Methodology
being re-assessed - reliance on septic holding capacity and natural
recharge
of wells still preferred policy. How "Goals" of the TOWN PLAN
have
been affected by Referenda, CT DEP, economy and outside influences -
including
"Smart Growth" ideas; some events having impact are:
- Non-Point Source Pollution; how does this work in the 21st century?
- CT Aquifer Protection designation to P&Z as agency to draw up rules for small Aquarion well field near Coley Cemetery;
- Latest from the USGS on supply of H2O: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/
- Latest on water use in USA: http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/water/a_wateruse.html
- STORMWATER RUNOFF detained by - wetlands;
- The Feds: Army Corps...their approvals received mid-November 2003...construction go-ahead by State of CT "S.F.U." and all others in hand;
- Supreme Court decision on wetlands not decisive but...(2006).
State Government: why do you think the State of Connecticut took so long to update its population projections?
- Link to data center: http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/
- Link to OPM for State of Connecticut Plan of Conservation and Development 2005-2010;
- South Western Region on-line sub-section of CT PLAN map;
- Weston in the new CT PLAN OF C&D;
- Statement from the CT Plan that explains why Weston zoning is not as inefficient as we might think it is.
- And the one thing we lack (especially now with Cartbridge out of service): covered bridges; we've still got a few barns!
Town Government:
- School Building Committee meeting notes by "About Town" - news;
- Conservation Commission:
- approved (2003) unanimously Bisceglie Park plan without septic treatment outflow;
- OK's School Road site plan unanimously;
- limits Town's capacity to irrigate fields at Morehouse Farm Park...
- then on June 6, 2006, decision to increase the volume of water allowed from existing irrigation, after experience and State of Connecticut monitored water supply testing.
HOW THE SCHOOL PROJECT WORKED OUT
"ABOUT TOWN" followed this
long effort to gain approval for the Policy Plan: SWRPA's
Regional Plan adopted in 2006 was ruled "not inconsistent with" the new
State Plan of C&D!
Purpose
The bill establishes a 21-member council to coordinate, within available appropriations, a GIS capacity for the state, regional planning agencies, municipalities and others as needed. In doing so, the council must consult with these parties. The capacity must guide and assist state and local officials involved in transportation; economic development; land use planning; environmental, cultural, and natural resource management; delivering public services; and other areas as necessary.
In coordinating the GIS capacity, the council specify how the GIS must created, maintain, and disseminate geographic information or imagery that (1) precisely identifies certain locations or areas or (2) creates maps or information profiles in graphic or electronic form about them. The council must also promote a forum where GIS information can be centralized and distributed.
The council may apply for or accept and spend federal funds on the state's behalf through OPM.
Composition
As
the table shows, the council consists
mostly of state officials and specific GIS users appointed by
legislative
leaders. The council can add more members, as it deems necessary. The
appointing
authority must fill any vacancies. The members are not paid for their
services
but are reimbursed for necessary expenses they incur while working on
the
council.
Geospatial Information System Council Membership - Appointee and Appointing AuthorityThe bill requires the governor to select the council's chairman from among its members. The chairman must administer the council's affairs.
OPM Secretary (Statutory)
Environmental Protection Commissioner (Statutory)
Economic and Community Development Commissioner (Statutory)
Transportation Commissioner, (Statutory)
Public Safety Commissioner, (Statutory)
Public Health Commissioner, (Statutory)
Public Works Commissioner, (Statutory)
Agriculture Commissioner, (Statutory)
Emergency Management and Homeland Security Commissioner, (Statutory)
Social Services Commissioner, (Statutory)
Department of Information Technology Chief Information Officer, (Statutory)
Connecticut State University System Chancellor, (Statutory)
University of Connecticut President, (Statutory)
Connecticut Siting Council Executive Director, (Statutory)
Public Utility Control Authority Chairman, (Statutory)
Military Department Adjacent General, (Statutory)
GIS User representing town with over 60,000 people, (Senate President Pro Tempore)
GIS User representing a regional planning agency, (Senate Minority Leader)
GIS User representing a town with between 30,000 and 60,000 people, (Governor)
GIS User representing a town with fewer than 30,000 people, (House Speaker)
GIS User, (House Minority Leader)
Meetings
The council must meet at least once a month and may hold additional meetings as its rules require. The chairman or any three members can call special meetings if they notify the other members in writing at least 48 hours before the meeting.
Technical Assistance Program
The council must, within available appropriations, provide technical assistance to towns and regional planning agencies for developing GISs. It must recommend how the GIS it developed can be improved.
Report
Beginning January 1, 2006, the council must report annually on its activities to the Planning and Development Committee.
