All American Cities Award” by the American Civic League. The award was based on several projects that illus- trated success in planning and implementing projects of a regional scope. Based on the recognized success of these regional activities, the Valley Regional Planning Agency initiated this Regional Plan of Conservation and Development entitled “Smart Growth for the All American Valley”. Funding assistance for the project was provided by the Community Foundation for Greater New Haven. Regional Location 1 Overview of Regional Planning Statutory Provisions CGS Section 8-35a states, in part, that: “Each regional planning area shall make a plan of devel- opment for its area of opera- tion, showing its recommen- dations for the general use of the area including land use, housing, principal highways and freeways, bridges, air- ports, parks, playgrounds, recreational areas, schools, public institutions, public utilities and such other mat- ters as, in the opinion of the agency, will be beneficial to the area.” Local Plans Plans of Conservation & Development for Ansonia, Derby, and Seymour were updated as part of this plan- ning effort. The City of Shelton Plan of Development was updated in 2007. While State Statutes (CGS 8-35a) require that regional planning agencies prepare a regional plan (see sidebar), the best reason for preparing a Regiona l Plan of Conservation & Development is to recognize that all Valley residents live in a regional community. Each town and city in the region relies on other communities in the region for employment, housing, entertainment, and other needs and desires. Many issues, including water quality, water supply, and transportation transcend municipal boundaries. More importantly, economic competition is on a global scale and the geographic area for competing on the global stage is the region. This Regional Plan provides a larger context for addressing development and conservation issues. It will link planning activities between towns and address issues and functions that can be more effectively discussed at the regional level. This Regional Plan of Conservation & Development is an advisory document that is intended to: • Evaluate conditions, trends, and issues of regional significance, • Recommend policies that will address regional issues, • Guide local, regional, and state agencies in setting priorities, review- ing development or other proposals, implementing programs, and as- sisting member communities in joint efforts, and • Promote consistent decision-making. Relationship-Local, Regional & State Plans Each municipality in the region has a local plan of conservation and develop- ment. These plans address local issues and specific initiatives. Municipal im- plementation is accomplished by land use regulations, operating/capital im- provement budgets, and land acquisition. Such plans are typically updated every ten years. At another level, the State Plan of C onservation & Development is much broader due to its geographic scope. The State Plan is updated every five years. Rec- ommendations in the State Plan guide major state initiatives and projects involv- ing state funding. The Regional Plan falls between these two. It is, by necessity, more specific than the State Plan and more general than the local plans. Implementation of the Re- gional Plan must typically rely on consensus and education. The 2008 Valley Region Plan has been compared to all of the four local munic ipal Plans and the 2005-2010 S tate Plan of Conservation and has been found to be generally consistent with the Growth Management Principles therein and the locational guide map policy areas. 2 Connecticut General   Statutes  (CGS)  Sei 8­ 23  require on  s  Plans  of  Conservation  and   and  regional  plans.  This     ent  and   was  found  to be    compared  with the  2008   Conservation  and   Valley  region  and  was   cies   and  policy  maps      Development  to  be   consistent  with  state   Plan  was  compared  with the  2005 ­2010  State   Plan  of  Conservation   and  Developm consistent  with  the   general  policies  as  well   as  Locational  Guide  Map  Specific  to  Derby.  In addition,  this Plan  was   Strategic  Plan of   Development  for  the   found  to be  consistent   with  both  the  poli contained  in  the  plan. 2002  Goals  and   Recommendations;   Implemented!   Progress has been made  in  each  section  and chapter   included  in the  2002  Plan.  Several  of the  most  notable   chapters  that  have  seen  progress are as follows:  Chapter  3 :  Conserve   Important  Resources,   Recommendation :  1. Protect  Water  Quality   2.  Preserve  Open  Space   and Create  Greenways   Chapter  4 :  Encourage   “Smart  Growth” :  1.  Promote  Adaptive   reuse where  appropriate     2.  Consider  Creating   Rezoning  to Facilitate   Reuse   Chapter  6 :  Address   Transportation  Needs   1.  Improve  Route  8   2.  Enhance  Transit   Service   3.  Make  Necessary   Improvements  on  Major   Roadways   4.  Enhance  Pedestrian  and  Bicycle   Transportation     Progress and Implementation in the Valley since 2002 The 2002 Valley Regional Plan of Conservation and Development contained numerous recommendations to encourage a balanced growth approach towards development in the region. Significant progress has been achieved in the six years that have elapsed in that time. Several of these objectives are discussed in detail below and the corresponding recommendations and objectives from the 2002 plan are listed in the side bar to the left: Chapter 3 Conserve Important Resources; Progress 1. Protect Water Quality : The 2002 Plan called for measures to protect water quality. In 2004 the Connecticut State Legislature passed Bill # 6594 to establish Aquifer Protection Area regulations. The Valley Towns of Seymour, Shelton, and Derby all have A quifers or a portion thereof within their borders. Each of these three Towns have appointed an Agent to oversee the regulated and non- regulated activities and have adopted the Aquifer Protection Area into their maps as a special district. 2. Preserve Open Space and Create Greenways : The 2002 Plan identified preserving open sp ace and creating greenways as a priority to the valley residents. To date, all four of the valley towns have a constructed greenway, except for Seymour’s which is in the design phase. Others are currently seeking additional funding to extend their existing greenways. In addition to the greenways the valley Towns have designated more land as Open Space since 2002. Chapter 4 Encourage “SmartGrowth”; Progress 1. Promote Adaptive reuse where appropriate & Consider Creating Rezoning to Facilitate reuse: In the past six years there has been significant progress in this area within the region. Shelton, Derby, and Ansonia have adopted overlay development districts promoti ng reuse of the historic and downtown areas. Shelton is in the process of completing phase 1 of a major riverfront developm ent that includes the reuse of manufacturing building that includes a section of greenway. Derby has designated one of its oldest sections of the City as a redevelopment z one and is currently evaluating developer proposals. Ansonia has begun a major effort to revitalize its downtown district w ith the City Center Plan that includes reuse where appropriate to keep business strong in its downtown and attract new business. Seymour established the Economic Development Commission in 2006 which led to the Seymour Master Economic Development plan to help provide a framework to balance the town’s development in 3 In addition  to the  specific  recommendations  included  in the   2002  Plan  there  has  been  progress  towards  the  “smart  growth”  that  was  referred  to in  the  2002  Plan.   The  regional  Brownfields   partnership  has  seen  tremendous   growth  in  partnership  and  successful  remediation  projects.   The  partnership  has  continued  to  receive  Federal  and  State  funds.   Many  of  the  regional  Brownfields   projects  have been  located  in  redevelopment  projects  in the   Valley  and  greater  Central   Connecticut.     Another  great  success  since the  2002  Plan  is  the  effort  to  clean  up   and  convert  the  once  contaminated  O’Sullivans Island   Peninsula  in  Derby  into  a  public  park  with a  walkway  and  fishing   pier.      the next decade. In 2006 this newly formed Commission and hired consultants analyzed data, examined the town’s economic resources, and held meetings with residents and business leaders. The findings resulted in the identification of many strong economic and physical assets and the opportunity for well thought out and beneficial development. Chapter 6 Address Transportation Needs; Progress 1. Improve Route 8 : The Route 8 Interchange Study and Design Project is nearing completion with Final Design almost complete for the Exit 18 North Bound ramp in Ansonia. Exits 15, 16, 17 are being broken into phases and will be treated as separa te projects through the final design and construction phases. 2. Enhance Transit Service : The Waterbury Branch Line Study has just begun and the Valley Council of Governments and the Valley Regional Planning Commission will be reviewing the study’s progress as well as commenting on the study as it proceeds. Current ridership is up almost 50% from 2002 and based on observations from this increa se in ridership, additional parking will be required at all of the Valley Towns with a train stop located therein. Bus service from New Haven and Bridgeport has also increased and there are additional buses for the existing routes as well as entirely new routes throughout the region. The Valley Transit District has increased its para -transit and ADA service to provide complimentary service to both the Waterbury Branch Line and the additional fixed route bus services. 3. Make Necessary Improvements on Major Roadways : There are currently several ongoing projects within the region to improve major roadways. Route 34 received funding from the SAFETEA-LU and a widening project that includes pedestrian enhancements is currently underway. Route 67 in Seymour also received funding through SAFETEA-LU and that pr oject is currently being scoped and reviewed by the VCOG and ConnDOT. There is also a concept plan that is now being studied to connect Route 67 in Seymour with Route 42 in Beacon Falls. 4. Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation : The high volume of users on the multi-use trails that have been constructed since 2002 have created a strong motivation to increase the number of trails in the region. All of the Valley Towns currently have at least one trail constructed or in design and several of the Towns have multiple trails. The region is intending to cont inue to seek funding for the design and construction of bike/pedestrian trails throughout the region. 4 Connecticut General   Statutes  (CGS)  Section 8­ 23  requires  Plans  of  Conservation  and   Development  to  be   consistent  with  state   and  regional  plans.  This   Plan  was  compared  wi   th  the  2005 ­2010  State     uide  Map    s  compared  with the  2008   t   with  both  the  policies   contained  in  the  plan.    Plan  of  Conservation   and  Development  and   was  found  to be  consistent  with  the general  policies  as  well   as  Locational  G Specific  to  Derby.  In addition,  this Plan  wa Strategic  Plan of   Conservation  and   Development  for  the   Valley  region  and  was   found  to be  consisten and  policy  maps   Growth  Management  Principles    With recent  amendments  to CGS   Section  8­23,  a new  set of criteria  have  been  established  that Plans  of  Conservation  and Development  must   be  measured against. Plans  of  Conservation  and Development  must   now be  consistent  with the following  growth  management  principles.   (i) Redevelop  and revitalize   regional  centers  and  areas  with   existing  or  currently  planned  physical  infrastructure;     (ii)  Expand  housing opportunities   and  design  choices  to   accommodate  a  variety  of   household  types  and  needs;   (iii)  Concentrate  development   around  transportation  nodes  and   along  major  transportation   corridors  to  support  the  viability   of  transportation  options;     (iv)   Conserve  and restore  the   natural  environment  assets  critical  to  public  health and   safety;   (v)   Protect  and  ensure  the   integrity  of  environmental  assets   critical  to  public  health and   safety;   (vi)  Promote  integrated  planning   across  all  levels  of  government  to   address  issues  on  a  statewide,  regional  and  local  basis.   State Plan of Conserva tion and Development Policies Plan The Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 2005-2010 (C&D Plan) is comprised of two separate, yet equally important, components – the Plan text and the Locational Guide Map. Both components include policies that guide the planning and decision-making processes of state government relative to: (1) addressing human resource needs and development; (2) balancing economic growth with environm ental protection and resource conservation concerns; and (3) coor dinating the functional planning activities of state agen cies to accomplish long-term effectiveness and economies in the expe nditure of public funds. Municipalities and Regional Plan ning Organizations must note any inconsistencies with the Growth Management Principles when developing their own plans of conservation and development. The Locational Guide Map plays an important role in coordinating relevant state actions by providing a geographi cal interpretation of the state’s conservation and development policies. The Map comprises the best available digital, standardized, statewide data for each policy’s definiti onal criteria. Development Area Policies (In order of priority) 1) Regional Centers – Redevelop and revi talize the economic, social, and physical environment of the state’s traditional centers of industry and commerce. 2) Neighborhood Conservations Area s – Promote infill development and redevelopment in areas that are at least 80% built up and have existing water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure to support such development. 3) Growth Areas – Support staged urban-sc ale expansion in areas suitable for long-term economic grow th that are currently less than 80% built up, but have existing or planned infrastructure to support future growth in the region. 4) Rural Community Centers – Promote concentration of mixed-use development such as municipal facilities, employment, shopping, and residential uses within a village center setting. 5 The Valley  Region  is  unique  to  have  the  confluence  of the   Naugatuck  and  Housatonic  Rivers  located  within  its  boundaries.  In   addition,  the Valley  region  also  has  three  large  aquifers  which  are   a  key  water  supply  source  within  the  Housatonic  Watershed Area.   The  Valley  Communities  have   worked  to  maintain  the  environmental  stability  of  region   by  carefully  reviewing  development  proposals  that  may   affect  these  water  supply   resources.    The  Valley  Planning  region   recognizes  the  growing  connection  between  dense housing  and  the  need  for  outdoor   recreation  to  facilitate  a  high   quality  of  life  and  to  promote   healthy  living. It  is  a  priority  of  the   Region  to  continue  to  encourage  revitalization  of  its  downtown   areas  while  also  providing  those  residents  with  outdoor  recreation   opportunities.    State Plan of Conserva tion and Development Policies Plan Continued Conservation Area Policies (In order of priority) 1) Existing Preserved Open Space – Support the permanent protection of public and quasi-public land dedicated for open space purposes. 2) Preservation Areas – Protect significant resource, heritage, recreation, and hazard-prone areas by avoiding structural development, except as directly consistent with the preservation value. 3) Conservation Areas – Plan for the long-term management of lands that contribute to the state’s need for food, water and other resources and environmental quality by ensuring that any changes in use are compatible with the identified conservation value. 4) Rural Lands – Protect the rural character of these areas by avoiding development forms and in tensities that exceed on-site carrying capacity for water supply and sewage disposal, except where necessary to resolve localized public health concerns. 