The Greater Danbury - New Milford Area is one of
fifteen state defined planning regions in Connecticut.

Connecticut's original 1947 regional planning statute recognized that the growth of a municipality influences, and is influenced by, the surrounding region, that no town is an isolated entity.

Since then it has become increasing clear that critically important service delivery, environmental, economic, utility and transportation systems are regional by nature and their proper development and management improves with a regional perspective.

The authority of this policy document upon the ten municipal plans is advisory. The reasoning is quite logical; the choice as to who makes land use decisions should be those who live closest to the results. This is opposed to non-local persons who are insulated from experiencing the consequences of their decisions and the raised eyebrows of their neighbors.

The Greater Danbury Region's ten municipal plans are required by statute to consider the regional plan in their ten year updates. Similarly, the local plans contain important considerations in the creation of this regional plan.

This Regional Plan is part of a geographically interrelated planning process in Connecticut, taking its place between the Connecticut Conservation and Development Policies Plan for 2005-2010 and the Housatonic Region’s ten municipal plans of conservation and development:

2007 Bethel Plan of Conservation and Development
2004 Newtown Plan of Conservation and Development
2003 New Fairfield Plan of Conservation and Development
2002 Danbury Plan of Conservation and Development

2001 Bridgewater Plan of Conservation and Development
2001 Brookfield Plan of Conservation and Development
2001 Sherman Plan of Conservation and Development

1999 Ridgefield Plan of Conservation and Development
1998 Redding Plan of Conservation and Development (update starting)
1997 New Milford Plan of Conservation and Development (update in progress)

---

1-2. FUNDAMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
FACTORS OF SOIL, SLOPE AND WETNESS
Fundamental to the preparation of any physical plan are the primary site factors of soil, slope and wetness. These factors interact with the Region's pattern of hills and valleys, shown on the map below:

Pattern of hills and valleys in the Housatonic Region. Browns are
highest elevations, descending thru yellows and greens to lowlands.
Proceed to the full size Topographic Overview Map.

While the provision of water and sewer utilities may mitigate some site constraints, in this hilly Region the geographic extent of such utilities will always be limited.

Successful planning, then, will require municipal regulations to take into account both the presence of utilities and traditional natural site limitations of soil, slope and wetness.

As for our soils, unfortunately no soil category in our area is entirely problem free. Excessively drained soils may seem to solve hydraulic problems, but by the same token are at risk for groundwater contamination. And the area's many shallow and rocky soils can potentially impair septic system functioning, heightening regulatory review and the expense of design detail.

Soil above increasingly stony subsurface layers

Further, as the percentage of slope starts to rise, especially above 15%, there is increasing slope instability, greater potential for erosion and various structural concerns. And degree of wetness is a universal constraint at all locations.

These core natural variables have long been recognized within the texts of local development regulations, with varying degrees of articulation and staff support for enforcement.

As a planning aid for the regulatory process, defined below are four generalized and increasing degrees of constraint upon development, from 1) minimal to 2) moderate, 3) areas of more caution and finally 4) areas of most caution, as follows:

MINIMAL: These most favorable areas have only a few or slight environmental constraints for development. This category includes excessively drained soils and also well drained soils with less than 15% slopes. Note that for mapping purposes, added in here are the soil categories of “urban” and “other” land, especially covering large portions of built up central Danbury and some town centers.

MODERATE: Having moderate or localized areas requiring restrictions before approval of development. But problems may usually be overcome with careful environmental planning and mitigation. This category contains well drained soils with 15% to 25% slopes and/or well drained soils with high seasonal water table. Also included here are hardpan soils of less than 15% slope, and shallow or rocky soils of less than 15% slope.

MORE CAUTION: Defined as having limitations that can take considerably more effort to overcome with environmental planning and mitigation. Included here are shallow or rocky soils with slopes 15% to 25%, hardpan soils of 15% to 25% slope and/or hardpan soils with high seasonal water table, and lastly the higher elevation 500 year frequency portion of the floodplain.

Also included in these More Caution areas are soils with slopes in excess of a 25% slope (but unfortunately not included on the lavender areas on the maps below as it was digitally unavailable) On such steep slopes, limitations on development may be difficult to overcome even with the advanced environmental planning and mitigation.