EFFECTIVE
DATE: Upon passage
The bill requires the Office of Policy and Management secretary to report on the land use training and education programs available to members of local land use agencies and the extent to which members participate in them. He may include any recommendations for improving or expanding the programs, including recommendations for changing state law.
In preparing the report, the secretary must consult with:
1. environmental protection commissioner,
2. Council on Soil and Water Conservation District,
3. regional planning agencies,
4. regional councils of governments,
5. regional councils of elected officials,
6. UConn's Agricultural Extension Service,
7. Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association,
8. UConn's Center of Land Use Education and Research, and
9. Rural Development Council
EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage
New State Plan of Conservation and Development adopted - earlier Session BILL ANALYSIS here...
Newest from "CLEAR" ("Son of NEMO") is Weston map showing changes in land cover between 1985 and 2002, tables.
"ABOUT TOWN'S" TOWN PLAN REVIEW AND WHERE WE THINK THE TOWN STANDS ON THE PLAN'S...IMPLEMENTATION:
Adopted 6-19-00, available at Town Hall; effective 6-30-00...WESTON TOWN PLAN OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT. Until a copy was mailed to every household in Weston in December 2000, all citizens had to do to read (in the comfort of their home) the official DRAFT of the Weston Town Plan of Conservation and Development 2000 (which was revised minimally for grammar, etc. and then ADOPTED effective June 30, 2000). A visit the Town of Weston WEBsite was all it took! Copies were also available (of the text) in Town Hall. To link to handy map of U.S. Census Block Groups 2000, and courtesy of the South Western Regional Planning Agency, including a sample of some data for Weston, can be found by clicking HERE.Background on the affordable housing issue. Link to "Recommended State Plan of Conservation & Development 2004-2009," which leaned heavily on Smart Growth and Property Tax Commission Final Report, Metropatterns, and other recent reports. This new Plan was not adopted by the General Assembly in a timely fashion, but will be up for Public Hearing February 7, 2005 (Monday) at 5pm in the L.O.B. Room 2A...
The special meeting to discuss the proposal to convert SWRPA to a council of governments was held on Wednesday evening, April 20th at 7:30 p.m. in the Senior Center Auditorium on the Second Floor of the Stamford Government Center, 888 Washington Boulevard (northwest corner of Route 1) in Stamford.
Two documents written by staff of SWRPA provide some background on the issues surrounding this proposal:
FIRST DOCUMENT (RPA-CEO-COG brief description);
WESTPORT NEWS ARTICLE, Friday,
April 29, 2005
WESTON FORUM EDITORIAL, April
28, 2005 (in addition
to long story on front page with jump to back page); Weston a
beehive
of activity!
NORWALK HOUR EDITORIAL, Sunday,
April 24, 2005
On-line newspaper report on RPO showdown (WestportNow) here;
Officials Disagree with Population Projections
By Jennifer Connic
Posted 05/17/07 at 05:05 PM
Westport officials said today they disagree with a report from the University of Connecticut that predicts the town’s population will grow by almost 20 percent by 2030.
The report from the Connecticut State Data Center shows Westport’s population to grow by 19.3 percent from 26,610 in 2005 to 31,757 in 2030 (See WestportNow May 16). But town officials are saying they disagree with the report and do not anticipate the significant growth over the next 20 years. Planning and Zoning Director Laurence Bradley said the dramatic increase does not fit with the model they are using with the update to the Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
"We believe the population is going to get smaller and older,” he said. “We just don’t see (the growth) happening. The projections don’t fit the trend.”
In order to have the type of growth projected by the UConn report, he said, there would need to be a significant increase in housing. First Selectman Gordon Joseloff said the town is 98 percent developed, and it doesn’t leave a lot of room for the sort of growth projected by the UConn demographers.
“We’re not going to see hundreds of housing units built,” he said. “The town plan doesn’t call for it, and it won’t call for it.”
The report itself is surprising, Joseloff said, because the town’s population decreased over the previous 30 years before 2000.
“It calls into question the basis of the projections,” he said. “It’s not necessarily accurate.”
Town officials have received population projections previously from various organizations, he said, and they never call for an increase as large as the one projected in the UConn report.
Planning group aims for more unified voice: SWRPA considers changing structure
By Mark Ginocchio
Stamford ADVOCATE
April 21, 2005STAMFORD -- A old debate was rekindled last night when elected officials discussed a proposal to create a council for the region.
The South Western Regional Planning Agency held a special meeting to discuss changing the organization so it's led by the eight elected officials in the region.
A Council of Governments is designed to give the region a more unified voice for discussing issues such as transportation, homeland security and public health, but opponents of the conversion say a council would strip the municipalities of their individual authority.