6 SheltonSeymour Derby Ansonia Legend Train Stations Airports Railroads Aquifer Protection Area Historic Distric Tribal Settlement Area Existing Preserved Open Space Preservation Area Conservation Area Conservation Development Policy Growth Area Neighborhood Conservation Regional Center Rural Community Center Wetland Soils State Plan of Conservation and Development Locational Guide Map Growth Management Land Use Designations 0 1 2 0.5 Miles Orange Milford Stratford Trumbull Monroe Oxford Beacon Falls Bethany Woodbridge 7 CONDITIONS AND TRENDS 2 Regional History Waterways Attracted Human Settlement Prior to the early 1600s, human settlements in the lower Naugatuck Valley region consisted of several Native American tribes (Wepawaugs, Paugassets, and Po- tatucks). These Native Americans lived as hunters, fishers, gatherers, and farm- ers in the valleys and hills that comprise the landscape of this area. With European “discovery” of this area in 1614, trade began between Native Americans in coastal areas and the Dutch and English. This led to European colonization of “New England” after 1620 and settlements in Connecticut after 1633. Between 1620 and 1642, it is estimated that at least 120,000 English peo- ple emigrated to the New World (about 20,000 came to Connecticut). Since waterways were principal transportation routes in colonial times, the Val- ley Region was first settled by European s about 1650. Derby was settled first due to its strategic location at the confluence of the Housatonic and Naugatuck Rivers and at the head of navigation on the Housatonic River. Waterways Attracted Industrial Development Throughout the 1600s and 1700s, Derby served as a commercial hub for the sur- rounding settlements and as a center for shipbuilding. Development of turnpikes (early roads typically built by private investors) around 1800 led to the decline of the shipping industry in Derby. However, with the harnessing of the wate rpower from the Naugatuck River in the early 1800s, the Valley became the center of highly organized industrial enter- prises. Some companies established “model” industrial villages where a manu- facturing company built an entire community for its workers including, churches, schools, libraries, boarding houses, and homes. Early manufacturing flourished in the Na ugatuck Valley, led by the brass indus- try. The Valley was considered one of the premiere manufacturing corridors in the nation throughout the 1800s as it continued to pioneer new techniques in manufacturing. The construction of railroad lines around 1850 expanded markets for local goods and the industrial importance of the Valley region became even more pronounced. 8 Technologic Changes Reduced the Locational Advantage of the Region The manufacturing prominence of the Valley continued through the turn of the century and much of the early 1900s. However, the Great Depression of the 1930s reduced industrial production in the Valley and population growth slowed. In the following decades, many traditional manufacturing industries in the Valley Region were negatively affected by competition from other areas that benefited from cheaper labor, cheaper transportation, closer materials or markets, more ef- ficient equipment, and changing technologies and products. Where 50,000 workers were once employed in the brass mills in the Naugatuck Valley, only 2,500 workers jobs remained in the vast mills and foundries by 1980. Many industrial buildings became vacant or underutilized. Transportation Improvements Facilitat ed Development in Suburban Areas During the same period, the expansion of the highway system in Connecticut contributed to the changing fortunes of the Valley region. Highway improve- ments (such as the Merritt Parkway in th e 1930s and the Interstate Highway Sys- tem in the 1950s and 1960s) made it possible for people and businesses to relo- te to outlying areas where there is v acant land available for development and the perception of new or better opport unities. Shelton overtook other Valley communities as residential and then business growth was attracted to the large areas of undeveloped land and the impr oved access. While redevelopment op- portunities exist in the Valley, the need to clean up of former industrial sites hampered business growth and the renewed economic vitality of these areas. ca Town Development Derby, is the earliest settle- ment in the region with a trading post established around 1650 at Derby Docks. The Derby settlement was considered part of Milford jurisdiction until 1675, when the former plantation of Pau- gassett was admitted by the state legislature as the town- ship of Derby. The City of Derby was chartered by the State in 1893. Ansonia , was part of Derby and actually became a bor- ough of Derby in 1863. This arrangement lasted until 1889 when Ansonia became its own City and Borough. Af- ter four years of separate government the City and Borough governments merged in 1893. Seymour was originally part of Derby. The people of what was then called Humphreys- ville wanted to establish their own community and peti- tioned that a town called Richmond be established. The governor at the time Thomas H. Seymour let it be known that he would imme- diately accept the petition if the town was named after him. The name was changed and Seymour was incorpo- rated in 1850. Shelton, formerly known as Huntington, was incorporated in 1789 from Stratford, and named for its leading indus- trialist and citizen Edward N. Shelton. In 1917, the borough and earlier established town government were merged to form the City of Shelton. Since 1970, more developed communities such as Ansonia (minus 2,606) and Derby (minus 288) have experienced stab le or declining populations. During the same period, communities with more developable land have grown significantly, such as Seymour (plus 2,678) and Shelton (plus 10,936). The map on the facing page shows the gene ral configuration of development pat- terns in the Valley region based on aerial photography. Summary The decline of industry in the Valley over the last 50 years has had a significant impact on the Valley Region, both economically and historically . Configured as “model industrial villages” for the industrial era, some communities are still adapting to the opportunities in the soci al and economic landscape of the new millennium. This Regional Plan of Conservation & De velopment is intended to help address these issues. 9 10 Comparative Growth Rate Valley State 1970-80 3% 3% 1980-90 6% 6% 1990-00 5% 4% 2000-10 2% 4% 2010-20 2% 5% Projections in italics Sources: U.S. Census of Population, DOT Population Projections Population Conditions & Trends Regional Growth Is Expected To Slow Valley Region Population: 1850-2020 The adjacent chart shows differen t eras in the growth of the Valley. Fro m 1850 to 1930, the availability of abun- dant waterpower, increasing industrial productivity, and reliance on rail trans- portation resulted in a population in- crease from about 7,000 to abou t 48,000 people. Through the Great Depression and World War II (1930 to 1950), popula- tion was stable as the economy in the Valley underwent structural changes. Since 1950, the availability of auto- mo bile transportation and increasing suburbanization resulted in new growth in the Valley region. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 1850 1900 1950 2000 Over the past thirty years, the Valley region has grown at approximately the same rate as the State of Connecticut. However, over the next twenty years, State population projections estimate that the Valley region could grow at a rate roughly half that of the State as the amount of land available for development dwindles. Net In-Migration To The Region Has Slowed Population growth can occur due to natural increase (more births than deaths) and/or net migration (more people moving in than moving out). As can be seen from the following table, both natural increase and net migration have slowed considerably since 1970. Sources of Growth: 1950-2000 – Valley Region Natural Increase Net Migration Total Change 1950 – 1960 6,312 4,43310,750 1960 – 1970 6,880 6,62913,509 1970 – 1980 3,394 (1,001) 2,383 1980 – 1990 3,655 5304,175 1990 – 2000 3,910 2824,192 CT Department of Health, 1950-98. 1990-2000 data is extra polated to a full decade. 11 Most Growth Is Occurring In Outlying Areas With Available Land 1990-2000 Growth Rate AmountRate Region 4,192 5% Ansonia 151 <1% Derby 192 2% Seymour 1,166 8% Shelton 2,683 8% Source: US Census of Population 1990-2000 Growth Share Amount Share Region 4,192 100% Ansonia 151 4% Derby 192 5% Seymour 1,166 28% Shelton 2,683 64% Source: US Census of Population In recent decades, most of the growth in the Valley region has been in outlying communities that have land available fo r development (Shelton and Seymour). In fact, during the 1990s, Shelton and Se ymour accounted for 92 percent of the population growth in the entire region. This trend is expected to continue to the year 2020. 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 1850 190019502000 Projections Ansonia Derby Seymour Shelton There Is Net Out-Migration From Ur ban Areas To Outlying Areas Over the past twenty years: • Net out-migration has been occurring in Ansonia and Derby, • Net in-migration has been occurring in Seymour and Shelton, • Net in-migration slowed in Shelton during the 1990s, and • Net in-migration increased in Seymour during the 1990s. Sources of Growth: 1980-2000 – Municipality (ranked by 1990s total change) 1980s 1990s Natural Increase Net Migration Total Change Natural Increase Net Migration Total Change Shelton 1,828 2,276 4,104 1,9387452,683 Seymour 679 175 854 6964701,166 Derby 398 (545) (147) 539(347) 192 Ansonia 750 (1,386) (636)737(586) 151 CT Department of Health, 1950-98. 1990-2000 data is extrapolated to a full decade. Note that, since 1980, natural increase was fairly stable in all communities except Derby where there was a noticeable increase during the 1990s. 12 The Region’s Age Composition Is Changing Population Projections The population projections presented on this page were prepared by the Census Data Center of the Connecticut Office of Policy and Man- agement in 1995. While these projections un- derestimated the 2000 popu- lation for the Valley region, they are the only age specific projections available. Even though the actual num- bers of people in each group may vary, these projections are considered to be useful in identifying demographic trends. Natural increase and net-migration also affect the age composition of the region and its communities. Population By Age Group: 1970 – 2020 The following table and the adjacen t chart show the changing age composi- tion of the Valley region from 1970 to 2020 for: • children (ages 0 to 19), • young adults (ages 20 to 54), and • mature adults (ages 55 and over). 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 1970 1990 2010 Future 0-19 20-54 55 + Historic and Projected Population by Age Groups: 1970 – 2020 Actual Projections Ages 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 0-19 27,517 22,72919,797 21,420 20,042 19,252 20-54 32,938 35,92041,333 42,244 39,198 36,877 55 + 13,245 17,48419,178 20,836 24,448 29,871 Total 73,700 76,13380,308 84,500 83,688 86,000 U.S. Census and 1995 Population Projections by Connecticut Census Data Center The potential changes in age composition within the overall population can then be used to anticipate futu re needs in the region: Age Projections – 2020 Population Projections by Age Groups Description Age Range Projection Needs Children 0 to 19 Possible peak around 2005 with a slow decrease to the year 2020 Child care, school facilities and recreation. Young Adults 20 to 54 Peak around 2000 with a slow decrease to the year 2020 Education, training, rental housing / starter homes, family programs, and trade-up homes Mature Adults 55 and over Grow by about 50 percent to the year 2020. Smaller homes, leisure programs and activities, elderly services Location 0-19 20-54 55+ Total Ansonia 4,437 8,268 6,155 18,860 Derby 2,053 5,960 4,275 12,288 Seymour 3,905 5,960 5,068 14,933 Shelton 8,244 16,150 14,375 38,769 13 Valley Communities Are Becoming More Racially Diverse While the Valley Region is still not as racially diverse as the State of Connecti- cut, the racial diversity of the region h as been increasing over the past 20 years. In fact, the growth of the non-white population over the last 20 years has been greater than that of overall population growth for the state, the region, and any of the Valley communities. Non-White Population Growth (1980-2000) (ranked by 2000 percent) Census Population 1980 % of Pop 1990 % of Pop 2000 % of Pop Increase 1980- 2000 Rate of Increase Connecticut 10% 13% 18% 84% Ansonia 1,599 8% 1,841 10%2,248 12% 649 41% Derby 293 2% 628 2%1,004 8% 711 243% Region 2,399 3% 3,771 5%5,5487%3,149 131% Shelton 345 1% 1,022 3%1,618 4%1,273 369% Seymour 162 1% 280 28 4% 516 319% Hispanic Population Growth – 1980-200 Number Rate Region 2,978 260% Ansonia 1,134 469% Derby 647 313% Seymou r 380 422% Shelton 817 161% Source: U.S. Census of Population Income and Housing As might be expected, there is a direct link between fam- ily income and the definition of affordable housing. Mod- erate and low income afford- able housing is housing which: • Costs no more than 30% of annual family in- come. Costs include mortgage, utilities, taxes, and insurance. • The annual income is calculated at 80% of the area median income for moderate housing, and 50% for low income housing. (State median income may be used if lower.) Adjustments are made to income figures depending upon family size. The Valley COG is within the Bridgeport metropolitan statistical area, thus the me- dian family income for that area, $75,200, applies. As- suming a 6% mortgage with a 30 year term, the following would qualify as affordable: • Moderate Income: $194,100 without down payment; $213,500 with down payment. • Low Income: $96,300 without down payment; $105,500 with down payment. Note that the above figures will fluctuate over time, varying with interest rates, and other factors. Source: US Census of Population Over the same time period, the population of Hispanic or Latino origin has been increasing even faster than the growth of the non-white population (see sidebar). Income Growth Is Lagging In Urban Areas Although per capita income in the region has remained at about 90 percent of the state average for the past twenty years, this masks the fact that only Shelton has experienced growth greater than the State average. Per Capita Income 2000 (ranked highest to lowest) 1980 % State Average 1990 % State Average 2000 % State Average Shelton $8,251 97% $20,256 100%$29,893 104% Connecticut $8,511 100% $20,189 100%$28,766 100% Region $7,739 91% $18,095 90% $25,770 90% Seymour $7,548 89% $18,031 89%$24,056 84% Derby $7,785 91% $16,819 83%$23,117 80% Ansonia $7,000 82% $14,833 73%$20,504 71% US Census This data likely reflects the availability of developable land in Shelton and the continued movement of more mobile , upper income households away from densely populated urban areas to places where new development is occurring. 14 Housing In The Valley Most Housing Growth Is In Suburban Areas The region had about 35,000 housing units according to the 2000 Census, an in- crease of nine percent since 1990. This growth rate is a decrease from the 15 percent growth in housing units between 1980 and 1990. Most recent housing growth occurred in Shelton and Seymour where more unde- veloped land was available. As a result, the housing stock in Shelton and Sey- mour is more likely to be reflective of current demand in the real estate market than in Ansonia or Derby. Age of Housing Stock 1980-2000 1960-1979 1940-1959 1939 earlier Shelton 36% 32% 19% 13% Seymour 24% 30% 26% 20% Connecticut 22% 30% 26% 22% Derby 20% 20% 35% 34% Ansonia 11% 24% 29% 37% 2000 US Census Urban Areas Have Older Housing Stock The more urban areas of Ansonia and Derb y have fewer single family residential units and higher renter occupancy than the outlying areas. In addition, housing prices in these communities have not a ppreciated as much as other communities due to the age and type of the housing stock. Median Housing Value 1980 Median 1990 Median 2000 Median Percent Change 1980-2000 Connecticut $67,800 $177,800 $166,900 146% Ansonia $59,200 $154,500 $140,000 136% Derby $60,600 $152,300 $136,600 125% Seymour $61,700 $166,200 $157,700 156% Shelton $80,600 $208,600 $217,717 170% US Census Also note that the highest proportion of “affordable housing” units (see sidebar) in the region are located in Ansonia and Derby. Regional equity in the supply of affordable housing remains an issue despite the State’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act (CGS 8-30g). 1980-00 Housing Growth Percent Change 1980- 1990 1990- 2000 Region 15% 9% Ansonia 3% 6% Derby 10% 6% Seymour 16% 8% Shelton 25% 13% Percent Single Family Units 2000 State of CT 60% Ansonia 48% Derby 47% Seymour 70% Shelton 78% US Census Renter Occupancy 2000 State of CT 33% Ansonia 44% Derby 42% Seymour 29% Shelton 18% US Census Affordable Housing Units that presently qualify as “affordable housing” are: • governmentally assisted, • financed by CHFA or FHA mortgages, • deed restricted to prices that meet the statutory definition (CGS 8-30g). Percentage Affordable Region 8% Ansonia 17% Derby 9% Seymour 5% Shelton 4% Source: 2000 Census, CT-DECD 15 The Valley Economy Industry Groups In terms of the industries employing residents, goods producing industries include: • Agriculture forestry, fishing, and mining, • Construction • Manufacturing Trade industries include: • Wholesale trade • Retail trade Service producing industries include: • Transportation • Communications • Utilities • Finance, insurance and real estate • Health services • Educational services • Public administration Other Considerations The 1998 Naugatuck Valley Corridor Study examined economic performance and economic potential in the Valley Region and found: • • Shelton is an economi- cally strong area in terms of earnings, the quality of workforces and the education and employ- ment status of the popu- lation, Ansonia, Derby, and Seymour have the least educated labor force, older populations and fewer workers employed in high status jobs. Employment Growth Has Been Uneven 1960 – 2000 Employment Growth According to the Connecticut Labo r Department, there were 35,160 non- agricultural jobs in the Valley region in the year 2000. This is an increase of 6,030 jobs (21%) since 1990. The adjacent chart shows how employmen t levels have varied by community since 1960. As can be seen, Shelton is the major employment center in the Valley re- gion and, in fact, it was the substantial employment growth there in the 1990s that masked flat or declining employ- ment in Ansonia and Derby. It should come as no surprise that the communi- ties with the most land available fo r business development saw the highes t increases in employment. 