MOST CAUTION: Areas with obvious severe or very severe limitations on development. This strictest category includes the lower elevation 100 year frequency portion of the floodplain, peat, muck, and those soils in the CT Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act definition of wetland soils that are poorly drained, very poorly drained and alluvial.

Sources: The Region's soil types have been combined into groups based on the landmark 1974 report entitled "Know Your Land" by the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service. Also, the 2008 regional plan of the neighboring Central Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (COGCNV), Fairfield County and Litchfield County Soil Surveys (on file at the HVCEO office), and HVCEO staff. Note: These maps are for generalized planning purposes only.

Sample of soil, slope and floodplain constraint map

The maps below suggest how, from a generalized perspective, local regulations and review procedures should increase their level of concern and extent of permit conditioning:

CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR BETHEL
CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR BRIDGEWATER
CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR BROOKFIELD

CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR DANBURY
CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR NEW FAIRFIELD
CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR NEW MILFORD
CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR NEWTOWN

CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR REDDING
CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR RIDGEFIELD
CONSTRAINTS ON DEVELOPMENT MAP FOR SHERMAN

The hardcopy edition of this Plan includes a regional Constraints on Development Foldout Map for the Region. A hard copy of any of these municipal constraint maps can be mailed to you at no charge.

Users of the soil and slope constraint data above are cautioned that these primary factors are not the sole set of environmental constraints upon development. Public water supply source areas, either surface as in a water supply watershed, or subsurface as in a stratified drift aquifer, may also be present as a separate constraint. These are discussed in Chapter 3.

---

1-3. LAND DEVELOPMENT TODAY
The current state of regional land development for the Region's 337 square miles is shown on this Satellite View of Land Use. A foldout copy of this variable accompanies the hard copy edition of this Plan.

Individualized histories of Changing Land Use by Municipality are also available.

---

1-4. DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
Presenting the characteristics of the population and the economy to be planned for is an important component of both local and regional plans.

It is also good practice for both governments and businesses to have an understanding of the demography and economy of the Greater Danbury - New Milford market area.

This Plan section serves that purpose, and also serves as a summary of HVCEO's area info tables.

1-4:1. POPULATION:
Since 1950 the Housatonic Valley Region has consistently grown faster than the remainder of Connecticut. While in 1950 the ten municipalities of the planning region represented 2.9% of Connecticut's total population, by 1970 that percentage was 4.5% and by 2000 had climbed to 6.2%, and is projected to climb to 6.9 by 2020.

The Housatonic Valley Region has been directly in the path of post World War II population decentralization from several nearby cities including White Plains, Stamford, Norwalk and Bridgeport.

On a larger scale the post-1950 decentralization of economic activity outward from the center of the Tri-State New York Area has seen much economic growth come first to Danbury, and then to other parts of the Region. This dispersal of jobs has also fueled population growth.

Danbury (red) nicely positioned
within the New York Metropolitan Area

The decade of 1960 to 1970 was when the Region's population growth rate skyrocketed. Brookfield was the leader with a ten year population growth rate of 185%, then Ridgefield at 123%, New Fairfield 108% and New Milford 79%.

Much of the area's housing stock was built in that decade. There was a corresponding urgency to upgrade planning and zoning procedures during that period, including the creation of HVCEO to assist them.

Today, lesser but still relatively high growth rates continue. Consider the perspective that just 10 of the 169 municipalities in Connecticut are located within the Housatonic Valley Planning Region. For the decade 1980 - 1990, ten percent of Connecticut's total population growth occurred in just these ten towns.

Then for 1990 - 2000, our Region's share was a dramatic 21% of statewide growth. Growth was fueled by this area's enviable geographic position within the New York Metropolitan Area.

All municipalities receive assistance from the state and federal government to modernize public resources. Additional assistance is justified in those regions where population growth is particularly rapid. The Housatonic Valley Region is in this category.

The growing importance of Danbury as a leading city in Connecticut is also notable. In the order of communities in Connecticut ranked by population size, Danbury was the fifteenth largest in 1970. By 1980 its rank had risen to ninth, up to eighth in 1990, and then up to the seventh largest city in Connecticut by 2000.

