or wither CT?
What's new in the C&D Plan 2013-2018?
OPM releases it 2013-2019 Conservation and
Development Plan: Map Number One A Combo?
Public Hearing - June 28, 2012 from 5:30pm to 8pm receiving comments
from the public: Read the
YOU MUST READ THE
TEXT THIS TIME!
So what does
OPM mean by "Priority
What does the red-brownish color stand for? Go to the legend for this map - does this mean
an area of potential development?
Same part of
the CT map: Different legend
Do you see a correlation between the red-brown areas in the "Priority
Development" map and the blank areas in this one, "Priority Conservation areas?"
HOW THIS CT PLAN PROCESS DIFFERS BECAUSE MAP IS NOT
The "maps" this time are unofficial - so
Weston may be shown as a priority for both preservation and development
PLAN PUNTS TO LOCAL PLANS USING THE...
PROCESS (PAGES 4-5, C&D PLAN TEXT)
to the desire of many for a more bottom-up approach to the State
C&D Plan revision process, OPM proceeded to implement the new
cross-acceptance process as described in its January 2011 report to the
Continuing Committee. Following the report’s submission, OPM conducted
initial outreach workshops over the next several months, which are
summarized in Attachment B. OPM incorporated its findings from these
workshops in the initial Draft 2013-2018 C&D Plan that was
submitted to the Continuing Committee in December 2011 for a required
From January through March 2012, OPM proceeded to implement the plan
comparison phase of the cross-acceptance process. During this period,
OPM conducted fourteen regional workshops and various coordinating
meetings with state agencies, which are summarized in Attachment C. The
Continuing Committee opted not to comment during this early review
In total, 135 municipalities and 14 Regional Planning Organizations
(RPOs) participated in the voluntary plan comparison phase. The
participating municipalities and RPOs reviewed their respective plans
of conservation and development to determine the extent to which they
were compatible with the planning policies of the initial Draft C&D
Plan. That effort, combined with input from affected state agencies,
provided OPM with general Conservation & Development Policies: A
Plan for Connecticut consensus in support of the policies listed under
each Growth Management Principle. The outcome of the plan comparison
phase provided OPM with the basis for producing this revised Draft
C&D Plan for public review and comment.
The public comment period will run from May through September 2012, and
OPM will coordinate with RPOs to schedule public hearings in each of
the state’s fourteen planning regions. In addition to the statutory
public hearing requirements, any municipality that wishes to continue
its participation in the voluntary cross-acceptance process may
request, through its RPO or other designated regional cross-acceptance
facilitator, an informal workshop to discuss any element(s) of the
Draft C&D Plan. Such workshops are intended to provide local and
regional officials with additional opportunities to address any
unresolved issues or to seek clarification on the Draft C&D Plan
before progressing to the plan negotiation phase of the
Upon conclusion of the public hearings in
September 2012, OPM will begin scheduling plan negotiation meetings
when requested by an RPO or other designated regional cross-acceptance
facilitator on behalf of its municipalities. These meetings are
intended to address any remaining unresolved issues before the regional
and state negotiating entities set out to draft an optional Statement
of Agreements and Disagreements for inclusion in OPM’s recommended
Draft C&D Plan that will be submitted to the Continuing Committee
prior to the start of the 2013 legislative session. The inclusion of
such statements in the recommended Draft C&D Plan is intended to
provide state legislators with information pertaining to their
constituent municipalities’ level of support for the Draft 2013-2018
State C&D Plan when it is considered for adoption by the General
Connecticut Institute for the
21st Century warned of our becoming a "cul de sac" - read selected pages here.
The Aquarion Water Company in CT (light blue)
official: CT is a federal disaster area
By Daniela Altimari on September 3, 2011 12:20 AM
President Obama has signed the Connecticut disaster declaration, the
White House announced late Friday night.
"The President today declared a major disaster exists in the State of
Connecticut and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local
recovery efforts in the area affected by Tropical Storm beginning on
August 27, 2011, and continuing,'' said the statement emailed by the
White House press office just after midnight.
"Federal funding is available to state and eligible local governments
and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis for
emergency work and the repair or replacement of facilities damaged by
Tropical Storm Irene in Fairfield, Litchfield, Middlesex, New Haven,
and New London Counties.Federal funding is also available on a
cost-sharing basis for hazard mitigation measures statewide."
Move, Bank May Return to
By CHARLES V. BAGLI
June 8, 2011
Fifteen years ago, New York City’s reputation as an international
financial center was called into question when the giant Swiss bank UBS
moved its North American headquarters to the Connecticut suburbs, where
it built the largest trading floor in the world.