0 6,000 12,000 18,000 24,000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Ansonia Derby Seymour Shelton Employment Is Shifting From Manufacturing to Service Industries 1960 – 2000 Employment Type On an overall basis, the Valley econ- omy has mirrored state and national trends in the shift from manufacturing b usinesses to service businesses ove r the past 40 years. Interestingly, manufacturing busi- nesses in Ansonia and Derby have been particularly affected since 1960 (decline of 66%) while Shelton has seen recent increases in goods- producing employment. This is likely due to the availability of land that is available for newer and more efficien t manufacturing operations (one-story buildings designed for modern opera- tions). 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Goods Producing Trade Service Producing 16 Summary Of Findings The overall picture of moderate population, housing, and employment growth in the Valley Region masks some significant differences between Valley communi- ties. Shelton and Seymour have been experien cing growth due to the availability of developable land. On the other hand, Ansonia and Derby have not experienced growth due to the lack of available la nd and the available housing stock and busi- ness sites that are not well-configured for current market demands. In many respects, there is a growing disparity between urban and suburban areas in the Valley region. This disparity is reflected in the data on income, housing values, affordable housing units, employ ment growth, business tax base, and mu- nicipal revenues and expenditures. Poorer, more densely developed communiti es tend to have lower median incomes and may have difficulty generating add itional tax revenues. These communities have limited land to generate new hous ing and employment and produce tax revenue to support municipal services that could attract residents with higher in- comes. In turn, as those with higher incomes re locate to other communities with desired services or amenities, this may result in fewer dollars to provide community ser- vices for remaining residents that may have an increasing reliance on them. Residents that, based on projected demographics, will be older and less affluent. Over time, this disparity can lead to r acial, ethnic, and social barriers between communities and may result in policy differences that do not share common con- cerns. The purpose of this Regional Plan is to continue to bring together communities that are moving apart, by strengt hening regional cooperation around common goals that will benefit all communities. Although Shelton and Seymour have been fortunate in having land to develop in the last several decades, they also have urbanized centers that share the common problems of the highly urbanized Ansonia and Derby. Regional cooperation can promote changes that create diversity of housing and economic opportunity in every community. Regional cooperation can also create economies of scale that can create more efficient and economic public services. At both the regional and inter-town level, creative approaches to education can be beneficial to the Valley communities. Through such cooperation, more varied programs are possible and cost savings can result. 17 CONSERVE IMPORTANT RESOURCES 3 Overview Conservation issues in the Regional Plan include such things as natural resources and open space. Evaluation of these issues resulted in the following st rategies: • Protect Natural Resources • Protect Water Quality • Preserve Open Space & Create Greenways • Promote Historic & Agricultural Preservation • Protect Scenic Resources Housatonic River Historic Character 18 SheltonSeymour Derby Ansonia Legend Water Aquifer Protection Area Preservation Area Conservation Area Wetland Soils Regional Conservation and Preservation Areas 0 1 2 0.5 Miles Orange Milford Stratford Trumbull Monroe Oxford Beacon Falls Bethany Woodbridge 19 Protect Natural Resources and Agricultural Land Continue to promote activities that protect the region’s natural resources. Even though many parts of the Valley region are already developed, protecting natural resources is still important for pr eserving vital natural functions and guid- ing development in harmony with the natural environment. Some resources are so significant for preserving environmental quality that ef- forts must continue to ensure that these resources are preserved. On the other hand, the important functions of some natural resources can be conserved while compatible activities take place nearby. Resources For Preservation Resources For Conservation • Watercourses Inland wetlands • Floodplain (100-year, 1.0% probability) • Slopes exceeding 25 percent • Floodplain (500-year, 0.2% probability) • Watersheds for public water supplies • Areas of high groundwater availability • Unique or special habitat areas • Preserve or Conserve? Preservation means: • to protect from harm • to maintain intact or unchanged. Conservation means: • to save from loss or depletion • to avoid wasting. Webster’s Dictionary Unique Habitats Unique habitats and special areas are sites that have been identified in the Natural Di- versity Database prepared by the State Department of En- vironmental Protection (CTDEP) for: • known occurrences of state or federal endan- gered or threatened spe- cies • state special concern species • significant natural com- munities • unique natural or cul- tural areas When development or other activities are proposed in these areas, the applicant and/or the Town should con- tact CTDEP for additional information. The map on the facing page identifies the general location of these resources in the Valley Region. Promote Natural Resource Planning With the geographic information science (GIS) recently established by the Coun- cil of Governments, the tools are in place to help communities undertake more careful planning for natural resource pr otection. Valley communities should be encouraged to map, review, and adopt local ordinances and regulations and en- sure they provide adequate protection for these resources. Strategies 1. Assist communities in the region in identifying significant natural resources through the Geographic Information Science (GIS). 2. Encourage communities to protect important natural resources at time of de- velopment through appropriate regula tions and careful plan review. 3. Provide or promote education for resi dents about natural resource protection and the importance of conservation activities to the health and character of the community. 20 21 Protect Water Quality Promote continued improvement of water quality in the region by providing education and technical assistance to member communities. Non-Point Pollution For many years, water qual- ity protection focused on eliminating “point” sources of pollution (such as indus- trial discharges). With the progress that has been made in reducing or eliminating pollution from these sources through various governmental regulatory programs, attention has now turned to “non-point” sources. This includes storm drainage discharges, lawn fertilizer, septic systems, agricultural runoff, and similar sources. NEMO Programs The NEMO program (Non- Point Education for Munici- pal Officials ) provides tech- nical assistance in: • linking land use to water quality, • mapping and examining the issue of “impervious surfaces”, • natural resource based planning for land use, • conducting a natural resource inventory, • open space planning, including preservation of wetlands, farmlands and forests, and • protecting water re- sources through limiting non-point pollution from common home activities such as lawn care. Protection of water quality should be th e Valley’s most important natural re- source conservation priority. While this strategy is especially important given the need to protect the drinking water supply for residents, it is also significant in terms of protecting overall environmental health. Each of the region’s water resources (rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, water supply reservoirs, wetlands, swamps, marshes, ve rnal ponds, aquifers and bedrock frac- tures) plays an important role in the environment. While the Council of Governments has no regulatory authority in this area, it can be a leader in educating local communities and residents about actions they can take to improve water quality. There ar e a number of areas related to improving water quality that can be guided by regional efforts. Continue Educational Programs The Council of Governments should con tinue to promote water quality protec- tion through educational programs such as those offered by the University of Connecticut Agricultural Extension Center NEMO Program (see sidebar). These programs help communities determine how water quality can be protected and improved through a variety of strategies (see sidebar). 22 Assist Communities With Regulations NPDES Phase II The National Pollutant Dis- charge Elimination System (NPDES) is a series of regu- lations to address storm water runoff. Phase I of the program in- volved permits issued di- rectly by the Connecticut Department of Environ- mental Protection (CTDEP) to: • large municipal storm water systems, and • construction activities exceeding 5 acres of land. Phase II of the program will regulate discharges from: • small municipal storm water systems in “ur- banized areas”, and • small construction ac- tivities that disturb 1-5 acres of land. About 125 municipalities in Connecticut, including all communities in the Valley Region, will be required to regulate storm water dis- charges under the NPDES Phase II program. The permitting process is expected to require municipal storm water management plans addressing six program elements: 1. Public information and outreach 2. Public participation and involvement 3. Illicit discharge detec- tion and elimination 4. Construction runoff controls 5. Post-construction runoff controls 6. Pollution prevention such as Aquifer Protection Area Regulations The Council of Governments can also help municipalities by promoting local regulatory tools that will help protect water quality. Some examples include: Regulatory Set- backs and Buffers The Valley Council of Governments should assist each community in the region in adopting regulations that establish regulatory setbacks and buffers to protect waterbodies and wetlands areas. The width of the buffers should depend on the function of the resource to be protected. Erosion and Sediment Control Zoning regulations can regulate devel opment activities in order to mini- mize earth disturbance and require pr oper grading, seeding, and planting to prevent erosion especi ally in sensitive areas. NPDES Phase II Program The NPDES program will require Valley communities to prepare storm- water management plan s addressing identified issues (see sidebar). Permitted Uses (Zoning) Zoning can prohibit (or allow by special exception) certain uses that may pose a risk to water quality, especially in sensitive areas. In addition, site plan review procedures can addre ss storm water runoff practices and other activities in sensitive aquifer recharge areas. Lot Coverage (Zon- ing) Research has found that water quality can be adversely affected when impervious surfaces cover more than 10-15% of a watershed. Address- ing lot coverage and incorporating “b est management practices” (such as grassed swales or porous pavement, which permit natural infiltration of ground water at time of construction) can reduce polluted runoff into waterbodies, rivers, and streams. Aquifer Protection Program (Zoning) The State Department of Environmental Protection’s Aquifer Protection Program will require at least three of the Valley towns to designate a local “Aquifer Protection Agency” and adopt regulations for certain iden- tified commercial and industrial activ ities (such as gas stations, dry cleaners, etc.). Strategies 1. Promote efforts to protect and improve water quality. 2. Continue to promote and provide e ducational programs on protecting and improving water quality. 3. Encourage and assist communities in updating their regulations to protect and improve water quality. 23 Preserve Open Space & Create Greenways Assist Valley communities in preserving open space. Open space can help protect community character, enhance the quality of life for residents, conserve natural resources, provide wildlife habitats, provide fiscal benefits, shape development patterns, a nd preserve lands for recreational uses. Help Establish Priority A reas For Open Space Preservation The Council of Governments should help local communities identify and priori- tize desirable open space areas. The GIS system recently established will be an effective tool to promote local and regional open space priorities. One area for investigation might be “ex cess” water company lands (land not used for protecting an active public water supply). Another area might be in the crea- tion of “pocket parks” (small parcels in more densely developed areas). Connect- ing open spaces, as discussed in the following section, should also be a priority. Promote Greenways With Trails While the amount of preserved open space is important, the configuration of the open space system should be the critical consideration in open space planning by the Region. If parcels of open space can be interconnected into a cohesive over- all “greenbelt” system with a trail system, the value of the open space to residents and the impact on community character will grow exponentially. Provide Education On Mechanisms To Preserve Open Space The Council of Governments should also help local communities identify mecha- nisms to acquire and maintain open space. Typical mechanisms include: • • • • • • • • public acquisition, open space “set aside” in a development, private land trusts, “fee-in-lieu of” open space requirements, state and federal grants, purchase of development rights, and philanthropy, requiring conservation easements. • community fund-raising efforts, Strategies 1. Help each community prepare an Open Space Plan. 2. Open Space Importance At public meetings, held as a part of this planning process, Valley residents indicated that increasing the amount of preserved open space was one of the top issues they would like to see addressed. The Valley Region already has several state and local park areas, but the utility of these areas and distribution of open space throughout the region are issues to be ad- dressed. Greenbelts and Greenways A greenbelt or a greenway is a corridor of open space that: • may protect natural resources, preserve sce- nic landscapes and his- torical resources, or of- fer opportunities for rec- reation or non- motorized transportation • may be located along a defining natural feature, such as a waterway, along a man-made cor- ridor, including an un- used right-of-way, tradi- tional trail routes or his- toric barge canals • may be a green space along a highway or around a village. General Assembly Public Act 95-335 Greenway Opportunities There are three major green- belt opportunities in the Val- ley Region: • • • Naugatuck River Green- way (under design in Derby and completed in Seymour). Housatonic River Greenway (partially complete in Shelton). East Coast Greenway ( through the southern portion of Shelton). Promote greenways with trails as the overall open space vision. 3. Work with communities to ensure that appropriate open space preservation tools are available. 24 25 Promote Historic Preservation Help communities identify and protect historic resources. Preservation of historic resources is an important way for the Valley Region to provide a sense of identity and stability, preserve community character, and rec- ognize an illustrious heritage. Identify and Recognize Historic Resources Identification of historic resources is the first step in protecting the m. Even though some historic resource studies have been done in the Valley region, it may be time to complete and update surveys in each community. While there are some properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the State Register of Historic Places (SRHP), these designations a re largely ceremonial and provide little protection to historic resources. Still, since recognition can promote preservation, properties eligible for listing on the Na- tional or State Registers should be nominated. Districts contain a collection of notable resources while sites are prominent in their own right. Listings on the NRHP are automatically on the SRHP. Community National Register Districts State Register Districts Ansonia Elm Street Historic District Upper Main Street Historic District Derby Birmingham Green Historic District Seymour Downtown Seymour Historic District Shelton Huntington Center Historic District Community National Register Sites State Register Sites Ansonia Mansfield House Cliff Street Funeral Parlor Humphrey’s House Residence State St .