"Under a COG, there is no voice of the people," Greenwich Town Planner Diane Fox said to the group of elected officials, planning and zoning commissioners and SWRPA members during last night's meeting at the Stamford Government Center. "In SWRPA, public involvement is widespread."
SWRPA's current membership consists of the agency's board members and 22 representatives from the eight municipalities as appointed by elected officials. Members are from the town's government, planning and zoning commissions and the general public.
The number seats is based on population: Norwalk and Stamford each have four seats; Greenwich and Westport own three seats; and the other four towns have two seats.
A Council of Governments would give each municipality an equal vote and would consist only of mayors and first selectmen. A conversion would require a 60 percent approval from the eight municipalities.
There are currently seven Council of Governments and five regional planning associations in the state.
In January, the chief elected officials and several SWRPA board members attended a presentation of the role of COGs by James Butler, executive director of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments in Norwich.
Supporters of a conversion said if SWRPA became a Council of Governments, the organization would better address regional needs by directly involving elected officials.
"We need to consider new issues of regional concern," Norwalk Mayor Alex Knopp said. "Anthrax and smallpox don't respect town bodies. It's a false picture of how we live to just say it's always town-to-town."
Knopp said the conversion would formally recognized a process that is already in place. The eight leaders now meet to approve transportation projects, but often informally discuss other concerns.
SWRPA executive director Robert Wilson said the only thing that would change through a conversion is the membership.
"A COG would have the same authority as a RPA," he said.
But opponents feared a Council of Governments could become a "county government," and other elected officials were unconvinced of the need to convert. County government was abolished in Connecticut in 1960.
"The current regional structure we have is more effective than a COG will ever be," said Dan Gilbert, a member of the Weston Planning and Zoning commission. "I'm always concerned when there are chief elected officials looking for more authority."
Because of how the votes are counted, Gilbert said Council of Governments decisions would come down to "five votes to win, four votes to lose." He was concerned other municipalities may petition the state to join the southwest's COG.
Wilson said other municipalities also could petition to join a regional planning agency and it was doubtful there would ever be such a scenario.
Others still sought a reason for a conversion.
"We don't see a problem that would be solved by moving to a COG," said Greenwich First Selectman James Lash. "It's fair to say this has no chance in passing in our town meeting because a case hasn't been made for a need."
Westport First Selectwoman Diane Farrell said a conversion would better streamline the work of the Council of Governments. She also wanted to dispel the possibility of municipalities losing their voice in a council of government.
"We are all beholden to our constituents," Farrell said. "Nothing about this usurps individual rights and authority. There are more COGs than RPAs in the state and it hasn't happened yet."
The land cover data were interpreted from Landsat satellite imagery. Sensors aboard the satellite detect radiation reflected from the earth’s surface and store these data as images. The images, which are made up of millions of squares with a ground resolution of 30 meters (~ 100 feet) on a side, are converted via computer programs and human expertise into land cover maps. Land cover, as its name implies, shows the "covering" of the landscape. This is to be distinguished from land use, which is what is permitted, practiced or intended for a given area. For example, an area of low-density rural residential land use, as permitted by local zoning, likely will appear as forest in a Landsat image – there are a lot more trees than houses. Similarly, downtown Hartford, which is classified mostly as a “Developed” land cover is a mixture of uses that include offices, restaurants, stores, apartments, roads, parking lots, etc. From the satellite image it’s not possible to determine what the land uses are but we can describe the area as being developed.
The land cover data include eleven consistently defined classes and include: developed areas, turf and grass, other grasses and agriculture, deciduous forest, coniferous forest, water, non-forested wetlands, forested wetlands, tidal wetlands, barren areas, and utility rights-of-way. In preparing the data, care was taken to insure the accuracy of land cover classifications from one time period to the next thereby making it possible to conduct change analyses.
The land cover
maps and a number of interpreted products can be viewed on the CLEAR
website
and each of the four dates of data can be downloaded for use in
geographic
information systems.
2/04 - New
NEMO Program Coordinator Announced
John
Rozum, AICP
Finally, you
have someone to call! After a nation-wide search for a NEMO Program
Director,
it turns out that we had only to look down the hall. John Rozum, an
AICP
Planner and our first and only National NEMO Network Coordinator,
decided
to throw his hat into the ring after our original search, this past
fall,
did not produce quite the right candidate.
After earning Master's degrees at the University of Arizona in Ecology and Land Use Planning, John worked as an environmental and community planner in Michigan for three years. In 1999 he came to UConn to lead the National NEMO Network, which at the time was just starting to take shape. Under John's tender ministrations, the Network has grown like a weed, going from 9 to 34 programs in four years. While John was nurturing the National Network, he was also delving into local planning in the Nutmeg State.