Danbury is and will remain the economic, geographic and institutional center of the Housatonic Valley Planning Region. New Milford retains its role as the secondary center.

Above is the Danbury - Bethel border area in 1953.
Route 7 is in the center and Route 6 runs east - west
at right. Below is the same scene today, after much
development and the construction of 1-84.

Examining the four census years 1970 to 2000, in all ten municipalities the median age of residents was rising. Comparing the 2000 median ages of municipal residents to the national average of 35.3 years, only Danbury approximates that national average, all others are older.

At first it might be assumed that the Housatonic Valley houses more elderly retirees than the average area, but that is not the case. The percent of the regional population that was age 60 and over in 2000 was 14.2%, less than the national 16.2% and the Connecticut figure of 17.7%.

But as the region is growing fast, the actual number of elderly residents is still increasing significantly and must be planned for.

The next possibility explaining an older population is that perhaps we have an abnormally low number of young children. But with 22.2% of our population aged 14 and under and the corresponding national percentage at 21.4% and CT at 20.9%, lack of children is not the major cause.

Rather, the sources of the high average age statistic are found in the remaining age categories. The region is significantly lacking in persons 15 to 34 compared to national averages (our 23.7% versus 28.1%).

University of Connecticut Professor Fred Carstensen, commenting on Connecticut's demographics in February of 2008, stated that "the state's skilled work force is aging and the pool of young workers available to replace them is getting more shallow each year.

Young workers continue to leave the state in record numbers as soon as they complete their training or education for jobs in other, more affordable states.... The young workers Connecticut has been loosing over the years tend to be better educated and more skilled than the young people who remain."

The Housatonic Valley Region is then well represented with persons aged 35 to 59 (40.0% versus 34.2% nationally). This "Baby Boom" group was born between 1946 and 1964, members are now in their forties, fifties and early sixties and have a strong presence here.

It is the combined influence of missing young adults and excess middle age groups that causes the regional median age to be on the high side. This is tied in part to the high cost of housing in the area, pressuring young adults to commute in on I-84 from Greater Waterbury and elsewhere rather than seek housing here.

---

1-4:2. INCOME LEVELS:
People living in Greater Danbury have a sense that they are on the upscale side of Connecticut, that their combination of northern Fairfield County and southern Litchfield County is prosperous and economically a cut above the more typical towns in the state.

An analysis of income data shows that this perception is indeed true. Median family income displayed on a map of western Connecticut provides an interesting pattern of distribution of wealth.

Median family incomes ranging from pink as highest then thru
yellow and orange, dropping down to greens and blues. Note the
higher incomes to the south and southwest and the north to
south Naugatuck Valley blue corridor to the east.

In a 2000 national comparison of median family income, all ten municipalities comprising the Housatonic Valley Region had median family incomes well above the national average of $50,046.

Then in a comparison with just Connecticut itself, considered to be one of the wealthiest states with a 2000 median family income of $65,521, nine area municipalities had higher figures and central city Danbury at $61,899 was not far below the state figure.

In addition, towns in the area have on average increasing median family incomes compared to the state. A hypothetical trend for a town could be 95% of the state average in 1970, 105% in 1980, then up to, say, 118% in 2000, clearly pulling ahead of the average town. The opposite trend, of falling numbers, is also possible.

Comparing incomes in each Greater Danbury municipality to corresponding statewide averages for the years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 reveals a clearly upward regional trend.

But figures as to rising wealth can obscure the fact that lesser income households are found in all ten municipalities. For the 2000 census variable of household income less than $35,000, the national percentage was 41% and the state of Connecticut not surprisingly a lesser 32%. All ten communities in this region had percentages less than that statewide figure.

Yet while lower than state and national levels, each town still has a substantial percentage of its total households in this modest income group. The percentages are Danbury at 31%, New Milford 21%, Bethel 19%, Brookfield 15%, Bridgewater, New Fairfield, Ridgefield and Sherman all at about 14%, Newtown at 13% and then Redding the least at 12%. Presumably there are some senior retirees in this category.