Now, though, UBS is having buyer’s remorse. It turns out that a
suburban location has become a liability in recruiting the best and
brightest young bankers, who want to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn, not
in Stamford, Conn., which is about 35 miles northeast of Midtown. The
firm has also discovered that it would be better to be closer to major
clients in New York City.
As a result, UBS is seriously considering a reverse migration that
would bring its investment banking division and up to 2,000 bankers and
traders back to Wall Street and a new skyscraper at the rebuilt World
Trade Center, according to real estate executives and city officials.
“They just can’t hire the bankers and traders they need,” said one
landlord who has spoken with UBS but requested anonymity so as not to
alienate a potential tenant.
The bank is also looking at several Midtown locations, and Connecticut
is sure to wage a fierce battle to keep UBS in Stamford, where it is
the largest private employer and the biggest taxpayer.
A final decision is perhaps months away, and any move would not take
place until 2015.
But over the last week, UBS has engaged in negotiations with the
developer Larry Silverstein over the terms of a potential financial
deal at 3 World Trade Center, an 80-story office tower that he plans to
build at 175 Greenwich Street. The return of UBS would be a boon to New
York, which in past decades often suffered from corporate defections
that were fueled by a sense that computers and telecommunications had
made a Manhattan location more of a luxury than a necessity.
The move would be the latest sign that New York has regained its allure
as a caldron for the young and creative. Six months ago, Google paid
nearly $2 billion for a large building just north of the meatpacking
district, in the same Manhattan neighborhood where many of its
“A key piece of the mayor’s economic strategy has been to make New York
City a place people want to be,” Deputy Mayor Robert K. Steel said,
“and more than ever the city is the ideal location for any company,
like UBS, that succeeds by attracting a talented, motivated work force.”
A UBS trader in his 20s said that like many of his peers at the firm,
he would have preferred a job in New York City, where he lives.
“I mean, it’s annoying,” said the trader, who asked that his name not
be used because he was not authorized to speak about the possible
relocation. “I take Metro-North. I live pretty close to Grand Central,
so it’s not a terrible commute. But it’s not ideal.” The trip takes
about 45 minutes to an hour, depending on how many stops the train
He added that “the bank’s plan is to move to New York, but it’s mostly
to be closer to clients.”
UBS has hired the real estate brokerage firm CB Richard Ellis to
explore new space. A UBS deal would also be a vindication of a
multibillion-dollar effort to rebuild the World Trade Center complex.
After the terrorist attack on the trade center, there was widespread
debate over the future of the city’s financial center downtown. Since
then, the residential population there has swelled.
Last month, Condé Nast, publisher of The New Yorker, Vanity Fair
and Glamour, signed a deal to be the anchor tenant of 1 World Trade
Center, the signature skyscraper at the northwest corner of the site.
Mr. Silverstein has the right to build three towers along Greenwich
Street. The first one is already under construction, and the city has
pledged to take space in it. But Mr. Silverstein has long sought a
large financial tenant for what is known as Tower 3, which features
five trading floors at the base, and will be built before Tower 2 is. A
possible UBS relocation, which was first reported by Bloomberg News
last week, would be a major blow to Stamford, where a quarter of the
office space is vacant.
Michael Pavia, the mayor of Stamford, said UBS executives have been
noncommittal, saying they have “no firm plans, nothing that they can
report at this time.”
He said he and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a former mayor of Stamford, “are
committed to keeping UBS here.”
Catherine Smith, Connecticut’s economic development commissioner, said:
“We just want to make sure that Connecticut has a fair shot. We love
having them in the state and hope they’ll stay. But you don’t always
win these competitive battles.”
Mr. Pavia said UBS had about 3,000 employees in Stamford, down from
more than 4,000 a couple of years ago. The bank, which leases but does
not own any space in Stamford, is not expected to move all its
employees out of town.
UBS issued a statement saying that “we routinely evaluate our space
allocation as these leases expire and/or space becomes available.”
UBS, then known as Swiss Bank, touched off cross-border recriminations
and municipal hand-wringing in 1994, when it announced plans to move
from its two Manhattan locations, one in Midtown and the other in the
financial district, to Stamford. New York City, still in the throes of
a deep recession, was already hurting after the defection of MasterCard
to Westchester County.