@ Cliff St. U.S. Post Office Derby Howe House Kraus Corset Factory Osbornedale Sterling Opera House Harcourt Memorial Library Seymour Sanford-Humphreys House Seymour High School & Annex Shelton Commodore Hull School Dam at Shelton Plumb Memorial Library DeForest, Benjamin House. Mills, Rev. Jedehiah House St. Paul’s Church Shelton Canal (sections left) Huntington Windmill 26 Protect Historic Resources Each of the Valley communities may wish to select a different approach to pro- tecting historic resources. This is to be encouraged provided that historic re- sources are protected in a way that is appropriate. An effective tool for protecting historic resources is through establishment of a local historic district. Currently, there is one established district in the Valley Region, that of the Ansonia Historic District on Elm Street. Local districts pro- vide the most protection for historic resources since they require a Certificate of Appropriateness from a local Historic District Commission before exterior altera- tions can be performed. Establishment of a local historic district requires the consent of a majority of the property owne rs and adoption of an ordinance by the local legislative body. Local historic district commissions that operate in accor- dance with State guidelines can receive financial assistance through the State Historical Commission’s Certified Local Government Program. Another potential tool for protecting historic resources is through establishment of a Village District. A village district, which can be established by the local zoning commission, can also require approva l of exterior improvements. Village District designation must be in accordance with the enabling legislation (Public Act 00-145). A local historical society can also be an important tool for increasing the knowl- edge and awareness of historic resources in each community. Some societies (such as the Derby Historical Society) actually own historic properties, which they work to support. Continued suppor t of these organizations is essential in maintaining the historic character of Valley Communities. Strategies 1. Assist each Valley community in identifying and formulating a program to recognize important historic resources. 2. Provide technical assistance to local communities in establishing local his- toric districts or implementing Village District zoning, where appropriate. 27 Protect Scenic Resources Scenic Roads Scenic roads are one element that significantly contribute to the Valley’s character. As development of the region continues, scenic roads may be increasingly threatened by adjacent development or increasing traffic volumes. Communities can adopt a scenic road ordinance and designate scenic roads under Section 7-149a of the Con- necticut State Statutes. The Electronic Valley Web Site polled residents as to whether CT Route 34 should be des- ignated a Scenic Road. Of 80 residents who voted 60 said yes! For a local road to be desig- nated as a scenic road, it must not have intensive commercial development or high volumes of traffic and meet one or more of the fol- lowing criteria: • unpaved • bordered by mature trees or stone walls • no more than 20 feet in width • have scenic views • blend naturally into the surrounding terrain • parallel or cross over brooks, streams, lake or ponds. Help communities identify and preserve scenic resources. Identify Scenic Resources Scenic resources include scenic areas (areas that are viewed from elsewhere), scenic vistas (locations that afford scenic views), ridgelines river v alleys, and scenic roads. These resources enhance the character of the Valley Region. The first step in protecting such resour ces is to identify them. The Council of Governments should encourage each commun ity to identify its local scenic re- sources. Then, efforts can be devoted to protecting those resources. Preserve Undeveloped Land Communities can preserve farm, forest, and undeveloped land through the use assessment program (also known as Public Act 490). By reducing the cost of owning undeveloped land, such land may be left undeveloped for a longer period and contribute to the scenic nature of a community. The Council of Governments could work with each community to adopt an open space assessment policy (CGS 12-107e) that could expand this program to other lands in each community. Agricultural Features The Valley Region contains some remaining farm s with stone walls, barns, and other features that contribute to community character. The Council of Govern- ments could help local communities investigate the purchase of development rights to key farmlands (funded locally or through grants from the Connecticut Department of Agriculture). Strategies 1. Encourage local communities to identify scenic views, vistas, ridgelines and roads. 2. Work with each community to adopt an open space assessment policy, if considered desirable. 3. Assist communities in considering the acquisition of agricultural develop- ment rights. 28 ENCOURAGE “SMART GROWTH” 4 Overview The term “smart growth” has been coined to reference development patterns that encourage conservation of land and emph asize high utilization of existing infra- structure. In the Valley region, there ar e certain strategies that will contribute to “smart growth”: • Promote Development / Re development In Centers • Address Housing Needs • Guide New Development Community Centers Housing Needs 29 Transit Oriented Development (TOD)                                                                Transit systems (including rail or bus service) can provide a convenient transportation option and play a significant role in reducing traffic congestion. Su ccessful transit systems require development patterns and commun ity design that support transi t use. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) focuses a mix o f land-uses, such as residential, office, shopping, personal services, civic uses and ente rtainment within easy walking distance from a centrally-located transit station (about 1/4 mile, 5-10 minutes). TOD is designed to increase the number o f residences and potential trans it riders that have convenien t access to transit. A variety of moderate and higher density housing options are typically a pa rt of the mix. In addition, a complementary mix of uses, activities, and services located in close proximity makes it easier for TOD residents to commute to work, run errands, socialize and meet basic needs without always needing a car. Transit riders generally begin and en d their trips by walking. As a result, a network of safe an d convenient walkways that connect transit, residences and othe r uses, and an attractive pedestrian environment are a hallmark o f TOD development. A well-designed bicycle system an d facilities can increase the radius that people will travel to access transit. Community spaces, plazas, activities and attractive design are also important components in drawing people to TOD development.   The Valley region is fortunate to have the Waterbury Branch Line, Operated by Metro Nort h provide service through the entire area. All of the downtown areas of the four Valley municipalities are served and accessible by the transit system. In addition, the combination of the municipalities efforts in revitalizing downtown with mixe d use developments are already encouraging and fostering Transit and pedestrian oriented developments. The Valley region will continue to encourage and seek these types of developments that utilize the transit system. 30 Promote Development / Redevelopment in Regional Centers C Neighborhood Revitaliza- tion Zone (NRZ) Public Act 95-340 enables neighborhood planning committees to create strategic plans for the revitalization of designated areas. A strategic planning process involves interested persons in guiding the future of their area or organization. In a neighborhood context, it involves residents in outlin- ing their vision for the future of the neighborhood. A strategic plan differs from a land use plan in that it may also look at social or admin- istrative issues that are typi- cally outside the realm of a land use plan. Public Comments • • • Downtown has to create a destination for people to come to and linger. Downtown has to have more mixed-use devel- opment to promote vital- ity and pedestrian traf- fic. Downtown has to be come inviting. It has to be scenic, safe, and comfortable to become a focal point for the com- munity again. . ontinue to focus on urban centers by encouraging creative reuse of older facilities. Promote Adaptive Reuse Where Appropriate Adaptive reuse is the term applied to taking older buildings that may be function- ally obsolete and renovating them for a use that is more viable in today’s econ- omy. Adaptive reuse is a vital component of smart growth. It encourages more productive use of underutilized sites, “recycling of land”, and use of existing in- frastructure found in the Valley’s urban centers. Older buildings, especially larger industr ial facilities, may require public partici- pation to permit adaptive reuse to happen because of the expense involved. Communities could be educated and assisted by the Council of Governments as to how to set the stage for successful redevelopment efforts. Brownfield mitigation may be an essential first step in permitting adaptive reuse of some properties. The Valley Region must continue to seek funding to finance identification and clean-up of contaminated sites. Improving the basic infrastructure in areas wh ere reuse is a priority may also be necessary. It may be important to reconstruct streets, build sidewalks, create uni- fying streetscapes, or a park area to enhance the setting of the immediate neighborhood of a targeted facility. Communities committed to revitalization can consider being partners in financing and sometimes managing adaptive reuse projects. Educating Valley communities as to the forms that this partnership can take may be an important function for the Council of Governments. There are a variety of mechanisms that can be em- ployed (some already used by Valley communities) including: • tax incentives • lease back agreements • tax increment financing • use of a Development Authority • development partnerships • grantsmanship activities Undertake Neighborhood Planning To Facilitate Reuse Reuse of buildings, land, and public facilities in Valley communities may be fa- cilitated through a planning process that emphasizes neighborhood revitalization. Public Act 95-340 recognizes this and provides funding to create strateg ic neigh- borhood plans. (See side bar) Local officials are encouraged to meet with neighborhood residents and other community stakeholders to develop ideas to improve the safety, appearance, and economic vitality of a target area. 31 A target area is referred to as Neighborhood Revitalization Zones (NRZ). Desig- nation of NRZs by communities is an important tool to foster community reha- bilitation. Eligible neighborhoods should be identified and funding for strategic plans should be obtained. Neighborhood Revitaliza- tion Zone (NRZ) Public Act 95-340 enables neighborhood planning committees to create strategic plans for the revitalization of designated areas. A strategic planning process involves interested persons in guiding the future of their area or organization. In a neighborhood context, it involves residents in outlin- ing their vision for the future of the neighborhood. A strategic plan differs from a land use plan in that it may also look at social or admin- istrative issues that are typi- cally outside the realm of a land use plan. Consider Creative Rezoning To Facilitate Reuse Former industrial or commercial areas may have a different “highest and best” use at the present time. Such areas may be more appropriate for residential or institutional use or some type of mixed-use facility. However, such uses may not be feasible since the zoning regulations continue to designate the area for indus- trial or commercial use. Similarly, hi gher density residential areas may be better configured as a lower density area (or vice versa). As a result, it may be necessary or desirable to modify local zoning to allow more flexibility in uses as an area undergoes a tr ansition. Having a study that identi- fies the desirable land uses in a specific reuse area will help to guide the pro- posed reuse and recommend specific zoning solutions to address issues. Zoning techniques to facilitate desired land use changes as well as guid e the character and quality of redevelopment can include: Overlay Zoning can allow flexibility for “recycling” of certain older properties, which may be rendered obsolete because they cannot meet current zoning standards. • • • • Special Waterfront Zones can encourage more environmentally appro- priate water related uses along riverfronts. Village District Zoning (as allowed by Public Acts 98-116 and 00-145) calls for design review standards to be developed to improve and pre- serve the character of mixed-use types of centers. Design Review Standards enable local communities to promote good design needed to enhance character and revitalize local commercial dis- tricts. Different design standards ma y be appropriate in each commercial district in a community. The Council of Governments can assist communities with these techniques and encourage adaptive reuse where it w ill assist revitalization efforts. Strategies 1. Continue to provide leadership in mitigation of brownfield sites. 2. Assist communities in planning for improved infrastructure in older areas. 3. Promote financing mechanisms that can provide a public and private partner- ship in adaptive reuse. 4. Provide assistance to Valley communities in designating NRZ’s and other techniques to promote neighborhood and community revitalization. 32 Address Housing Needs Assist communities in planning for housing development that meets the needs of a variety of age and income groups. Anticipate Housing Needs Of An Aging Population The population of Valley residents aged 55 and over is expected to increase by about 50 percent in the next twenty years. While many of these people might be expected to stay in their existing housing units, others will be attracted to housing units more conducive for “empty-nesters” (families without children) and elderly people seeking services (congregate housing or assisted living). This demographic trend provides an opportunity for Valley communities to rede- velop some of their downtown areas for housing in a way that will meet residents needs and revitalize the historic downtown areas. Consider Rental / Starter Housing Opportunities There is also expected to be a demand for rental housing and starter housing due to the continued growth of the Fairfield County economy. With rail service and highway access, there is significant poten tial for addressing these needs in the Valley Region. The Valley communities have an opportunity to encourage or allow new devel- opments or redevelopment of existing build ings with rental apartments or con- dominiums. Such developments should be located in or near downtown areas to promote the revitalization of these areas. Consider Redevelopment Where Desirable When or where rehabilitation is not feasible, communities should consider ex- ploring, with private developers, the possibility of designating concentrated areas of sub-standard housing for redevelopment. As part of a Neighborhood Revitalizati on Zone Strategic Planning Process (see page xx for details on Neighborhood Rev italization Zones), demolition may be considered when housing cannot meet modern standards because of lack of park- ing facilities, lack of adequate yard space, or other inadequacies. The City of Derby is already embarking on redevelopment efforts in a five block area north of Downtown. The Council of Governments may assist other commu- nities in establishing strategic neighborhood plans. Plans that identify areas where redevelopment efforts are a soluti on to eliminating obsolete housing, and new housing can meet identified community needs. 33 Promote Programs that Improve Housing Condition Improving existing housing in the Valley is good public policy. Communities serious about improving housing conditions should strictly enforce building and zoning codes and consider adopting a “blighted building” ordinance to address properties where owners refuse to meet housing standards. The Council of Governments should take a lead role in ensuring that all Valley communities take advantage of programs av ailable to improve housing condition. Information and technical assistance can also be obtained from the Connecticut Department of Housing and Economic Development for: • Rental Certification Periodic inspection of rental units is done by the building inspectors and certificates of apartment occupancy is- sued. • Urban Homestead Program Transfers abandoned houses to residents with proof of ability to rehabilitate the property. • First Time Buyer Program Provides funds to assist first time buyers in purchasing a house. • Lead Paint Abatement Provides funding, contractors, and technical assistance in remodeling residences with lead paint problems. • Property Rehabilitation Program Provides financial assistance to homeowners with build- ing and fire code compliance issues. • Energy Conservation Loans Provides low interest loans to homeowners who fall within income guidelines for energy conservation rehab. • Home Investment Partner- ship (HOME ) Program participants must meet income guidelines and housing must meet affordability guidelines. • Homeowner Emergency Repair for Seniors Provides grants and low interest loans to persons age 62+ to repair home damage. • Housing Code Establish standards for occ upancy, condition, and main- tenance of housing. Strategies 1. Focus planning activities on increasing awar eness of the need for a variety of housing types in the region. 