---

1-4:3. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:
The relatively high levels of income documented above correlate positively with high levels of education. Educational data confirms that the population of the Greater Danbury - New Milford Area is relatively well trained.

Concerning area youth, a favorable characteristic of the region is its consistently high quality public schools and significant public school enrollments. These fine schools give us a sharp competitive advantage in terms of some business location decisions.

New Fairfield High School

The national percentage of persons with bachelor's, graduate or other professional degrees in 2000 was 24.4%. The corresponding averages in all ten of our communities exceeded this figure. Indeed, Bridgewater and Newtown doubled it, and Redding and Ridgefield came close to tripling it.

---

1-4:4. RACE AND ANCESTRY:
Data as to race indicates that in 2000 there were 6,527 black persons in the region, up from 5,538 in 1990. Of the 2000 regional total, 78% lived in Danbury.

Asian Indian and Chinese populations were also growing in the Region, Indians increasing by 98% and Chinese by 55% from 1990 to 2000.

The census also identifies people who state their origin as Spanish, Hispanic or Latino, these persons drawn from all racial categories. The number of Hispanics in Greater Danbury grew substantially from 6,629 in 1990 to 15,228 in 2000.

Hispanics were only 1.2% of the region's population in 1970, only 1.9% for 1980, then 3.5% in 1990 and up to 7.2% for 2000. This shows that our area is becoming more like the remainder of the nation, with Hispanics in Connecticut at 9.4% and nationally at 12.5%.

Of the many subcategories of Hispanics in the region, the subsets with the highest percentages here are Puerto Rican at 19%, Ecuadorian at 15%, Dominican at 14%, and Mexican 12%.

Also of interest is census data identifying population by ancestry. For example, Irish ancestry is reported at 11% nationally, a higher 17% in Connecticut, and then an even higher 23% in the Housatonic Region.

In a similar manner, 2000 Italian ancestry was 6% nationally, a much higher 19% in Connecticut, and then 20% here. Our 6% percent Polish ancestry compares to 8% for Connecticut as a whole.

---

1-4:5. HOUSING TYPES AND VALUES:
In 2000 for the USA as a whole, the percentage of housing units that were single family was 66%. Connecticut's statewide percentage was 64%, and the Housatonic Valley Region was at a higher 74%.

Even with relentless housing construction from 1960 to 2000, the regional percentage of single family units has been relatively stable throughout the last 40 years. Single family units in the region were 73% of the total in 1960, 78% in 1980, then 74% for both 1990 and 2000 census years.

However, the percentage that is single family in some of the individual towns has been changing. Bethel dropped from 88% to 75% during the forty year period, and Ridgefield from 96% to 85%. The percentages that were single family in Brookfield and New Milford also fell.

The Bridgewater, New Fairfield, Newtown and Redding percentages remained in the mid nineties for the whole forty years, while Sherman's stayed in the high nineties. Danbury was at 52% in 1969, rising to 61% in 1970 and a similar 62% for 1980, then down to 52% single family for both 1990 and 2000.

At this point in its development the region has a large inventory of apartment and condominium complexes.

An interesting variable that reveals much about the character of the region is the value of owner occupied housing. Consider the percentage of such housing in each municipality that, in 2000, was valued at over $300,000. Nationally the percentage valued at over $300,000 was 10%. Connecticut, a wealthy state, was at a much higher 18%.

Considering the national benchmark of 10% and the state benchmark of 18% when viewing this variable, Ridgefield had 82%, Redding 78%, Bridgewater 44%, Newtown 39% over $300,000, Sherman 36%, Brookfield 31% and New Fairfield 27%. Only Bethel at 17%, Danbury with 11% and New Milford just below 11% were under the state average of 18% of owner occupied housing units valued at over $300,000.

The average number of persons per household fell steadily here for some decades. This is due in part to more divorced people living separately and the elderly in small households living longer.

Persons per household is now leveling off, with data as to persons per housing type showing fewer persons in the typical rental unit than in the typical owner occupied unit.

The extent of rental housing is significant in the region. As of 2000 the region has 4,696 persons in group quarters. Fortunately housing units lacking plumbing or complete kitchens are quite rare in the area.