He is a member of East Haddam's Planning and Zoning Commission, the East Haddam Village Planning Group and the Eightmile River Wild and Scenic Study Management Committee. In addition, John has provided many important contributions to Connecticut NEMO during his tenure as National Coordinator, including leading the development of the Community Resource Inventory educational module.
With enthusiastic support of the rest of the team, John made the decision to focus on assisting Connecticut's communities, even though he'll miss the national program. Having recently celebrated our 10-year anniversary, the NEMO Program is at an important crossroads. With John at the helm, the NEMO Team will in short order reshape the program to keep all that has made it successful while adding new ideas, new services, new information and new partnerships into the mix.
Direct
link to Weston Land Cover 1995 NEMO map!
2/04 -
Steal Connecticut Land Cover Maps!
No need for
larceny, you can download the maps and information on Connecticut’s
Changing
Landscape Project for free on the CLEAR website. Here you will find
more
information on how the data were created, some preliminary
interpretation,
fact sheets, frequently asked questions, as well as ways to download
the
GIS information for those geospatially inclined. If you don't have the
latest GIS software on your computer, no worries. The website also
includes
an interactive mapping section that allows you to view, query and print
the maps using nothing more than your internet browser. So grab your
favorite
beverage and point your browser to the CLEAR website to learn more
about
Connecticut's changing landscape.
This bill allows
municipalities to establish by ordinance decentralized wastewater
management
districts. It establishes conditions
that must
be met before a town can create such a district, including approval of
an engineering plan by the DEP commissioner with concurring approval by
the commissioner of the Department of Public Health (DPH). It lists
standards,
regulations, and criteria that a town can apply to such a district. It
requires DPH to conduct any oversight or monitoring of these districts
within available appropriations.
The bill requires a town water pollution control authority to include in its water pollution control plan the designation and boundary of any decentralized wastewater management district it establishes and to describe any programs where the local health director manages subsurface sewage disposal systems. The bill requires the authority to ensure the operation and management of any decentralized wastewater management district not owned by the municipality.
By law, municipalities, through their water pollution control authorities, can establish and revise rules and regulations governing sewerage systems; the bill requires any such rules or regulations regarding decentralized systems to be approved by the local health director before taking effect. Also by law, an authority can order a building owner to connect to an available sewerage system; the bill allows it to order an owner to construct an alternative sewage treatment system and connect the building to it.
The bill also requires a municipality to include in its ordinance remediation standards to regulate alternative sewage treatment systems.
The bill states
that any area designated by municipal ordinance as a decentralized
wastewater
management district is not considered
to be a public
sewer under the Public Health Code. It also states that its provisions
must not be construed to limit the authority of a local health director
or the commissioners of DEP or DPH.
The bill defines a "decentralized system" as a managed subsurface sewage disposal system, managed alternative sewage treatment system, or community sewerage system that discharges less than 5,000 gallons of sewage per day, are used to collect and treat domestic sewage, and involve discharges from a municipality into the state's ground waters.
It defines a "decentralized wastewater management district" as an area of a municipality designated through a municipal ordinance when an engineering report determines that existing subsurface sewage disposal systems may be detrimental to public health or the environment and decentralized systems are required and the report is approved by the DEP commissioner with concurring approval by the DPH commissioner after consultation with the local health director.
It defines an "alternative sewage treatment system" as one serving one or more buildings that uses treatment methods other than a subsurface sewage disposal system and discharges into the state's ground waters.
It defines
"remediation standards" as pollutant limits, performance requirements,
design parameters, or technical standards applying
to existing
sewage discharges in a decentralized wastewater district for improving
wastewater treatment to protect public health and the environment.
It changes the definition of a "community sewerage system" to a system serving two or more, rather than one or more, residences in separate structures not connected to a municipal sewerage system or connected as a distinct and separately managed part of such a system.
Finally, it includes a decentralized system in a decentralized wastewater management district established under the bill's provisions under the definition of a sewerage system.
Other statutes and regulations in the Public Health Code, not changed by this bill, define related terms. A "subsurface sewage disposal system" is a septic tank, leaching system and the additional necessary pumps, siphons, collection sewers, and groundwater control system. An "alternative on-site sewage treatment system" is one serving one or more buildings on one property using treatment methods other than subsurface sewage treatment and discharging into state waters.
Requirements For Municipality To Establish District
The municipality must act after approval of the engineering report by the DEP commissioner with concurrence from the DPH commissioner in consultation with the local health director. The engineering report must have determined that existing subsurface sewage disposal systems may be detrimental to public health or the environment and that decentralized systems are required. The municipality must act in conjunction with its water pollution control authority.