City officials and real estate executives feared that New York was
about to endure another wave of corporate departures to less-expensive
locales in Connecticut and New Jersey and beyond. Some experts
suggested that financial firms no longer needed to be in Manhattan and
close to Wall Street because of the spectacular growth of computerized
trading and telecommunications.
Connecticut sweetened the pot for UBS by dangling what was supposed to
be a $120 million package of tax breaks and interest-free loans,
although the actual value of the incentives turned out to be
substantially less. The bank erected a trading floor the size of two
football fields, packed with more than 5,000 computer monitors.
At the time, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani charged that Connecticut had
broken a 1991 nonaggression treaty among New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut, in which state leaders promised not to use special
incentives to steal jobs from one another.
New York City officials took out large advertisements in Connecticut
newspapers condemning the subsidies as too costly to taxpayers. They
vowed to begin wooing Connecticut firms, a largely empty threat.
“If you start a border war, you don’t really give us much choice but to
fight back,” Deputy Mayor John Dyson said in 1994. “New Yorkers are not
widely considered to be patty-cakes.”
U.S. Trust, Goldman Sachs, Chase, UBS and other financial institutions
moved at least some of their operations across the Hudson River to New
Jersey, although Goldman Sachs equity traders revolted in 2002 when the
investment bank tried to relocate them to an expensive new tower in
Jersey City, a mere mile from its Lower Manhattan headquarters.
Goldman slowly moved other employees over to Jersey City and then built
a new headquarters in Manhattan, across West Street from the World
Trade Center site.
Familiar name from
efforts some time ago...
Environmental watchdog group says state needs better data
November 22, 2010
Connecticut's environmental watchdog panel says the state does not know
how much open space or wildlife habitat it has and is relying on
outdated data to make critical decisions about preservation or
The state Council on Environmental Quality, in a draft of its
legislative proposals for next year, says the Department of
Environmental Protection is off by tens of thousands of acres in
estimates of open space totals and how far the state is toward its goal
The open space acreage figures are crucial to how the state distributes
bonding funds to help municipalities buy land.
"The DEP's estimates of its own land are pretty accurate," said Karl
Wagener, executive director of the CEQ, in an interview last week. "The
DEP does have a good grip on what it owns.
But when it comes to municipal parks and preserves, non-profit-owned
preserves, and land protected by land trusts and through easements, the
estimates that the DEP puts out are off by tens of thousands of acres,
At the hearing in Hartford on the draft proposals, several advocacy
groups went on record backing the goal of creating a more complete
databse. "Creating a volunteer recording system for land trusts is
really vital," said Sandy Breslin, director of governmental affairs for
Audubon Connecticut, the state office of National Audubon.
Breslin then asked the CEQ to add another database idea to its report:
"We call for a statewide natural resources inventory." She said after
the hearing that when it comes out during hearings for a developer's
proposal that the land involved, for instance, is habitat for a rare
bird, there is no time for officials to react.
There are state databases of habitats for endangered and "special
concern" species, but not for a wide range of species and areas,
Breslin said. That makes it very hard for officials in small towns to
know what they are dealing with when a development proposal comes in.
The DEP established five years ago that Connecticut has 12 threatened
wildlife habitats. More than half of those include wet areas like
marshes and bogs. The DEP also made a list of 25 threats to the key
"If you're trying to build a highway site, or a wind project, how do
you do it without destroying habitat?" Breslin said. "It usually
comes up at a time when the clock is ticking. We have pockets of that
information, but we don't have the depth of information."
Similarly, the state doesn't have a good handle on preserved land,
Wagener said. When Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced the release of $10.4
million in new state grants to help cities and towns buy open space,
she put the amount preserved so far at 488,822 acres--well short of the
goal of 673,210 acres be 2023.
Wagener said that figure, based on DEP data, probably underestimates
the amount of preserved open space by a significant amount because it
doesn't include some preserved acreage not owned by the state.
About a decade ago, the DEP started going to town halls, one by one, to
improve the calculation of open space totals. That project, known as
POSM for Protected Open Space Mapping, has included newer protected
acreages from 148 out of 169 towns as of last summer.
CEQ reviewed some of that data last year and concluded it did not
accurately reflect the total amount of preserved land, Wagener said.
"When it's done it will be out of date," he said. "We'll have better
numbers than we have now, but what we need is some sort of simple
system," which would allow continuous adding of land acquisition to a
He added, "We used to use those figures in our own report on the
state's environment, but if you go to our annual report for the past
year you'll see we quit reporting on how much we have preserved."