---

1-4:6. JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT:
Employment in the ten municipalities totaled 86,150 in 2005. The City of Danbury alone contained one half of this regional total. Thus the economic health of Danbury is of concern to the residents of all towns in the region.

Duracell Headquarters in Bethel, CT

Ridgefield and New Milford are next with near 10% each of the regional job total, followed by Brookfield and Newtown near 9% each and then Bethel at 8%. The outlying towns of Bridgewater, New Fairfield, Redding and Sherman combined contain only about 4% of the Region's total employment.

In assessing the types of businesses employing area residents, take into consideration that the location of our resident's jobs may be inside the regional boundary or outside of it. About 17% of working residents were employed in manufacturing in 2000, compared to 15% for Connecticut and 14% for the USA as a whole.

Then the percentage engaged in retail trade here, 11.5%, is very close to corresponding state and national averages. The region is not a center for governmental offices as demonstrated by its 2.2% compared to Connecticut at 4.0%. The area has numerous attractive retail centers, including the Danbury Fair Mall, which is the largest retail complex in Connecticut.

Detail of Danbury Fair Mall, a 1.3 million square foot
super-regional mall located off of I-84 Exit 3 in Danbury, CT

As for type of occupation, the region's management and professional workers represented 42% of the work force in 2000, compared to 39% for Connecticut and 34% for the nation. Sales and office jobs at 25% were very close to state and national averages.

As for major employers located within the ten municipalities, the region has a distinguished list.

Many communities strive to keep their economic growth rising to match their residential growth. Changes over the decades in the ratio of employment to population are revealing as to their success.

And as an enduring positive indicator of economic health, for decades this area's unemployment rate has been continually lower than Connecticut's as a whole.

Also of interest will be this 2007 Industry Analysis of the Housatonic Valley Planning Region.

---

1-4:7. DAILY COMMUTING PATTERNS:
A look at the daily journey to work in the region tells much about the area's economy, relative housing prices and increasing "sprawl" as it does about travel patterns themselves.

Taking the City of Danbury as an example, employers in the City in 1970 could expect 68% of their workers to reside right within Danbury itself. Business was fortunate to have its labor so close by. But by 2000, only 43% of employees resided within City limits.

The same dispersal of the labor pool holds for Danbury’s suburbs. Many persons working in Brookfield also live there, 45% in 1970. But this nice near proximity for labor supply dwindled down to 24% by 2000.

For the same thirty year period, the rate in Newtown went from 53% down to 35%, and in Ridgefield from 59% to 28%. New Milford, second only to Danbury as a regional center, fell from 69% to 54% of local residents filling local jobs.

Clearly, manufacturers and businesses can count less and less on their newly recruited employees finding homes in the same community as their new job. This is not surprising, in that local property tax laws seek to pull businesses inside the town boundary and push new housing for their employees outside the boundary.

This phenomena fuels a “sprawl” development pattern, the outcome of which is to increase the distance between jobs and dwellings. It is increasingly viewed nationally as out of date, a detrimental result of our 1920's based land use planning system and the municipal property tax.

Taking the view of commuting up to the next higher geographic level, there is again evidence of a trend for the labor force to spread out.

In 1980 Danbury employers could at least expect that the vast majority, 83% of needed labor, could be found nearby within the ten town Greater Danbury Area. But by 2000 that figure had fallen to 67%.

Again the suburban pattern follows suit. In 1980 Brookfield’s employers were able to fill 88% of their jobs from within the nearby ten town area, but by 2000 this fell to a lesser 73%. For Newtown the drop was 71% to 56% and in Ridgefield 80% down to 67%.

New Milford, with its central area role, largest geographic size of any municipality in Connecticut and significant stock of relatively affordable housing, bucked the trend somewhat and fell to a lesser 73% in 2000 from 79% in 1980.

Downtown Stamford, CT is 24 aerial miles
south of Downtown Danbury. It is a significant
commuter draw for Greater Danbury's residents.

Looking at the big picture, jobs in the region also filled by residents of the region fell from 89% 1970 to 68% in 2000. To make up the difference, between 1970-2000 the area has continually imported more labor from all directions.

