OVERVIEW
A key feature of HVCEO Plan categories is their ability to be readily compared with those in the Conservation and Development Policy Plan for Connecticut maintained by the CT Office of Policy and Management. This is useful and deliberate, as state statutes require that the regional plan and the state plan be compared and the differences defined.

The state plan was first released in 1973 and has been updated regularly. The current version, for 2005 - 2010, was approved in 2005 by votes of the Connecticut House of Representatives and State Senate. Purposes of the state plan are to guide state agency decisions. It is especially powerful as a guide to state regulators in the approval process for sewer main extensions.

The CT OPM web site provides convenient town and city excerpts of the state plan map. These are nicely accessible follows:

Bethel on State Map ... Bridgewater on State Map ... Brookfield on State Map
Danbury on State Map ... New Fairfield on State Map ... New Milford on State Map
Newtown on State Map ... Redding on State Map ... Ridgefield on State Map
Sherman on State Map ... Entire Region on State Map ... State Plan Map Index



Excerpt from State Plan legend, showing its category definitions.
The HVCEO Plan makes use of similar definitions, for
development and conservation categories.

Regional map categories are closely comparable in their titles and detailed policies to State map categories, as follows:

Regional Centers on the regional map are comparable to the Regional Center definition on the State map.

Near Central Developed Area at HVCEO is comparable to Neighborhood Conservation on the State map.

Primary Growth Area map at HVCEO is comparable to Growth Area on the State map.

Small Community Centers mapped by HVCEO are comparable to Rural Community Centers on the State map.

Lower Density Neighborhood Area in HVCEO's terms is comparable to the more accessible Rural Lands on the State map.

Semi-Rural Remote Area in this planning region is shown as the more outlying and remaining Rural Lands on the State map.

Conservation Area in the region is similar to Conservation Area on the State map.

Preservation Area at HVCEO is similar to Preservation Area on the State map.

According to Public Act 05-205, HVCEO and the regional planning organizations are required to submit their draft regional plans to OPM for comments and recommendations. OPM's review will "determine if the proposed regional plan of development is not inconsistent with the state plan."

A key purpose of the HVCEO Regional Plan is to serve as persuasive input to the state plan. While the differences between maps has been narrowed over the years, there remain variances.

EVOLUTION OF THE STATE PLAN MAP
The map within the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut has been evolving over time. This is due to a combination of state staff having a clearly view of area municipalities, coupled with local officials themselves providing input that has evolved improved during each town plan update. Examples of how the state plan has changed are given below:

The graphic above shows the Redding and Ridgefield border area
in 1982 (left), in 1992 (center), and then on the latest 2005 state map
at right. The Route 7 and 35 sewered area in Ridgefield appears in 1992
and then is greatly reduced in 2005. To the south, over the decades the
Branchville and Georgetown areas are continually reshaped.

The graphic above shows Brookfield on the state plan in 1982
(left), in 1992 (center), and then on the latest 2005 state map at right.
The policy of a continuous corridor of growth along Route 7 from Danbury
to New Milford thru Brookfield has slowly been accepted on the state map.

The graphic above shows New Milford on the state plan in 1982
(left), in 1992 (center), and then on the latest 2005 state map at
right. The plan for New Milford's central and more heavily developed
area has been shaped and reshaped over the decades on the state map.

CONFORMANCE OF REGIONAL
PLAN TO STATE STATUTES
Chapter 127 of the CT General Statutes defines the structure and duties of Connecticut’s regional planning organizations. Within Chapter 127, Section 8-35a defines the minimum content of a regional plan of development.

Section 8-35a was last updated by Public Act 05-205, effective July 1, 2005. The mandated components of a regional plan as recently updated are shown below. After each, a statement appears defining the extent to which HVCEO’s regional plan conforms.

Note that in order to more clearly structure this text, regional plan specifications in Section 8-35a have been rearranged from the order in which they appear in the statute, yet none have been omitted.

CONFORMANCE TO 8-35A GENERAL GOALS
1) At least once every ten years, each regional planning agency shall make a plan of development for its area of operation. Response: Previous HVCEO regional plans were dated 1971 and 1981. The plan currently in effect is dated 1997. Given the newly required ten year schedule in public Act 05-205, HVCEO will now maintain a schedule of ten year updates.

2) The regional plan shall be based on studies of physical, social, economic and governmental 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. Response: HVCEO has specialized research at its disposal to meet this requirement, as documented by the inventory of Publications by HVCEO. The regional plan also conforms to the general goal as stated.

3) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of integration of planning across all levels of government to address issues on a local, regional and statewide basis. Response: HVCEO has a good record of coordinating its planning with other levels of government. The regional plan itself is not inconsistent with this principle.

CONFORMANCE TO 8-35A BY LAND USE FEATURE
4) The plan must show its recommendations for the general use of the area including land use. Response: The regional plan provides mapped recommendations for the general use of the area. However the state plan since 1973, and the HVCEO regional plan since 1981, have shown “land use” by the broader definition of relative development intensity coupled with overlays of degrees of environmental sensitivity.

Since those dates it has been left to the much larger map scale of local plans to show land uses as more traditionally defined (commercial, industrial, housing, institutional, etc.)

5) The regional plan shall identify areas where it is feasible and prudent to have compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented mixed use development patterns and land reuse, and to promote such development patterns and land reuse. Response: The regional plan recommends planning for mixed use and multi-modal access where possible. The regional plan update will provide an inventory of existing municipal policies towards pedestrian-oriented mixed use development patterns, followed by additional recommendations.

6) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of redevelopment and revitalization of regional centers and areas of mixed land uses with existing or planned physical infrastructure. Response: The regional plan is consistent with this principle.

7) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of conservation and restoration of cultural and historical resources. Response: The regional plan is consistent with this principle.

8) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of conservation and restoration of traditional rural lands. Response: The regional plan is consistent with this principle. See especially the policy for Semi-Rural Remote Areas.

9) The plan must show its recommendations for parks, playgrounds and recreational areas. Response: While these resources are identified on the larger scale municipal plans, HVCEO does not have the resources to make a meaningful contribution within its regional plan to local planning deliberations in this topic.

However, a resource that meets the intent of the requirement is this organizations continually updated inventory of existing and proposed trails and their potential interregional connections, designed specifically to facilitate intermunicipal recreational planning.

10) The plan must show its recommendations for schools and public institutions. Response: While these resources are appropriate to the purview of municipal plans, HVCEO does not have the resources to make a meaningful contribution within its plan to the local deliberations over such siting.

11) The plan must show its recommendations for public utilities. Response: The regional plan is a specific guide concerning the development intensity induced by such facility location.

12) The plan must show its recommendations for agriculture. Response: The regional plan is consistent with this goal. See especially the policy for Semi-Rural Remote Areas stating that farmland preservation should be encouraged by programs to reduce development pressures and to enhance the economic viability of farming and farm family independence.

CONFORMANCE TO 8-35A CONCERNING HOUSING
13) The plan must show its recommendations for housing. Response: From the perspective of mapping, the State plan since 1973 and the regional plan since 1981 have shown land uses such as “housing” in terms of degrees of relative development intensity. It is left to the much larger scale local plans to show proposed housing use as more traditionally defined. Also see the next point.

14) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of expansion of housing opportunities and design choices to accommodate a variety of household types and needs. Response: According to the Growth Guide Summary “A balance of housing types and costs to match local employment and municipal residents' needs is part of this growth guide's philosophy.”

This will be supplemented by a proposed Plan amendment to clarify that “Both housing opportunities and design choices should be expanded in each municipality to accommodate a variety of household types and needs.”

CONFORMANCE TO 8-35A BY TRANSPORTATION FEATURE
15) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of concentration of development around transportation nodes and along major transportation corridors to support the viability of transportation options and land reuse. Response: This is a key feature of the current regional plan.

16) The plan must show its recommendations for principal highways, freeways and bridges. Response: The details of these recommendations are contained in this Plan’s companion document, the Regional Transportation Plan, incorporated by reference into this Plan.

17) The plan must show its recommendations for airports. Response: A section within the separately bound Regional Transportation Plan, which also serves as an element in the Regional Conservation and Development Plan, discusses the Region's two airports.

CONFORMANCE TO 8-35A ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
18) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of protection of environmental assets critical to public health and safety. Response: The regional plan is fully consistent with this growth management principle. See especially policies for Conservation Areas and Preservation Areas.

19) The plan shall be designed to promote abatement of the pollution of the waters and air of the region. Response: The Growth Guide Summary in the regional plan update should be amended to clarify that this is a goal of the plan.

20) The plan may encourage energy-efficient patterns of development, the use of solar and other renewable forms of energy, and energy conservation. Response: The plan promotes priority for central and existing developed areas, thus favoring transit expansion and overall energy efficiency.