The DEP acknowledged that habitat databases could improve and that
accurate information is "critical to protecting natural resources today
and in planning for the future," said Dennis Schain, the department's
He added, "DEP has been working to improve our databases and the
availability of information on both of these topics. We are also
interested in ideas others may have on how to best capture and make
available in the most useful form information on open space and listed
Despite the confusion about how much open space is actually preserved
in the state, the CEQ said open space preservation efforts still are
behind schedule. It recommends in the report that the state act more
quickly to buy land. They suggest $20 million next year to help towns
buy open space of about 11,000 per year.
The CEQ's draft proposals also include:
* State bonding of $130 million to continue
improving water quality in Long Island Sound, which has a large dead
zone at its western end in the summer.
* Farmland preservation funds of $10 million so that
the state can help farmers keep their farms by paying them to declare
the land farmland, never to be sold. The CEQ says the state should
preserve 2,000 farm acres each year in this way. Last year the total
was 1,400 acres, which was double the previous year.
* A state clean up contaminated drinking water
wells, consolidating drinking water programs in one agency and use
federal Superfund dollars.
* Allowing owners of smaller tracts of land (under
25 acres) to declare it wildlife habitat and get a lower tax rate.
* Requiring drivers of all-terrain vehicles and dirt
bikes to register them with the state.
* Amending a state statute to require that everyone
who could see a proposed cell tower from their homes be given notice of
* A ban on outdoor wood furnaces.
* Requiring better training for volunteer wetlands
board members in towns.
Sliding toward third-tier
Published: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
Hartford was never a Boston or San Francisco. But it was once a decent
and livable small city — as Providence and St. Paul are now.
You could say that, among small cities, it was second-tier.
It is slipping rapidly toward third-tier now.
That means something more than that fewer people from the suburbs will
go to the Hartford Stage or the Atheneum. It means that it will be
harder to attract business to Greater Hartford and harder to sell homes
There are real consequences to being third-tier.
The trend must be slowed. Slipping to third-tier, combined with the
impact of a Wall Street based recession on the western part of the
state, will put Connecticut in dire straits.
Hartford has been in decline for 30 years, maybe 40. The changing
economies of cities, bad public policy, and sheer delusion have badly
But now the Hartford region is in danger of being written off and
forgotten. The perception that Hartford is a deeply unsafe and
uncivilized city, which has sharpened in the last five years, is
turning it into a place that people do not want to live in if they can
help it. Or even visit.
Another recent blow to the region makes it seem third-tier. It could be
the death blow to Greater Hartford.
It has to do with the airport.
At the very time when Bradley International Airport is being rebuilt,
and the airport brought up to 21st-century standards, the airlines are
going into a tailspin.
Bradley has, in recent days, lost its direct flights to Amsterdam, Los
Angeles, and Denver, all acquired after much work and with much fanfare.
This is a significant setback, not only to Bradley, but to the region,
and the hopes for economic development in the region.
Think about fuel cells.
Greater Hartford could be one of the world leaders of this technology.
(Arguably, we are already a leader in knowledge.) But people need to be
able to get here.
The state of Connecticut is always acting and investing after the fact
— after the damage is done.
For example, some want the state to save the Mark Twain House as it
saved the Old State House or to bolster the Atheneum.
And those places are treasures.
But the state needs to attract industry.
And not just the movie industry.
It needs to look toward the future, and not just its past.
State government should be asking:
— What can we do to help with fuel cell innovation and the marketing of
the region’s scientific and technical community?
— How can we strengthen Bradley?
— Can the governor help to entice some airline to make Hartford a hub,
Maybe none of that is possible.
But let’s ask the questions.
If we can spend hundreds of billions on hotels and museums on the
Hartford riverfront, we can surely spend some time and thought on
attracting commerce and industry.
And we have to stop fiddling while Hartford burns.
Hartford needs three things, short-term.
It needs an infusion of cops. The state will have to pay. But it is
worth it, on economic and humanitarian grounds.
Hartford needs lower taxes.
It needs fewer but new and refurbished schools.
With the energy crisis, small cities have a chance to make a comeback.
But for that they must be livable.
That means basics, like safety, schools, and neighborhoods, not new
Long term? Hartford should be annexed by West Hartford, which has
really become the central city of the region.
The state will have to pay for that too, in large measure. But it will
be cheaper than the new science center, and the result may be a
The time for bold action is now.
Not in five years.
Vernon, Manchester, and East Hartford sink or swim with Hartford.