2. Encourage implementation of local inspection programs that target blighted properties. 3. Provide information to all Valley communities about special programs avail- able to fund and promote hous ing rehabilitation efforts. 4. Assist in the formation of strategic neighborhood plans that focus on rede- velopment in appropriate urban ne ighborhoods to address obsolete housing. 5. Encourage stringent enforcement programs regarding housing, zoning, and environmental resources so as to protect established residential neighbor- hoods and maintain a high quality of life. 34 Guide New Development Foster reliance on managed growth principles in planning for future devel- opment in the region. Since new development will continue to occur, the goal at the regional level should be to encourage new development is planned in such a way as to contrib- ute to community character and meet th e needs of the community. Building the capacity in each community for land use planning that relies on managed growth principles is important to the Valley Region as a whole. What are these principles? They are prin ciples that involve the building of new “places”(nodes) or expanding and improving existing ones including: Guiding New Multi-Family Development, to support nodes and to form transitions between commercial and residential areas, where there is existing infrastructure. • • • • Zoning Commercial Development in nodes or centers rather than in beltways along highways. Clustering Single Family Development to limit infrastructure im- provements and retain open space and natural resources. Retaining open space and public land in necessary places to support nodes. Strategies 1. Assist Valley communities in reviewing and revising land use regulations to create incentives for appropriate development of commercial areas: • Encourage local communities to consider allowing more mixed-use areas in the community. • Encourage local communities to plan future business developments in “nodes” and discourage “strip” type business development patterns. 2. Promote multi-family developments on sites where they can provide a transi- tion from activity centers to adjacen t residential neighborhoods and support commercial districts. 3. Discourage extensions of infrastructure and services to new developments at inappropriate densities, especially in outlying areas. 35 PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5 Overview Greater Valley This section of the Regional Plan considers the seven communities that form the Greater Valley Alliance for Economic Growth: • • • • • • • Ansonia Derby Seymour Shelton Beacon Falls Naugatuck Oxford These communities are work- ing together to promote eco- nomic growth in the region and share the locational op- portunities in the lower Fair- field County and Naugatuck River corridors. During the last century, the economies of the Valley region and the State of Con- necticut have gone through some substantial changes. Most significantly, the trend away from manufacturing businesses has accelerated in the last several decades and this has impacted the Valle y since it was configured to support a manufacturing-based economy. However, the changing economy also provides the opportunity for new economic growth in the Valley region. The Valley region is strategically located near growth corridors and can attract new growth of a different nature. The strategies recommended in the Plan include: • Seek Business Diversification • Providing for “Business Ready” Sites • Promote A Trained Workforce • Market the “All American Valley” • Support “Smart Growth” And A “Sense of Place” Local Business Local Business 36 Seek Business Diversification Promote activities that target bringing businesses in growing sectors of the economy to the region, and support emerging small businesses. Although manufacturing has been a major source of employment in the past, economic growth in Connecticut is not expected to occur in this sector of the economy. Although nurturing the existing manufacturing base in the Valley is important, other industry clusters must be developed to fuel economic growth. Small business development should not be ignored as another area where com- munity efforts can lead to increased employment and economic diversity. Configure To Attract Businesses That Are Growing In the regional economy, there are businesses that are growing more aggressively than others. These “industry clusters” (firms engaged in similar business activi- ties) provide the greatest opportunity to expand economic development in the region and provide employment, provide goods or services, and expand the tax base. The following chart identifies the fastest growing businesses in New Ha- ven County between 1992 and 2000. 2001 Economic Development Plan for the Borough of Naugatuck prepared by Mt. Auburn Associates, CT-DECD The growth momentum calculation in Table 8 is an indication of how well an industry is performing. This calculation takes into account both numerical and percent change in employment. Numerical change, when used alone, tends to overlook growth in smaller industries. Percent growth can overemphasize growth in smaller industries. The growth momentum calculation multiplies the numeric growth by the percent growth and thereby presents a more reliable index of per- formance. Of particular interest is that there is only one manufacturing industry group in- cluded. This reinforces the need to think about a more diverse economic base in planning for the Greater Valley area. 37 Target Specific Sectors Small Business Assistance Assistance that can be pro- vided by a Small Business Development Center can include: • • • • business plan prepara- tion, loans packaging (includ- ing technical assistance in applying for federal small business admini- stration loans), technology technical assistance, and, accounting and tax ad- vice. Major areas identified as targets for busin ess diversification in the area include: Business Cluster Description Requirements Information Technology Back-office and administrative processing operations con- nected to corporate headquar- ters Modern telecommunication infrastructure Warehousing / Distribution Support activities with larger regional facilities and more computerized operations Sites with transportation and telecommunications infrastruc- ture To attract such businesses (and other growing business sectors), the Valley re- gion should undertake programs to enhance the telecommunications infrastruc- ture in the Valley Region. Gaps in high speed access is a particular technology shortcoming that needs to be addressed. Support Small Business Development Nurturing small businesses can pay future dividends since much of the employ- ment growth in recent years has o ccurred in small businesses. The Valley Chamber of Commerce, with assistance from the Greater New Haven Founda- tion, is beginning to make resources available in the Valley for small businesses. Prior studies have recommended the establishment of a high-profile Small Busi- ness Development Center to serve the Va lley region (rather than relying on exist- ing centers in Waterbury, New Haven, and Bridgeport that do not adequately serve the Valley area). While funding to establish a Small Business Center has not been provided, em- phasis is currently on identifying what small businesses need and on making in- formation available in a central location, as well as electronically. Strategies 1. Promote regular updating of information about emerging business sectors in the region. 2. Encourage business diversification in the region while nurturing existing manufacturing businesses. 3. Support regional economic development efforts to solicit new businesses in the information technology and warehousing sectors. 4. Assist the Valley Chamber of Commerce in establishing a “Small Business Development Center” in the region. 38 Provide For “Business Ready” Sites Critical Attributes Attributes critical to attract- ing economic development include: • Timing (the ability to produce decisions and supporting materials quickly, expedited per- mit and approval proce- dures) • Locational Advantages (adequate labor supplies and skills, good trans- portation availability) • Site/Building Availabil- ity (an inventory of available, fully serviced sites and buildings). • Documentation (data on the community) • Incentives (tax abate- ment and business assis- tance programs). • A positive business climate that shows the community is seriously interested in the project. Business-Ready Sites Companies looking for a business location typically want to buy an existing lot, on an existing street, with existing utilities, and be rea- sonably certain that the site development costs will not be excessive. While there are some compa- nies that have the time and budget to install their own roads and utilities, they are increasingly rare. Complementary Business Sites In addition to the above sites, it should be noted that Oxford has in excess of 35 industrial lots available, and Nau- gatuck has 10 lots in its industrial park. Seek to identify and prepare business sites to take advantage of economic development opportunities, such as the continued expansion from the Lower Fairfield County Area. Business-ready sites are important for providing opportunities for economic growth in the region. Providing for “business-ready” sites requires having ade- quate land or buildings ready for business development. Shelton has experienced significant business growth over the past 20 years be- cause of the availability of undeveloped land zoned for business. In the older urban parts of the region, however, some buildings are not well configured for the needs of modern businesses and some of the sites have issues related to con- tamination from prior activities (called “brownfield” sites).Thus, the region n eeds to ensure that adequate sites (land a nd buildings) are available for business de- velopment by: • Providing for business-ready sites for new development, • Encouraging rehabilitation of existing buildings / sites for new uses. Sites For New Development As shown in the following table, the co mmunities in the Valley region have busi- ness and industrial parks available for ne w development. However, some of these areas are not “ready” for development, since they are not serviced by roads and utilities or, in some locations, remaining sites have severe topography or soil constraints. Ensuring that sites are, in fact, “business-ready” will facilitate the economic development of the Valley region. Business & Industrial Lands Summary Town Industrial/Business Park Acreage Available Sites Sewer Water Ansonia Fountain Lake Industrial Park 72 Yes Yes Yes Hershey Industrial Park 8 No Yes Yes Former Latex Site 10 Yes Yes Yes Derby Fountain Lake Industrial Park 117 Proposed Seymour Silvermine Industrial Park 115 Yes Yes Yes Kerite Industrial Park 72 Yes Yes Yes Hanes Property 100+ No Yes Yes Shelton Downtown Redevelopment 50 Yes Yes Yes Route 110 South Yes Yes Yes Route 8 Corridor Yes Yes Yes Oxford Industrial Park 300 Yes Yes Naugatuck Industrial Park 20+ Yes Yes Yes 39 Rehabilitate Existing Sites (“Brownfields”) Services provided by the Brownfields Pilot Program • • • • • • • • • • Site assessment grants Clean-up loans Brownfields site evalua- tions Consultation on tax foreclosure environ- mental considerations Site assessment man- agement Community outreach and educational semi- nars Regulatory interface and coordination Information and access to CT DEP, DECD and US HUD Links to developers Anti-blight management assistance on abandoned sites Densely developed areas in the Valley (s uch as Derby, Ansonia, and parts of Seymour and Shelton) have the most n eed to depend upon reuse of existing busi- ness and industrial sites to foster economic development. However, these sites typically contain existing buildings that may be functionally obsolete or may have real or perceived issues of contamination from prior uses. Remediation of “brownfield” sites promotes use of existi ng infrastructure and can assist in revi- talizing older downtown areas and riverfront property. The Naugatuck Valley Brownfields Program was established in 1996 (with state and federal funding) to bring experti se and financial resources to communities dealing with brownfield mitigation. This program, which is administered by the Valley Council of Governments, provides assistance for sites owned (or about to be acquired) by a municipality and for private sites in which the chief elected official has indicted a public interest. There are an estimated 100 underutilized or abandoned “brownfield” sites in the Naugatuck Valley area. The Brownfields Program works with the Non-Point Education For Municipal Officials (NEM O), sponsored by the UConn Extension Center, to establish best management pr actices to prevent any future contamina- tion of sites or nearby water resources. The Pilot Project has been called upon for assessment and in some supervision of clean-up activities in 14 sites in th e seven town Greater Valley area: Brownfield Pilot Program Sites 2001 Ansonia • Haddad Park Derby • O’Sullivan’s Island • Incinerator Assessment • Downtown Revitalization • 74 Grove Street • Hines Farm Seymour • Silvermine Landfill Shelton • Axton Cross • Downtown Revitalization • Riverdale Avenue Site Beacon Falls • Nutmeg Bakery Naugatuck • Parcel B Downtown Strategies 1. Continue regional efforts to identify and prepare appropriate sites for busi- ness use in the Greater Valley, including industrial park sites. 2. Promote “vision” plans for potential economic development areas to obtain conceptual ideas that will help gui de potential businesses and developers. 3. Continue to administer the Naugatuck Valley Brownfields Program to pro- mote cleanup and reuse of abandoned industrial sites. 40 Promote A Trained Workforce Training For Clusters The following clusters have been identified as business sectors will need better trained workers and where training resources must be channeled: • • • Manufacturing Information Technology Service Industries Employment Regions Establishing coordinated and effective employment and training programs is difficult in the Valley communities since it is in the middle of three economic regions (Bridgeport, New Haven and Waterbury). An education/training work- force sub-committee has been formed by the Valley Cham- ber of Commerce to help address this issue. Encourage organizations and programs th at improve the skills of the Valley labor force and address new skill requirements. A skilled workforce is a key component for attracting economic development. This section of the plan highlights recommendations from reports that outline what is needed to improve the skill level of the region’s workforce. Skill Mismatch Several reports (Naugatuck Valley Corridor, Economic Development Strategy Report) have identified a fundamental “m ismatch between worker’s skills and the local economy’s new skill requirements”. This includes such things as a “good basic high school education, computer sk ills and work ethic basics such as time- liness, attendance, dress, and communication skills”. The success of training and employment programs are made more difficult by the lack of affordable child care and the lack of public transportation to outlying ar- eas where new jobs are being created (especially for evening or night shifts). Integrate Education The challenge for the Valley is to match resources of many government agencies, local school systems, community colleges, and technical schools with business needs. A 1998 business survey indicates that employers in the Region rank edu- cation and labor training as their highest economic development priority. Local school systems are the fundamental training ground for employment. The WorkPlace Inc. 2000 Needs Assessment indicates that in general “educators lack awareness of basic skills needed in today’s economy”. School systems have been targeted by WorkPlace Inc. for training to improve their efforts in providing computer and other skills that will enhance employment opportunities. A “School to Work Initiative” is planned, that targets secondary schools and post- secondary schools, to increase communication between businesses and schools. Improving communication between major employers in the region and schools is a fundamental step in ensuring a trained workforce is available. Involving super – intendents of schools in local and regi onal economic development activities is a start in forging a new line of communication between business and education. With no college in the Valley area, relati onships should be explored with Nauga- tuck Community College in Waterbury Sout hern Connecticut State University in New Haven, and Sacred Heart University in Bridgeport (which is already making classes available in the Valley). 