Provisions Of The Ordinance
The bill requires the ordinance to include remediation standards for the design, construction, and installation of alternative sewage treatment systems and standards for the effective supervision, management, control, operation, and maintenance of alternative sewage treatment systems within a decentralized district that are consistent with any DEP permit, order, or recommendation.
The bill allows the ordinance to include, with the local health director's approval:
1. remediation and technical standards for the design and construction of subsurface disposal systems that are more stringent than those imposed by the state Public Health Code;
2. authority
for the local health director to order the upgrade of subsurface sewage
treatment systems according to the remediation and
technical
standards;
3. authority for the local health director to establish criteria for the abandonment of substandard subsurface sewage disposal systems;
4. authority for the local health director to order the owner of a substandard subsurface sewage disposal system not complying with the remediation or technical standards or other criteria to abandon the substandard system so the water pollution control authority can order him to connect to a sewerage system;
5. standards established by the local health director for effective supervision, management, control, operation, and maintenance of managed subsurface sewage disposal systems within a decentralized district; and
6. authority for the water pollution control authority to enact and amend regulations, following approval by the local health director, governing the supervision, management, control, operation, and maintenance of the decentralized system.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
October 1, 2003
Permit cities of more than 100,000 to adopt a two-tier property tax system under which urban land would be taxed at a higher rate than buildings. This hybrid approach discourages owners from holding vacant parcels and encourages commercial or residential development because of the tax bonus. The system has produced spectacular results in Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania.
Authorize a tax burden analysis. Connecticut is among a minority of states that fail to take advantage of computer analyses to show how proposed taxes would affect people in each income group. Without this valuable tool, lawmakers operate in the dark about the real impact of new taxes.
Create a coordinated state-local geographic information system - a computer method that overlays data about taxes, sewers, power lines, soil type and other information to give a snapshot of land parcels.
Update and expand state, regional and local plans of development to facilitate rational decisions and maximize the economic potential of, for example, rail and bus lines. Significantly, the bill would require "integration of planning across all levels of government" to bring about smart growth.
Unfortunately, one key legislative ingredient was dropped under pressure from homebuilders. It would have authorized a statewide "build-out" analysis to show what towns might look like if every parcel were developed to the maximum permitted by current zoning. Such a survey would expose the impact of unrestrained growth on schools, roads, water, open space and public safety. That provision should be included.
Of course, each town could hire consultants to carry out such a study, but that would subvert the desirable goal of regional and statewide anti-sprawl planning. A statewide study might cost $1 million, but it will be money well spent if the result is increased awareness and better planning.
A broad coalition of civic, religious and business groups now recognizes the dangers of random sprawl and the need to channel development in reasonable ways.
Scattered housing and commercial projects flung across the landscape require a huge public investment in added roads, sewers, police protection and other services. They also require longer commutes - clogging highways and worsening air pollution. Moreover, random development in one of the smallest states in the nation chews up farmland, destroys open space and damages scenic vistas.
Steering development to urban areas with existing infrastructure is the sensible approach. There is nothing draconian about the proposed smart growth legislation. It would give the state additional tools and authority to make rational decisions about the future of Connecticut's landscape.
Preservationists throughout Fairfield County are uniting to form a coalition to combat sprawl and the demolition of historic structures.
The Fairfield County Preservation Trust will undertake its mission later this year. Organizers of the newly established nonprofit organization still have to form a board of directors, raise private funds, hire a small staff and set up an office. The group has support from historical societies countywide and has secured a $25,000 grant from Westport-based Newman's Own. Area preservationists and area historical society members formed the coalition after recognizing a trend in demolition and insensitive redevelopment that was tarnishing the Gold Coast's charms.
"One thing that all the communities in the county have in common is the desire to stop sprawl -- residential and commercial -- which is destroying the character of our communities and our quality of life," said Bill Kraus, a Norwalk resident and vice president of the trust. John Lupton, the trust's president, said the group would differ from historical societies -- which are generally more focused on archiving and research -- by addressing and raising public awareness of tear-downs and development that is discordant with its surroundings.
Lupton said the trust would be a clearinghouse of information, offering residents tips on rehabilitating old homes, designating areas as historic to protect against disharmonious development, obtaining available tax credits and placing easements on land to preserve it. The organization's Web site is www.fairfieldcountypreservation.org.The trust's goal is also to educate the public through an advertising campaign about the problems associated with sprawl and the economic benefits of historic preservation.
"All over Fairfield County, there are many old homes that are not protected," Lupton said.
One of the trust's first tasks will be to inventory and prioritize all the "endangered" historic homes in the county. Having such a list would assist the group in contacting property owners and prioritizing its preservation efforts with available funding. The group also plans to contract consultants and attorneys to battle development.