From Greater Waterbury, 3% up to 7% of our total need. Then from New York State 2% up to 7%, the Stamford-Norwalk Area contribution was up 2% to 5%, and from Bridgeport and its suburbs 3% to 5%. As for employees living in areas further out, their share went from 1% in 1970 to a more significant 8% in 2000.

Detailed commuter data tables by town are of interest: From Bethel, To Bethel, From Bridgewater, To Bridgewater, From Brookfield, To Brookfield, From Danbury, To Danbury, From New Fairfield, To New Fairfield, From New Milford, To New Milford, From Newtown, To Newtown, From Redding, To Redding, From Ridgefield, To Ridgefield, From Sherman, To Sherman, Statewide Journey to Work in 2000.

---

1-4:8. RECENTLY MOVED INTO COMMUNITY:
There are high residential turnover rates for the Greater Danbury Area, part of a national trend. Individuals and families are moving in and out much faster than many people realize.

In the fifteen months prior to the 2000 Census, 21% of the population of the City of Danbury reported that they had moved into their current home. That is about one fifth of the City’s households.

High residential turnover is also a state and national phenomena, as the figures for this same fifteen month period are 17% for Connecticut and 20% for the USA.

Danbury is the leader in this trend regionally at 21%, followed by New Milford at 17%. The suburbs of Bethel, Brookfield, New Fairfield, Newtown and Ridgefield then cluster around 12%. More outlying Redding and Sherman had 10% new move ins in the 15 months, and then the region's smallest town, Bridgewater, had the most stable population with only 8% moving.

Looking at the same 2000 census “year householder moved into unit” figures, but this time for the much longer 1990 to 2000 period, the trend in moving is even more dramatic. Danbury and New Milford are at 66%, with other towns clustered in the low sixties and fifties.

Thus the majority of each municipalities population is composed of relatively "new" people, when defined as those living in town less than ten years. Note that there is a modifying factor to these statistics, with families and individuals that moved from one residence to another in the same community during that time, being counted “moved into housing unit 1990-2000" but not really newcomers to the community.

---

1-4:9. LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME:
Language data for 2000 indicates that the percentage speaking English at home is declining and correspondingly that other languages are increasing.

The regional average for English fell from 87% in 1990 to 81% in 2000, with the national average at 82% in 2000. During the same ten year period, use of Spanish at home in the region rose from 3% to 7%.

The percentage decline in use of English in most of the towns was actually quite small. The change in the regional average was influenced mostly by the drop in English used at home in Danbury from 80% in 1990 to 65% in 2000, and to a lesser extent by the drop in Bethel from 92% to 85%.

But In assessing this particular statistic the Census Bureau advises "most people who speak another language at home also speak English."

---

1-5. OVERVIEW OF CONFORMANCE TO STATE STATUTE
Chapter 127 of the Connecticut General Statutes defines the structure and duties of Connecticut’s regional planning organizations. Within Chapter 127, Section 8-35a defines the minimum content of the regional plan of conservation and development.

Section 8-35a was last updated by Public Act 05-205, effective July 1, 2005. The mandated components of a regional plan as updated to 2005 are shown below. After each is a statement certifying the conformance of this Plan to the statute.

Note that in order to more clearly structure this text, regional plan requirements 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 new requirements of public Act 05-205 for a ten year update, HVCEO will now adhere to 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 completed specialized research to meet this requirement, as documented by the inventory of Publications by HVCEO. This Regional Plan document, supplemented by and incorporating HVCEO's technical publication series, demonstrates conformance to the stated goal.

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. For example, the 2007 Bethel Plan of Conservation and Development makes a total of 42 references to HVCEO or its publications. This Regional Plan is designed to reduce inconsistencies between planning entities.

The Future Growth Map has been fully coordinated with the growth policy maps within this region's ten local plans. The Future Growth Map is intended to help shape the state plan map.

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. The state plan since its inception in 1973 and the HVCEO Regional Plan updates since 1981 have displayed land use using map categories of relative development intensity and relative degree of environmental sensitivity.

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: Plan map categories deal with land reuse and then specific Plan chapters are dedicated to mixed use, transit oriented development. and pedestrian access.

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 in its Future Growth Map category definitions.