41 Entry Level Employment Regional Resources Tools and approaches that can help to make a better trained workforce include the following: Adult Education – Through GED, English as a second language and other special- ized training programs this is an essential provider of basic skills. • • • • One Stop Career Cen- ter, Ansonia – Work- place, Inc’s local office provides the unem- ployed with training and employment guidance. TEAM – Is the Work- place Inc’s major pro- vider of programs avail- able to assist welfare clients transition to work in the Valley Region. Greater Valley Alli- ance/Chamber of Commerce – The Chamber has taken a leadership role in work- ing with Valley busi- nesses to identify work skills needed. Emphasis has been on “incumbent worker training”, pro- viding new skills to ex- isting workers to fill jobs in specific indus- tries. Emmett Vocational Technical School. – Provides technical sec- ondary education aimed at producing work skills and is also involved in special adult programs offered through Adult Education. The 1997 Strategic Plan For The Central Naugatuck Valley, by Mt Auburn As- sociates, urges the region to “develop stra tegies to capitalize on the growth of the retail and construction sectors”. The major rationale for targeting these industries is the large number of jobs that do not require a highly skilled labor force. Workforce productivity is a major concern for such industries. Training that of- fers basic skills and creative approaches in programming are necessary. Incen- tives that lower employee turnover and promote stability within the job environ- ment are needed to attract prospective businesses. Identifying a career ladder, and providing more incumbent worker training, to allow for advancement from entry level employment would help ensu re better workforce stability and encour- age expansion of these business sectors. Training Programs WorkPlace Inc. is the CT Department of Labor’s sponsored agency primarily responsible for this effort in the Southwestern Area of Connecticut. The Greater Valley area must work together with WorkPlace Inc. to ensure programs and funding meet the region’s needs and build on the resources already available. Strategies 1. Promote programs that provide basic job skills and education. 2. Plan for improved day care and mass transportation services for the regions workers. 3. Encourage special training programs to support areas of employment that are important in the region: manufacturing, information technology, and service businesses. 4. Develop ways to better integrate lo cal educational systems and economic development activities. 5. Encourage colleges in the southwestern Connecticut area to develop a pres- ence in the Valley which would include offering classes locally. 6. Assist in efforts to develop career ladders for service sector workers and in- cumbent worker training programs. 7. Promote efforts to coordinate programs that provide employment, education, and special training programs in the region. 42 Market The “All American Valley” The Electronic Valley The “Electronic Valley” is a web site that provides link- ages to individual community web pages and highlights important information about the area. This site could also be used as an economic development tool to promote industrial and business parks, as well as other regional economic de- velopment initiatives. Enterprise Corridor Zone The Valley region is part of a state-sponsored Enterprise Corridor Zone that provides special incentives for busi- ness expansions and reloca- tions. Providing greater publicity about the Corridor is impor- tant in attracting new busi- nesses to the area. The corri- dor provides: • • • up to 80% property tax abatement for five years, up to 50% state corpo- rate business tax credit for ten years, and up to $2,250 grants for new permanent jobs cre- ated. Greater Valley Marketing Marketing the Greater Valley gives all municipalities a competitive edge: • the employee base in- creases by 31% through the addition of Beacon Falls, Oxford, and Nau- gatuck. • the Greater Valley al- lows for a wider choice of home and business locations. • the transportation net- work, especially Route 8, reinforces multi-town marketing above and beyound the COG mu- nicipalities. • Oxford Airport provides a strong competitive element to the alliance. Expand and support efforts to profession ally market business sites, initiated by the Greater Valley Economic Alliance. Professional marketing of business sites is best done at the regional level. Initial efforts in this area were directed through the Greater Valley Economic Alliance. However, this entity is no longer functioning and new regional marketing efforts need to be initiated. The 1997 marketing plan, prepared by The Connecticut Economic Resource Cen- ter (CERC), outlined a number of strate gies which should be reviewed and up- dated. As the following statistics and observa tions demonstrate, adding Naugatuck, Beacon Falls, and Oxford to the regional marketing of V.C.O.G. provides for a larger and more diverse economic presence: ƒ Employment and housing units within the 7 Town area are as fol- lows: Town Jobs Housing Units Shelton 21,180 14,707 Derby 5,080 5,568 Naugatuck 9.210 12,341 Seymour 4,470 6,356 Ansonia 4,430 7,937 Oxford 1,870 3,420 Beacon Falls 960 2,104 ƒ Oxford has three industrial parks at various levels of completion. These parks, when completed, will contain 35+ lots ranging in size from 2 to 20 acres. ƒ Naugatuck has 10+/- lots remaining in its industrial park adjacent to the Waterbury boarder. Although constr ained by topography, their excel- lent location relative to Route 8 marks them as an important economic resource There is a need to provide a more formal organizational structure to on-going efforts to market at the greater Valley. Consideration should be given to having the COG act as the lead agency in regional marketing efforts. The use of COG for administration of regional marketing efforts makes sense from the following perspectives: • the majority of funding for such regional efforts originates with government organizations. The COG is proficient at dealing with such organizations and securing government grant funds. • the COG truly operates at a regional level and has a sensitivity to providing regional assistance while allowing local efforts to proceed on local issues. 43 • the COG, through its membership of el ected officials, has access to leader- ship and decision making that can be very effective in bringing marketing ef- forts to fruition. Budget and staffing implications are an important consideration in the COG’s taking on this new role. Certainly they need to be explored prior to any final de- cision on this matter. Strategies 1. Promote the use of the “Electronic Valley” web site as a tool for marketing the region as a good place to do business. 2. Continue efforts to develope a logo and theme to market the area as a desir- able place to do business. 3. Participate in activities aimed at marketing available Greater Valley business sites outside the region. 4. Initiate regional efforts to contact local businesses to encourage retention of existing businesses in the area. 5. Develop a campaign to advertise the advantages to businesses of locating within the area’s “Enterprise Corridor Zone”. 6. Examine the feasibility of COG acting as the lead agency for collaborative regional marketing efforts. 44 Support “Smart Growth” And A “Sense of Place” Encourage communities to support growth and revitalization efforts that enhance “smart growth” and a “sense of place”. Downtown Redevelopment As “Smart Growth” If feasible, economic development should also be used to support the overall structure of the Valley region with its strong downtowns served by highways, transit and infrastructure. At public h earings held in Valley Region, improving the character and vitality of downtown areas was considered a high priority by Valley residents. The Main Street Program established by the National Trust For Historic Preser- vation has been used successfully throughout the country to revitalize downtown areas. The Main Street Program builds on areas with inherent assets: • Rich architecture • Connection with the past • Small businesses • Sense of place. An alternative to the Main Street Program would be a variation of the non-profit economic development corporation modele d on Shelton’s approach. The Shelton Economic Development Corporation (SEDC) acts as a catalyst for growth within Shelton by providing direct links to all local government and business leaders, as well as coordinating between city and civic organizations. The success of SEDC over its 20 year history suggests that its approach is effective. “Sense of Place” If feasible, economic development should also contribute to community character and “sense of place”. For example, building a monolithic glass office building in a downtown area would not be sensitive to the historic character and fabric of these areas. On the other hand, building a brick building with appropriate details that orients to the street and is ped estrian-friendly would help enhance the “sense of place” in these areas. Strategies 1. Encourage activities that support the overall structure of the Valley region with its strong downtowns served by hi ghways, transit and infrastructure. 2. Promote activities, such as the Main Street Program, that help revitalize downtown areas. 3. Encourage activities that contribute to the overall “sense of place” in Valley communities. 45 46 ADDRESS TRANSPORTATION NEEDS 6 Overview For the Region to achieve its smart growth strategies, the desired growth and economic development initiatives must be supported by the transportation sys- tem. This includes vehicular transportation as well as transit services (rail and bus) and pedestrian/bicycle facilities. • Improve Route 8 • Enhance Transit Service • Make Necessary Improvements on Major Roadways • Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Access Management Bicycle Facilities 47 Improve Route 8 Transportation Planning The Valley and Greater Bridgeport Planning Regions have joined together to form the Greater Bridgeport & Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). That agency is responsible for transportation planning and assigning transportation priorities in the region. Make improvements to Route 8 to improve access and service within and between local communities and other areas . Route 8 is the primary transportation spine in the Valley Region. Improvement of the traffic flow at Route 8 interchanges is essential to reducing congestion and improving service, safety, efficiency of traffic flow, and ultimately air quality in the Valley. Significant planning work has already been undertaken and the main priority is to complete any additional planning work and have the roadway improvements funded and built. Strategies 1. Promote efforts, to obtain designation of Route 8 as a federal interstate, to improve highway design, condition, and funding. 2. Continue to work with CT DOT to obtain funding to implement the changes designed for Route 8 interchanges. 48 Enhance Transit Service Transit Issues A July 2000 report done by Urbitran Associates for the CT Department of Transpor- tation outlines the following strategies for improving tran- sit operation in the Valley Region: • • • • • • Better coordination and marketing of existing services. Implementation of an Automatic Vehicle Lo- cation (AVL) System. Expansion of employ- ment based commuter shuttle services. Increased headways during peak commuter hours on the CT Transit fixed route system. Enhancement of railroad service to encourage more usage for trips within the Valley Corri- dor. Implementation of new bus service between the Valley Corridor and the Merritt Parkway Corri- dor as far as Stamford. Enhance transit services in the region. The Valley is fortunate to have bus and rail transit services provided by: • Valley Transit District (VTD), • Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority (GBTA), • CT Transit, and • Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro North). However, most of the service routes are configured for commuters and the quan- tity and quality of transit service for residents is modest. The fixed route ser- vices, both bus and rail, are infrequent. In addition, the Valley Transit District is struggling with limited resources to meet the needs of the ever increasing number of residents using dial-a-ride transportation. Regional planning efforts need to be devoted to supporting increased transit ser- vice and improving coordination between different transit modes. Strategies 1. Create, support, and enhance local bus transportation that helps achieve the region’s housing, employment, and economic development objectives. 2. Encourage preparation of a regiona l multi-modal transportation study. 3. Continue to work with Valley Transit to enhance local bus service. 4. Explore the feasibility of expanded employment shuttle service to serve more residents and destinations. 5. Continue to develop and encourage marketing efforts to increase mass transit use in the region. 49 SheltonSeymour Derby Ansonia BRIDGEPORT AVE CENTER ST MAIN ST Legend Waterbury Branch Line CT Transit Bus F Rt 15 GBTA Valley Transit Commuter Connect VCOG Road Network VTD 3/4 Mile ADA Service Area VTD Dial-A-Ride Service Area Valley Transit Service 0 21 Miles Map Prepared by: David Elder April 1, 2008 50 Make Necessary Improvements on Major Roadways Make necessary improvements on other major roadways in the region in order to enhance level of service, improve safety, and support desired growth patterns. Access Management Access management is an approach based on the prem- ise that since road capacity is limited and driveways and streets can reduce road ca- pacity, access to arterial roadways should be managed in order to preserve the ca- pacity of the roadway Access management tech- niques can include: • interior connections between parking lots • access from secondary streets • shared parking • sidewalks • driveway alterations. Access management tech- niques should continue to be promoted in commercial areas. The CT Department of Transportation has funded Access Management Plans on State Arterial Roadways in the past. Route 34 (Derby) About 86% of the accidents along Route 34 occurred in Derby, with most hap- pening along the section between downtown Derby and the Orange Town Line. Redesign of this section of Route 34 should be a state and regional priority. Route 67 (Seymour) Route 67 is a major highway that is adversely affected by the conflicts between through traffic and property access. This situation is expected to get worse as traffic grows in the corridor and this w ill impair economic development. Prepar- ing a corridor study for Route 67 (with emphasis on an access management pro- gram) will help to preserve capacity on the roadway while providing appropriate access to existing and planned uses along the corridor. Route 115 (Ansonia) A circulation plan should be a key part of a Downtown Enhancement Plan for Ansonia Main Street (Route 115). The plan should incorporate parking needs in the downtown area to enhance revitalization efforts. Route 110 (Shelton) Route 110 is the major route in downtown Shelton and the Regional Transporta- tion Plan and Shelton’s own Plan of De velopment recognize that redevelopment of this area will require intersection improvements, selected widening, and com- pleting the Howe Avenue Interchange. Pershing Drive (Derby) Pershing Drive, a major roadway in Derby, terminates at Route 8 with no con- nection to Downtown (Main Street). Construction of an access road paralleling Route 8 will help alleviate traffic at the Route 8/34 interchange area, improve accessibility, reduce congestion along alternate routes, and improve safety. 51 52 Minor Arterial Roads Unlike many other less urbanized regions in the state minor arterial roads in the Valley Region carry fairly high amounts of traffic. The 1997 Consolidated Traf- fic Plan for the Region indicates that the following roadways carry very high traf- fic volumes: • Bridgeport Avenue, • Commerce Drive, and Huntington Street in Shelton, and • Division Street on the Derby/Ansonia line. Various transportation plans have called for intersection improvements and, in some cases, widening of these routes. Access management plans are a good method to ensure efficient traffic flow, and alleviate accident conditions, on these generally commercial roadways. The Shelton Route 8 Corridor Study calls for the widening of Bridgeport Avenue to four lanes and this is supported by the Valley Regional Transportation Plan. Strategies 1. Work with CTDOT to design improvements (as necessary) to Route 34. 2. Work with CTDOT to prepare a corridor study for Route 67 (with emphasis on an access management program). 3. Develop a circulation plan for Main Street in Ansonia (Route 115) as a key part of a Downtown Enhancement Plan for this area. 4. Work with CTDOT to design improvements (as necessary) to Route 110. 5. Work with CTDOT to extend Pershing Drive to connection to downtown Derby. 6. Work with the local communities and CTDOT to address needed improve- ments on major roadways in the region. 7. Support access management planning for Huntington Street & Commerce Drive in Shelton and Division Street on the Derby/Ansonia Line. 8. Assist in obtaining state funding to implement plans to widen Bridgeport Avenue in Shelton to four lanes. 