Demolition of residential and commercial buildings has increased in recent years, according to data from the state Department of Economic and Community Development. From 2000 to 2002, the number of demolition permits granted in Norwalk increased from 30 to 40; in Stamford, from 21 to 35; in Westport, from 65 to 76; in Greenwich, from 78 to 79.
As troubling, though, as the "tear-down trend," said Kraus, is insensitive renovation and redevelopment. He cited a recent case in which owners of an older commercial building removed solid oak flooring and old staircases -- only to violate zoning regulations and then approach preservationists for help. The trust hopes to position itself so property owners in similar situations seek its assistance before demolition begins.
"If
we had gotten involved early
in the design stage, we could have shown them simple ways they could
have
worked with the building . . . and they would have ended up with a much
more solid, valuable building at the end," Kraus said. "As it was, it
was
too late for us to help them."
Population Of U.S. Nearing 300 Million
Americans are
consuming more food, energy, resources than ever
By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Writer
New London DAY
Published on 10/15/2006
Washington — America's population is on track to hit 300 million on
Tuesday morning, and it's causing a stir among environmentalists.
People in the United States are consuming more than ever — more food,
more energy, more natural resources. Open spaces are shrinking and
traffic in many areas is dreadful. But some experts argue that
population growth only partly explains America's growing consumption.
Just as important, they say, is where people live, what they drive and
how far they travel to work.
“The pattern of population growth is really the most crucial thing,”
said Michael Replogle, transportation director for Environmental
Defense, a New York-based advocacy group.
“If the population grows in thriving existing communities, restoring
the historic density of older communities, we can easily sustain that
growth and create a more efficient economy without sacrificing the
environment,” Replogle said.
That has not been the American way. Instead, the country has fed its
appetite for big houses, big yards, cul-de-sacs and strip malls. In a
word: sprawl.
“Because the U.S. has become a suburban nation, sprawl has become the
most predominant form of land use,” said Vicky Markham, director of the
Center for Environment and Population, an advocacy group. “Sprawl is,
by definition, more spread out. That of course requires more vehicles
and more vehicle miles traveled.”
America still has a lot of wide-open spaces, with about 84 people per
square mile, compared with about 300 people per square mile in the
European Union and almost 900 people per square mile in Japan.
But a little more than half the U.S. population is clustered in
counties along the coasts, including those along the Gulf of Mexico and
the Great Lakes. Also, much of the population is moving away from large
cities to the suburbs and beyond.
The fastest growing county is Flagler County, Fla., north of Daytona
Beach; the fastest growing city is Elk Grove, Calif., a suburb of
Sacramento; and the fastest growing metropolitan area is Riverside,
Calif., about 50 miles east of Los Angeles.
“In New York City, people tend to think of that as an urban jungle, but
the environmental impact per capita is quite low,” said Carlos
Restrepo, a research scientist at New York University. “It tends to be
less than it is for someone who lives in the suburbs with a big house
where they need more than one car.”
The Census Bureau projects that America's population will hit 300
million at 7:46 a.m. EDT Tuesday. The projection is based on estimates
for births, deaths and net immigration that add up to one new American
every 11 seconds.
The estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
are included in official population estimates, though many demographers
believe they are undercounted.
The population reached its last milestone, 200 million, in 1967. That
translates into a 50 percent increase in 39 years. During the
same period, the number of households nearly doubled, the number motor
vehicles more than doubled and the miles driven in those vehicles
nearly tripled. The average household size has shrunk from 3.3
people to 2.6 people, and the share of households with only one person
has jumped from less than 16 percent to about 27 percent.
“The natural resource base that is required to support each person
keeps rising,” Replogle said. “We're heating and cooling more space,
and the housing units are more spread out than ever before.”
The U.S. is the third largest country in the world, behind China and
India. The U.S. is the fastest growing of the industrialized nations,
adding about 2.8 million people a year, or just under 1 percent. India
is growing faster but the United Nations considers it to be a less
developed country. About 40 percent of U.S. population growth
comes from immigration, both legal and illegal, according to the Census
Bureau. The rest comes from births outnumbering deaths.
“It's not the population, it's the consumption that can do us in,” said
William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington
think tank. “These are the luxuries we have been able to support until
now. But we're not going to be able to do it forever.”
Hartford
Courant editorial
October 8, 2006
For
decades, ill-planned, low-density, auto-oriented development, known as
sprawl, has been eating away at the traditional Connecticut
countryside. Scenic farms have been sacrificed for subdivisions and
strip malls. Ridge lines have been cleared for McMansions. Urban
centers have struggled.
Finally, on Friday, a Connecticut governor said it has to stop. Gov. M.