But at the current rate, Greater Hartford will be a dead region in five
years — Scranton without the charm.
We want to be Providence or St. Paul.
Or Hartford as it once was.
and Overview: approved CT Plan of C&D 2004-2009
accordance with Sections 16a-24 through 16a-33
of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Office of Policy and
(OPM) is required to prepare a State plan of conservation and
on a recurring five-year cycle. The plan serves as a
statement of the development, resource management and public investment
policies for the State. The Plan is used as a framework for
plans and proposals submitted to OPM for review through mandated review
requirements set forth in Section 16a-31
of the Connecticut General Statutes include the following:
State agencies are directed to consider
the Plan when they prepare agency plans. In addition, agency
plans, when required by state or federal law, are to be submitted to
Office of Policy and Management (OPM) for a review of conformity with
State agencies are required to be
consistent with the Plan when undertaking the following actions:
a) The acquisition
of real property when the acquisition costs are in excess of one
b) The development
or improvement of real property when the development costs are in
of one hundred thousand dollars;
c) The acquisition
of public transportation equipment or facilities when the acquisition
are in excess of one hundred thousand dollars; and
d) The authorization
of any state grant for an amount in excess of one hundred thousand
for the acquisition, development, or improvement of real
or for the acquisition of public transportation equipment or
The Secretary of OPM submits
to the State Bond Commission, prior to the allocation of any bond funds
for any of the above actions, an advisory statement commenting on the
to which such action conforms to the Plan of Conservation and
and Development Policies Plan
for Connecticut, 2004-2009
Conservation and Development Policies Plan
for Connecticut, 2004-2009 (C&D Plan) is comprised of two separate,
yet equally important, components – the Plan text and the Locational
Map (see links below). Both components include policies that
the planning and decision-making processes of state government relative
to: (1) addressing human resource needs and development; (2)
economic growth with environmental protection and resource conservation
concerns; and (3) coordinating the functional planning activities of
agencies to accomplish long-term effectiveness and economies in the
of public funds.
contained in the C&D Plan text
provide the context and direction for state agencies to implement their
plans and actions in a manner consistent with the following six Growth
Management Principles (GMPs):
Revitalize Regional Centers and Areas with Existing or Currently
Opportunities and Design Choices to Accommodate a Variety of Household
Types and Needs
Around Transportation Nodes and Along Major Transportation Corridors to
Support the Viability of Transportation Options
Conserve and Restore
the Natural Environment, Cultural and Historical Resources, and
Protect and Ensure
the Integrity of Environmental Assets Critical to Public Health and
Planning Across all Levels of Government to Address Issues on a
Regional and Local Basis
and Regional Planning Organizations
are also encouraged to consider these Growth Management Principles and
must note any inconsistencies with the Plan when developing their own
of conservation and development.
Locational Guide Map plays an important
role in coordinating relevant state actions by providing a geographical
interpretation of the state’s conservation and development
The Map comprises the best available digital, standardized, statewide
for each policy’s definitional criteria.
Area Policies (In order of priority)
Centers – Redevelop and revitalize
the economic, social, and physical environment of the state’s
centers of industry and commerce.
Neighborhood Conservations Areas – Promote infill
development and redevelopment in areas that are at least 80% built up
have existing water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure to
Areas – Support staged urban-scale expansion
in areas suitable for long-term economic growth that are currently less
than 80% built up, but have existing or planned infrastructure to
future growth in the region.
Community Centers – Promote concentration
of mixed-use development such as municipal facilities, employment,
and residential uses within a village center setting.
Area Policies (In order of priority)
Preserved Open Space – Support the
permanent protection of public and quasi-public land dedicated for open
Preservation Areas – Protect significant resource,
heritage, recreation, and hazard-prone areas by avoiding structural
except as directly consistent with the preservation value.
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
in use are compatible with the identified conservation value.
Lands – Protect the rural character of
these areas by avoiding development forms and intensities that exceed
carrying capacity for water supply and sewage disposal, except where
to resolve localized public health concerns.
For a more
detailed description of Locational
Guide Map, please wait until July 15, 2005 for a link! Please
see links below for other data:
of C&D 2004-2009:
Old news: These are comments
taken into consideration by the Legislature when they chose to
and then "pass temporarily" 5044 in 2004:
Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut,
CONNECTICUT PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND
- click HERE.
Legend for the C&D PLAN land
use map below:
THE MAP FOR THE
SOUTH WESTERN REGION OF CONNECTICUT
(Regional Planning Organization boundaries in gray):