53 Enhance Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Sidewalk Guidelines Suggested guidelines for sidewalks include the follow- ing: • Sidewalks of generous width should be pro- vided and maintained throughout downtown areas. • Sidewalks should be required in commercial areas. • There should be side- walks on most arterial roads. • Sidewalks should con- nect commercial and neighboring residential areas. • Sidewalks should be considered in multi- family areas. • Sidewalks should link to open space trails. Trail Guidelines Suggested guidelines for trails include the following: • Trails should intercon- nect open space areas. • Trails should allow for multiple non-motorized use (including bicycles). • Trails should connect activity areas. • Trails should connect to sidewalk areas. • Trails should be of gen- erous width to accom- modate anticipated us- age. Continue to plan for pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide alterna- tives to automobile use. In recent years, there has been increased emphasis at the State and Federal levels on supporting alternatives to automobile tr ansportation. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities have been significant components of these efforts. Planning for transportation alternatives is an important activity of the Council of Governments as the designated transportation planning agency for the Valley Region. Sidewalks & Trails Sidewalks (on-street pedestrian facilities) provide for safe pedestrian movement, an important element in creating and maintaining an active and vital community. Trails (off-street pedestrian facilities) provide additional opportunities fo r pedes- trian circulation and opportunities for recreation. In addition, both types of routes can provide an alternative to vehicular transportation. With more side- walks and trails, the number of trips that require automobiles may be reduced and the opportunities for recreational use increased. Sidewalk requirements vary in each comm unity in the Valley, but what is essen- tial is that they be examined against a regional standard in recognition of their importance. Recent plans for revitali zation of downtown areas have generally made attractive sidewalk areas a priority. Interest in sidewalks should not stop in downtown areas. There has also been increasing interest in creating trails. Trails can significantly extend and expand the opportunities for pedestrian movement. The Council of Governments, as part of future transportation planning activities, should work with communities to create an inventory of where sidewalks and trails exist in each community and develop strategies to extend and interconnect them. 54 Bicycle Routes and Multi-Use Trails Bicycle Circulation Goals The 2001 Regional Transpor- tation Plan: Valley Region outlines three goals for pe- destrian and bicycle pro- gramming: 1. Accommodate current bicycle use on existing highway system in a safe manner. 2. Encourage and promote the increased use of bi- cycling and walking as a mode of transportation while enhancing safety . 3. Retain, maintain, and rehabilitate existing pe- destrian ways including staircases and sidewalks. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle routes can include “transportation” routes (for specific trips) and “recrea- tional” routes. While there may be more initial interest in recreational routes, focus should also be directed to- wards establishing transpor- tation routes. The types of bicycle facilities that may be appropriate in the Valley are: • shared roadway • wide curb lane • shoulder bikeway • bike lanes • multi-use path. Better signage and marking of bicycle routes is an impor- tant step towards reducing conflicts and encouraging more bicycle use. The Consolidated Transportation Plan (for the Greater Bridgeport & Valley Re- gions) talked about the need to establish priorities for a network of on-street bi- cycle routes and special trails located on a separate right-of-way. Concept plans were incorporated including both a network of interconnected on-street b icycle routes and special trails. Further refine ment of this mapping could and should be done as part of the GIS Mapping Program being implemented by the Council of Governments. State, federal, and local resources must be mobilized in a coordinated fashion in order to realize the regional goals for non-vehicular transportation. Current fed- eral funding programs reflect these goals and projects in the region that will be funded under these programs include: • recreational trails in open space areas in all four municipalities, and • sections of multi-use trails in Ansonia, Derby, and Seymour that are part of the Naugatuck River Greenway. Of even more importance, however, is a commitment on the part of local and state governments. Adequate shoulder widths, smooth clean, riding surfaces and a suitable type of bicycle facility (as indicated in the sidebar) should be provided, where appropriate, along roadways when road construction and maintenance is done. Priority consideration should be gi ven to establishing bike trails along ma- jor roads that service areas of local activity (business areas, schools, parks, etc.). Strategies 1. Conduct an inventory of where sidewalks and trails exist in each community and develop strategies to extend and interconnect them. 2. Assist communities seeking funding for sidewalks and trails in open space/recreational areas. 3. Continue to plan for multi-use trails within open space and recreation areas that accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 4. Provide improved mapping for the Bicycle Route Concept Plan developed for the Region, as part of the Consolidated Regional Transportation Plan . 5. Encourage provision of safe, convenient bicycle facilities (including signage, pavement marking, etc.) when improvements are undertaken on major roads. 6. Support provision of public facilities such as bicycle racks, where appropri- ate, to encourage bicycle use. 55 SheltonSeymour Derby Ansonia Legend Recreational Trails Committed Constructed Potential VCOG Road Network Valley Towns Water Body Valley Bike and Pedestrian Recreational Trails 0 21 Miles Map Prepared by: David Elder April 1, 2008 56 ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE 7 Overview Infrastructure is also an important ingredient in the Region’s smart growth strate- gies. Since infrastructure (such as public water and public sewer) can be used to support and guide desired land use and deve lopment patterns, it is an important part of the Regional Plan. • Improve Public Water Service • Upgrade Existing Sewage Service Facilities Public Water Service Public Sewer Service 57 Improve Public Water Service Improve public water service in the region. Public water service can supply adequate potable water for fire protection, resi- dential, and business needs, and support the desired development patterns. South Central Regional Water Authority (RWA) services close to 100% of the population in Derby and Ansonia and the 2000 Water Supply Plan indicates that there is more than adequate supply to meet curre nt demand and the pro- jected population through the year 2040. Aquarion Water Co. services 67% of the population in Seymour and 76% of the population of Shelton. The 2000 Water Supply Plan for Aquarion indicates that supply sources are considered adequate until 2040 for the Main System (servicing Shelton) and the Valley System (servicing Seymour). Both systems have emergency back-up service through interconnections with each other and other nearby water systems. Although there does not seem to be issues related to water supply there are issues related to water quality in the region. Protecting the quality of the water supply has been a long-standing priority in the region and much has been done to reduce specific agricultural and industrial pollution problems. As attention is directed in the future to non-point pollution sources (see the Conservation section of the Plan), this will also pay dividends in protecting the quality of the public water supply as well. The Council of Governments should encour age continued efforts to improve wa- ter supply protection in the region. Strategies 1. Encourage communities to monitor ma intenance of private septic sys- tems that can cause pollution of watershed areas feeding public wells. 2. Educate local communities about the ongoing need to protect water qual- ity from non-point pollution, stemming from urban runoff, especially in densely developed areas of the Valley. 3. Assist with implementation of state mandated aquifer protection regula- tions, in the vicinity of public wells. 4. Continue to review water utility plans as submitted. 58 59 Upgrade Existing Sewage Service Facilities Concentrate sewer activities on upgrading existing facilities and expanding service area to meet economic development and housing priorities. Each town in the region has a wastewater treatment plant and approximately 73% of the households in the Valley Region are served by sewers: • Ansonia and Derby have more than 95% of housing units served by sewer, Seymour has 70% served, and • • Shelton has less than 50% served. In Valley communities, issues relating to sewer have mainly to do with upgrad- ing inadequate and/or aging pipes, upgr ading pumping stations, and eliminating combined storm water and sanitary sewer lines. Ansonia, Derby, and Seymour have each identified areas where limited sewer expansion is desired. Shelton, on the other hand, is evaluating a significant sewer expansion that could result in a $13,000,000 expansion of the Sh elton Sewage Treatment facility and over $6,000,000 in improvement that are needed to the collection system. Valley communities must continue to emphasize reuse of brownfield sites and downtown revitalization efforts to promote “smart growth”. Utility plans that support reinvestment in older areas should be given the highest priority for public investment. Sewer expansion plans should be targeted to help implement eco- nomic development and housi ng diversity priorities. Strategies 1. Continue to encourage the provision of safe and efficient sewage disposal to protect public health and water quality. 2. Encourage each community in the regi on to have a program to address capac- ity issues related to inflow, pipe cleaning, and pump stations. 3. Encourage future sewer expansion to help implement the economic devel- opment and housing diversity priorities of the region. 60 PROMOTE REGIONAL PROGRAMS 8 Overview Of the thirteen planning regions in C onnecticut, the Valley Region is the small- est. This provides the Valley Region with a unique opportunity to foster good communication and achieve important regional goals. Better coordination and coope ration within the region and between communities, can fuel economic vitality by more efficient use of limited resources such as va- cant land, infrastructure improvements, municipal expenditures and others. Re- gional cooperation can be aided by activities that: • Strengthen the Council Of Governments • Promote Regional Magnet Schools • Support Regional Agencies 61 Strengthen the Council of Governments Duties of Regional Councils Section 4-124d of the CT Statutes outlines the general mandate of Councils of Elected Officials and Coun- cils of Governments: The council shall consider such matters of a public na- ture common to two or more members of the council as it deems appropriate, including matters affecting the health, safety, welfare, education, and economic conditions of the areas comprised of the members Inter-Municipal Services The Local Government Co- operative Venture in Con- necticut Report , published by the CT Commission on Inter- governmental Relations, in June 2000, lists the following municipal service functions that are most often shared by communities: • • • • • • • • Information Technology Financial Services Assessment Building Codes En- forcement Education Civil Preparedness Sanitation Water Pollution Control Provide the committed leadership a nd resources necessary to implement strategies that can unite local communities around common interests. The Valley COG is poised to become a st rong source of leadership in the region and benefit from the direct involvement of chief elected officials. This leadership will be effective if based on implementing strategies that will unite communities around common interests. Regional Strategies Connecticut’s municipal leaders have a strong commitment to regional ap- proaches if they provide cost-effective solutions to local problems and address initiatives that go beyond municipal boundaries. This plan outlines strategies in areas where regional cooperation can be most effective. Regional And Local Capacity Establishing an appropriate staffing stru cture and providing adequate financial resources will be essential to implementing the recommendations of the Regional Plan and addressing other regional issues. The Council of Governme nts could also identify areas where shared staff can increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and level of service provided by individual municipalities. Resource Strategies Budgets for Council of Governments vary depending on the size of the area they incorporate and the activities they oversee. In addition to federal, state, and local funding, the following methods of funding activities can be utilized: User Fees can be levied for services provided such as waste collection operations and special educational programs. • • • • Private Contributions from foundations and corporations can be util- ized to support staff to initiate specific programs. In-Kind Contributions can be solicited from municipalities, private or- ganizations, and businesses in the form of donated staff services, meeting rooms, postage, and other resources to assist in regional efforts. Partnerships with other agencies and businesses may be a good way to capture resources needed to implement common strategies. 62 Multi-Regional Jurisdictions In the absence of county government and mandatory regional organizations many single purpose inter-municipal and regional bodies have been established. A study prepared by the Connecticut Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations reported that approximately 300 new local government joint ventures were started since 1996 and there are currently over 1,000 joint ventures. The great number of regional interests in the state creates a jurisdictional issue for the Valley Region. Each cooperative effort seems to involve the Valley Re- gion in a different jurisdiction. As an illustration consider the follo wing: Regional Education ventures are jointly administered with New Haven County Communities. • • • Transportation funding and planning is done jointly with the Greater Bridgeport Area. Economic Development Activities are shared with other towns in the Central Naugatuck Region, and the Naugatuck Valley Commu- nity Development Corporation encompasses the Valley Towns. The ability of the Council to implement regional strategies will depend on having the ability to effectively coordinate a nd advocate on behalf of the Valley Region on a multi-regional scale. Providing the structure and resources to do this is es- sential to consider as the Council of Governments is organized. Strategies 1. Consider the level of staffing and fi nancial resources needed to make the Valley Council of Governments an effective organization. 2. Identify regional strategies that can unite communities and the resources that can be used to implement these strategies. 3. Evaluate what local municipal functions can be enhanced by sharing staff and other resources through regional efforts. 4. Determine how to best achieve linkages with organizations that serve more than the Valley Region. 63 Promote Regional Magnet Schools Promote creative programming through regional magnet schools to provide for improved education and support economic development activities. It may be difficult for the region to address some of its educational and work- force issues with different school districts. The Council of Governments may wish to consider encouraging a regional strategy for education that could: lessen the education financing burden of individual communities, • • • • • provide better coordination between education and workforce needs, and improve the quality of education. Magnet schools can be a large part of this strategy. Area Cooperative Educa- tional Services (ACES) in New Haven h as been the regional organization respon- sible for establishing magnet schools for the Greater New Haven Area, which includes some magnet school projects in the Valley Region: Shelton participates in a magnet arts school located in New Haven. Ansonia and Derby are involved in planning a magnet grade school with four other communities. The inter-district magnet school approach is a way of stimulating academic achievement, coordinating academics with work related skills, and providing for a more diverse student population. Schools are usually organized around a par- ticular academic theme such as cultural activities or math & technology. Planning should be done to determine what school needs could be met by magnet schools. Grants are given by the State for magnet school planning. State financ- ing facilitates the development of magnet school programs and State bonding has helped pay the cost of building facilities. Incorporating regional magnet educa- tion can be an important element in providing increased educational capacity without making large local investments. Strategies 1. Formulate a plan to enhance local education through the establishment of regional magnet schools in the Valley. 2. Support economic development goals, fo r a better trained workforce, by identifying skills that can be the focus for regional educational efforts. 