Jodi Rell issued an executive order creating a state office to control
sprawl and promote more sensible and sustainable growth.
The new agency, the Office of Responsible Growth, will be part of the
state's Office of Policy and Management. The new agency will convene a
steering council made up of the state agencies involved in land use:
economic development, environmental protection, transportation,
agriculture and public health, as well as the Connecticut Housing
Finance Authority and the Connecticut Development Authority.
The governor's order charges this group with such tasks as:
Increasing mass-transit options and promoting road design that
preserves the character and walkability of a community.
Expanding transit-oriented development - housing with ready access to
passenger rail and bus service.
Creating incentives for regional planning and support for local
land-use officials (without usurping local zoning).
Encouraging planning that will protect natural resources.
This is not Rell's first anti-sprawl measure. She's supported a $3.5
billion investment in transportation infrastructure in the past two
years, and backed the creation of a dedicated fund to support the
protection of open space, farmland and historic sites, as well as the
creation of affordable housing.
But the creation of the new agency is the first structural change Rell
has made in state government to tame ill-conceived and wasteful
development. We applaud it. The Courant has extensively examined the
effects of sprawl over the past two years, and we believe it is
damaging the state's quality of life - our best selling point - and
slowing the state's economy.
Still, the announcement raises a few questions.
Bringing all the agencies to the table - "joining the silos," as the
planners say - is clearly the way to get coordinated state action. But
will the new agency have the authority to bend the departments to its
will? Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney created a super-agency by
combining the departments of energy, environmental protection,
transportation and housing to fight sprawl, and it is working. Rell
needs to ensure the same result.
Also, Rell's announcement says the new agency will "review state
funding" that has an impact on development in Connecticut. That
language doesn't go far enough. The state has to be able to direct
state funding toward sensible development and stop subsidizing sprawl.
If the new agency can't do that, it's not going to be strong enough to
make a difference.
Finally, Rell does not address one major cause of sprawl, and that is
the state's heavy and disastrous dependence on local property taxes
(though she has a task force studying the issue). Towns strapped for
funds are inclined to develop every corner of field or forest to
squeeze more money for schools and other services. Someone's got to
shift some of the burden to other taxes that aren't as dependent on
land use, if we're to really stop sprawl.
Nonetheless, Rell has stepped out in front of her gubernatorial
opponent, John DeStefano Jr. - who is knowledgeable on the subject -
and taken the most promising action yet to rein in sprawl. We await Mr.
DeStefano's plan.
Study Maps
Out A Region At Risk
By MYRON ORFIELD, Published in New
London DAY on 7/6/2003
Unbalanced growth is hurting all
communities in Connecticut — including the state's beautiful
northeastern
corner. Despite revitalization efforts, many of the state's large
cities and older suburbs continue to face declining population and
stagnant
tax bases. At the same time, many of the state's outlying communities
are
facing the pressures of rapid, low-density growth.
New development in Connecticut is consuming previously undeveloped land at alarming rates. Between 1970 and 2000, the amount of land settled at urban or suburban densities increased by 102 percent. During the same period, the state's population increased by just 12 percent. Our recent report, “Connecticut Metropatterns,” used statistical analysis to group the state's 169 towns and cities by specified fiscal and social characteristics. Communities were divided into six groups, ranging from highly stressed central cities to a group of affluent suburbs. Nearly all communities in Northeast Connecticut fell into one of two groups. The first, “at risk” communities, is still stable by many measures.
These places have slightly below-average poverty rates in their schools, an average number of jobs per resident and greater-than-average job growth. But there are signs of stress afoot. School-poverty rates edged up slightly faster in this group than in the state as a whole during the 1990s. Property tax base and growth in property tax base are below the state averages, as the map above illustrates. This hinders their ability to adequately meet social and physical needs. Because of such pressures, it increases the likelihood that such towns will adopt development that increases sprawl and lessens the beauty that attracted people to the Northeast corner to begin with.
Most other northeast Connecticut communities were classified as “fringe-developing.” The most exceptional characteristic of these middle-class communities is rapid growth — more than twice the rate of the state as a whole — at very low densities. This type of growth brings its own stresses — requiring major investments in roads, sewers and schools that often strain even the hardiest tax bases. However, most fringe-development places do not command such big tax bases – on average, they have slightly below-average tax bases that are growing much more slowly than average.
At-risk and fringe-developing communities were home to nearly 40 percent of the land that urbanized during the 1980s and 1990s. Given their low tax bases, these communities feel tremendous pressure to attract development that will improve their fiscal health. This pressure can drive land-use planning decisions and discourage a cooperative, regional approach to planning. These trends have serious implications for the region and the state as a whole. What can we do to turn them around? Fortunately, there are strategies that can help.