7) The regional plan shall note any inconsistencies with the growth management principle of conservation and restoration of cultural and historical resources. Response: The Plan includes a Future Growth Map policy category addressing this topic.

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 Future Growth Map category concerning Semi-Rural Remote Areas.

9) The plan must show its recommendations for parks, playgrounds and recreational areas. Response: A Plan chapter includes recommendations on these topics.

10) The plan must show its recommendations for schools and public institutions. Response: HVCEO's Future Growth Map categories are designed for use as a locational factor in the siting of schools and institutions.

11) The plan must show its recommendations for public utilities. Response: The Regional Plan is a specific guide concerning the best locations for development intensity, a critical concern in decisions as to the areal extent of utility service areas.

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. See also the agricultural land preservation policy in the Open Space and Recreation Chapter.

CONFORMANCE TO 8-35A CONCERNING HOUSING
13) 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: A balance of housing types and costs to match local employment and municipal residents' needs is part of this Regional Plan's philosophy.

The Plan also endorses the policy 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
14) 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 policy of each of the Plan's development categories. There is also a Plan chapter dedicated to transit oriented development.

15) The plan must show its recommendations for principal highways, freeways, bridges and airports. Response: These recommendations are contained in the Transportation Chapter of the Plan.

CONFORMANCE TO 8-35A ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
16) 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.

17) The plan shall be designed to promote abatement of the pollution of the waters and air of the region. Response: This policy has been adopted for all of the Plan's Future Growth Map categories.

18) The plan may encourage energy-efficient patterns of development, the use of solar and other renewable forms of energy, and energy conservation. Response: This policy has been adopted for all of the Plan's Future Growth Map categories. See also the Global Warming Chapter.

EXCERPT FROM THE ACT SPECIFYING CONTENTS OF A
REGIONAL PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 2. Section 8-35a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2005):

(a) 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, public 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 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.

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 pollution of the waters and air of the region.

The regional plan shall identify areas where it is feasible and prudent (1) to have compact, transit accessible, pedestrian-oriented mixed use development patterns and land reuse, and (2) to promote such development patterns and land reuse and shall note any inconsistencies with the following 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 transportation nodes and along major transportation corridors to support the viability of transportation options and land reuse;
(D) conservation and restoration of the natural environment, cultural and historical resources and traditional rural lands;
(E) protection of environmental assets critical to public health and safety; and
(F) integration of planning across all levels of government to address issues on a local, regional and statewide basis.

(b) Before adopting the regional plan of development or any part thereof or amendment thereto the agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon, notice of the time, place and subject of which shall be given in writing to the chief executive officer and planning commission, where one exists, of each member town, city or borough.

Notice of the time, place and subject of such hearing shall be published once in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the region.

At least sixty-five days before the public hearing the regional planning agency shall post the plan on the Internet web site of the agency, if any, and submit the plan to the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management for findings in the form of comments and recommendations.

Such findings shall include a review of the plan to determine if the proposed regional plan of development is not inconsistent with the state plan of conservation and development.

Such notices shall be given not more than twenty days nor less than ten days before such hearing. The regional planning agency shall note on the record any inconsistency with the state plan of conservation and development and the reasons for such inconsistency. Adoption of the plan or part thereof or amendment thereto shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the representatives on the agency.

The plan shall be posted on the Internet web site of the agency, if any, and a copy of the plan or of any amendments thereto, signed by the chairman of the agency, shall be transmitted to the chief executive officers, the town, city or borough clerks, as the case may be, and to planning commissions, if any, in member towns, cities or boroughs, and to the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management or his designee.

The regional planning agency shall notify the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management of any inconsistency with the state plan of conservation and development and the reasons therefore.

(c) The regional planning agency shall revise the plan of development not more than three years after the effective date of this section.

--- 1. INTRODUCTION --- 2. MAP OF GROWTH --- 3. WATER SUPPLIES ---
--- 4. WASTEWATER --- 5. TRANSPORTATION --- 6. GLOBAL WARMING --- 7. HOUSING ---
--- 8. ECONOMY --- 9. OPEN SPACE --- 10. MIX LAND USE --- 11. TOD --- 12. PEDESTRIAN ---