64 Support Regional Agencies Continue to support regional organizations, promote coordination of their efforts, and pursue funding for regional interests. The “All American City ” award given to the Lower Naugatuck Valley celebrated the Region’s recent accomplishments in uniting around common goals. The Val- ley Council of Governments can be the coordinating body for the many organiza- tions serving the Region and surrounding communities (some are listed below): Alliance for Economic Growth (Shelton) The Valley Chamber of Commerce brings together public and private economic development interests in the Lower Naugatuck Valley and sponsors special programs. Brownfield Pilot Project (Derby) Administered by the Council of Governments, environ- mental contamination identifi cation and remediation assis- tance is available to 10 towns in the Naugatuck Valley. Electronic Valley The Electronic Valley is the Valley’s link to the world-wide web (www.electronicvalley.org). Valley Transit (Derby) Provides commuter shuttle service and paratransit services to the Valley Region. Valley Arts Council (Shelton) Administered through the Valley Chamber of Commerce to initiate and support art programs in the Valley. Valley Council of Health & Human Service Organizations Identifies priorities for social service funding and coordi- nates programming in the Valley. Valley Needs & Opportunities Project (Ansonia) This project is directed at bringing together common inter- ests and determining priorities for future private foundation funding in the Valley. Workplace, Inc (Ansonia) The Valley’s federally funded one-stop center for employ- ment and job training needs with a local center in Ansonia. Lake Housatonic Authority (Derby) Provides environmental contro l, water management, and boating laws for this water body located in the Valley. Southwest Conservation Dis- trict, Inc. (Wallingford) Advises the DEP and provides local assistance regarding soil erosion and water conser vation problems. These dis- tricts are being reorganized around watersheds. Naugatuck Valley Health Dis- trict (Seymour) Is the local health district for six towns in the lower Nauga- tuck Valley. Strategies 1. Strive to find effective regional solutions to significant governance issues and establish funding priorities to implement needed strategies. 2. Reduce or minimize duplication of services by encouraging regional organi- zations to coordinate activities. 3. Support regional organizations necessary to achieve the goals and priorities established by the Council of Governments. 65 Enhance Cultural Resources & Facilities Promote a sense of vitality in the region, and enhance community character, by supporting the expansion of cultural and arts facilities. The recently completed Lower Naugatuck Valley Arts & Cultural Assessment , found that “most people were unable to identify the region as having an arts or cultural identity, and admit that they travel to New Haven, Waterbury, Bridge- port or New York City to enjoy…arts activities”. In response to this study, The Valley Arts Council was established with funding made available by a Matthies Foundation Grant. The Council will lead efforts to revitalize cultural and art facilities and prepare a two year strategic plan. Sug- gested activities include: Performing Arts Center The Sterling Opera House (Derby), the Strand Theater (Seymour), and Center State on Center Street (Shelton) have been identifie d as two facilities with the potential of housing community and major performances and rejuvenating the arts presence in the Valley. Visual Arts Facilities Establishment of a large gallery would allow for the display of works by the region’s visual artists on a consistent basis and also highlight the Valley’s art community. Arts Districts An Arts District where a local building is redeveloped as studio / living / gallery space for artists can help to rejuve- nate neighborhoods and communities. Arts Education Establishment of an arts magnet school, where arts perform- ances and classes could be coordinated, would enhance visibility and impact of an arts movement in the Valley. Strategies 1. Support priorities established by the Valley Arts Council. 2. Promote establishment of a performing arts facility in the Valley. 3. Promote a permanent location for visual arts to be displayed in the region. 4. Assist the Valley Arts Council in id entifying areas where adaptive reuse of historic buildings, for arts related uses, can launch an art district. 5. Work with local communities to establish an arts magnet school to improve arts education in the region. 66 FUTURE REGIONAL FORM 9 Overview The recommendations of the preceding chapte rs are combined in this chapter to present the overall future regional form for the Valley Region. The Concept Of Regional Form The future regional form was developed by considering: • existing land use patterns, environm ental constraints, and existing and proposed infrastructure (water and sewer), • local desires (as evidenced by local Plans of Conservation & Devel- opment and local zoning regulations and maps), • State guidelines (as presented in the State Plan of Conservation & Development), and • regional considerations (such as regional land use issues, regional goals and policies, and a concept of the desirable regional form). The basic concept of the regional form is to focus development in established community centers along the Naugatuck Rive r. Additional development to serve the needs of residents should be located in growth areas where indicated in the Region. Other areas are anticipated to be developed as primarily residential areas with some institutional uses and neighborhood trade and service establishments, typi- cally restricted to major intersecting ro ads. Areas of desirable open space or sig- nificant natural resources are avoided. Under the Plan, land use intensity should be highest in the regional centers. Land use intensity will also be high in areas served with adequate infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation) and in community centers and employment centers. Land use intensity should decrease outward from the regional center and from the sub-regional centers. Future development in the rural areas should be at lower densities. Major infrastructure investments (water, sewer, transportation) are not anticipated. 67 OVERVIEW OF LAND USE CATEGORIES DEVELOPMENT AREAS Regional Cores Areas of mixed uses that are the primary focus of employment, commercial, institutional, and cul- tural activity in the Region because of the significant investment in infrastructure, facilities, and services. These areas have the intensity of development to warrant local bus service. The Regional Cores include the various downtown areas. Major Economic Areas Areas outside the regional cores that have developed, or are intended, as major economic develop- ment locations in the Region. These areas ma y support limited transit (such as commuter buses and/or para-transit). Water and sewer infrastructure are typically available. Major Economic Areas include industrial pa rks and other economic development areas. Growth Areas Growth areas are intended to accommodate the bulk of future regional growth. Water or sewer infrastructure is, or could be, provided and transit service may be available. CONSERVATION AREAS Rural Areas Areas where rural character should be preserved. Any development should respect natural resource and environmental constraints. May contain farms, residential uses, and small, interspersed com- munity service areas. Intensity will depend on the availability of infrastructure and other appropri- ate support services. Open Space Areas intended to be preserved as open space or recreational uses (such as local, state, or federal parks, land trust preserves, or recreation facilities). May also include some areas perceived as open space that are in private ownership or use (such as water companies, golf courses). 68 69 OVERVIEW OF INTENSITY Land use intensity is highest in the urban areas due to the availability of adequate infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation) and compatibility with existing de- velopment. Moderate land use intensity will occur in areas with adequate exist- ing or planned infrastructure. This inte nsity pattern will promote public transpor- tation, energy conservation and air quality goals. Land use intensity should decrease outwa rd from the regional core and sub- regional centers. Future development in rural areas should be at lower densities. Major infrastructure investments (water, sewer, transportation) are not antici- pated in conservation areas. The lowest densities in the Region will o ccur where there is no infrastructure and where natural resource constraints are elevated. These areas will retai n an open space character with limited development except in pockets of good soils. RELATION TO OTHER PLANS This Plan was compared with local Pl ans of Conservation & Development, the existing 2005-2010 State Plan of Conservation & Development.This Regional Plan was found to be generally consis tent with those plans. Any inconsistencies can be generally attributed to: • the scale of the mapping, • differences in definitions of desirable uses or development densities, or • regional (as opposed to local or state) perspectives about how the Valley Region should grow and ch ange in the coming years. 70 IMPLEMENTATION 10 Overview The Valley Council of Governments will have the primary responsibility for co- ordinating implementation of the Plan's recommendations. Some of the recommendations in the Regional Plan can be implemented by the COG through funding requests, regional refe rrals, application reviews, and other means. Other recommendations require the cooperation of, and actions by, local boards and commissions in each community. Still other recommendations will be implemented with the assistance of state or federal agencies that will consider the recommendations of this Plan in their re- views and proposals. If the Plan is to be realized, it must serve as a guide to all residents, communities, commissions, boards, agencies, regional orga nizations, and individuals interested in the orderly growth of the Valley. Regional Tools Due to the unique circumstances in Connecticut (small state, no county govern- ments, regional planning organizations with advisory powers), limited tools are available at the regional level to implement the Plan. Most implementation efforts involve consensus building among local, state, and/or regional agencies in order to accomplish objectives. As a result, this Plan will serve as a guide in setting priorities, reviewing state, regional and local pro- posals, implementing programs, and assisting member communities. Situations where the Regional Plan will be used by the Regional Planning Or- ganization include review of: • projects that request federal or state funding, • proposed inter-local agreements (CGS 8-35d), • developments with inter-municipal impacts (CGS 8-3b and 8-26b), • funding of municipal economic development projects (CGS 32-224), • review of local Plans of Conservation & Development, • review of proposals requested by member municipalities, and • as a source of information, both locally and nationally. 71 Community Tools Several tools are available to implement the Plan's recommendations at the com- munity level. These tools can influence the pattern, character, and timing of fu- ture development in the Valley Region – either public or private – so that it is consistent with and promotes the goals , objectives, policies, and recommenda- tions of the Regional Plan of Conservation & Development. Available tools in- clude: • the local Plans of Conservation and Development, • Zoning and Subdivision Regulations, • Capital Improvements Program, and • Referral of Municipal Improvements (CGS 8-24). 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. Provided that the local Plan considers the recommendations of the Regional Plan, this will help accomplish the goals and objectives of the Regional Plan. Three local plans were prepared in conjunction with the regional planning process as part of the “Smart Growth for The All American Valley Initia tive”. This joint planning process will hopefully only be the start of local and regional efforts to work together on plan- ning issues. Zoning and Subdivision Regulations The Zoning and the Subdivision Regulations provide specific criteria for land development at the time of applications. As a result, these regulations are impor- tant tools to implement the recommendations of the Plan. However, this is only true if the regulations reflect the recommendations of the Plan. Capital Budget The Capital Budget is a tool for planning major capital expenditures of a munici- pality so that local needs can be identifie d and prioritized within local fiscal con- straints that may exist. The Plan contai ns several proposals that may result in the expenditure of town funds. The Plan recommends that these (and other) items be funded as part of the Capital Budget. Referral of Municipal Improvements Section 8-24 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that municipal im- provements (defined in the statute) be referred to the Planning & Zoning Com- mission for a report before any local acti on is taken. A proposal disapproved by the Commission can only be implemented after a two-thirds vote by the Repre- sentative Town Meeting. 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. 72 State Tools The Office of Policy & Management (OPM) is responsible for preparing the State Plan of Conservation & Development (C&D Plan). The C&D Plan is con- sidered by state agencies when undertaking projects in Connecticut. The Re- gional Plan will be considered by the Office of Policy & Management in prepar- ing future C&D Plans and in considering Valley projects. State actions that must consider the C&D Plan include: • Acquisition / development / improve ment of real property (when more than $100,000), • Acquisition of public transportati on equipment or facilities (when more than $100,000), and • The authorization of any state grant (when more than $100,000) for the above activities. Federal Tools The Regional Plan may be referred to by federal agencies when considering ma- jor projects in the Region. The Regional Plan has the greatest influence on trans- portation projects. Since The Valley Regional Planning Agency is the transportation planning agency for the Region, the Regional Plan of Conservation & Development, the Regional Transportation Plan, any special studies, and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program provide important information to the Federal Highway Administration, th e Federal Transit Administration, and other transportation agencies . Summary In summary the regional planning process will be most successful when it serves as the foundation for implementation of the Plan’s recommendations. This can be encouraged by: 1. Keeping local officials familiar with the Regional Plan by providing a copy to newly elected or appointed officials in the Region. 2. Keeping the Plan current, relevant, and “user-friendly” in order to promote its effectiveness at the local and regional level. 3. Working to educate local officials and agencies about how the Plan can be of value to their community. 4. Demonstrate the value of the Regional Plan by showing how its recommen- dations have been implemented to guide local and regional action. 73 11 CONCLUSION The Plan of Conservation & Development has been prepared to meet the chal- lenges that will confront the Valley Region in the future. In preparing this Plan, a great deal of information was collected, presented, re- viewed, and discussed. Local plans of conservation and development were pre- pared for Ansonia, Derby, and Seymour in order to update plans that were quite dated and develop an unders tanding of issues facing the communities in the re- gion. The Plan of Conservation and Development for Shelton was also reviewed to help understand the issues that they f ace. Public meetings were held to assess issues in the region and local communities. Through this work, an overall vision and general goals and polici es were developed. Finally, specific strategies were prepared and refined. This information is summarized throughout this Plan. However, it is important to realize that the most important step of the planning process is implementation of the recommendations. While the task of implemen- tation rests with all residents of the region, the realization of the Plan is orches- trated by the Council of Governments. The Plan is intended as a guide to be fo llowed in order to enhance the economic conditions and the quality of life in the Valle y Region. It is intended to be flexi- ble in order to allow adjustments in th e manner that specific goals and objectives are achieved while maintaining stability in the long-term goals of the region. During the next few years, some of the goals will hopefully be achieved, some circumstances will undoubtedly change, and some conditions will certainly arise that will suggest that it is time to reconsid er the Plan or some of its elements. Such situations are to be welcomed since it will mean that the Plan is being used. Programs that help achieve consensus, establish regional goals, and promote community welfare will all turn out to be positive steps in the history of the lower Naugatuck Valley region. 74

Regional Plan of Conservation and Development 2008

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