•
Reform Connecticut's property
tax system:
The local fiscal landscape in Connecticut
is dominated by much greater-than-average reliance on property taxes to
finance municipal services and schools. This places tremendous pressure
on most communities to attract development that will expand their
property
tax bases. That's especially true in low-tax-base communities where the
need for public services far outstrips the available property tax base
to pay for them. Reducing reliance on the property tax would
reduce
the pressures communities feel to develop land. For example, state
lawmakers
could move more of the cost of K-12 public education from local
property
taxes to the statewide revenue system, freeing up local funds for other
important public services. Another option is regional tax-base
sharing,
which pools a portion of local governments' tax base and redistributes
it more equitably. Tax-base sharing in the Minneapolis-St. Paul has
helped
its core communities remain relatively healthy and provided fiscal
support
to low-tax-base exurban areas. A smaller program in the New Jersey
Meadowlands
has helped officials guide development in an environmentally-friendly
way
by guaranteeing that all 14 Meadowlands communities share the benefits
of development, no matter where in the district it occurs.
•
Encourage regional land-use
planning:
Connecticut institutions currently
do little to support balanced growth. For example, although towns must
note any inconsistency with the State Plan of Conservation and
Development
when amending their own plans, they are not required to reconcile any
differences.
Many state agencies produce plans, but often independently of each
other.
In fact, there is no state agency explicitly responsible for planning.
Although the state boasts 15 councils of government and regional
planning
agencies, these regional bodies have no statutory authority to review
local
land-use decisions. Policies should be established that encourage
local planning with a regional and statewide perspective. For example,
strengthened regional bodies could coordinate a host of regional
issues,
such as housing and redevelopment efforts and farmland and open-space
protection.
A reinvigorated state plan could be a powerful statewide planning tool
to promote consistency among municipal and regional plans and to
encourage
development in desired locations. Similar policies have worked
across
the country. At least 16 states have adopted comprehensive smart growth
acts, which is development that preserves open space and uses existing
infrastructure whenever possible. Their ranks are growing.
Regional
land-use planning in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Maryland helps
officials
coordinate investments in roads and sewers. Concurrency requirements
like
those in Florida require infrastructure to be in place by the time
development
takes place. Several states have approved or are considering “fix it
first”
legislation requiring state agencies to focus spending on repairing
existing
infrastructure instead of building new facilities. These ideas
serve
as a starting point for a larger discussion on how northeast
Connecticut
can preserve its scenic environment while accommodating sustainable
growth.
A credible and effective system that promotes local, regional and
statewide
cooperation will pay dividends for the region and its people for
generations
to come.
Myron Orfield is director of
the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota Law
School
and president of Ameregis, a research firm in Minneapolis. He
co-authored
the Connecticut Metropatterns report, released in March. To find
the complete report, 25.1MB (takes a while to download), click HERE.
![[IMAGE]](saugwlk.jpg)
What would have been the effect of the onetime proposed BHC (Kelda) water line across Godfrey Road (and down Valley Forge) on the large, open parcels nearby as well as the CLASS II (i.e. flows toward CLASS I water body) BHC lands? Higher density uses and zone changes could have developed there. Pick out your favorite "white" colored properties on the EXISTING LAND USE MAP and consider the possibilities for alternative land uses!
![[IMAGE]](centrv.jpg)
![[IMAGE]](swr.jpg)
Weston is
located in the upper right of any SWRPA regional map. We show a
low density development pattern. State Plan of C&D 2005-2010
map of SWRPA Region explains why north of the Merritt Parkway has not
developed. Pink and red areas indicate where infrastructure
exists.
Change to definition of "rural" lands
and their
zoning in the new CT Plan still does not make
two-acre zoning
density inconsistent with the effort to most efficiently
develop the lands of the State of CT..
NEWS:
In addition, the completion
of a full interchange at the Merritt Parkway and Route Seven has benn
halted by the Courts (2006), which put completion of new "Super Seven"
in limbo.
The
western and eastern uplands of the state and areas along
the lower
Development at
“in between” densities (greater than
one half acre to approximately one and a half acre lot per dwelling)
tends to
increase the demand for public services but make their provision
inefficient
and expensive. Accommodating future economic development, job
creation,
industrial diversification, needed social services and availability of
public
transportation while maintaining the desirable qualities of rural towns
is thus
a critical planning concern at state, regional and local levels.
Rural area goals as set forth in Executive Order No. 31 (October 1980) are as follows:
This Plan seeks to properly scale responses to identified rural economic and social issues and to concentrate development activities within or adjacent to traditional village areas in order to maintain rural character and to protect environmentally sensitive places. Techniques such as open space development (cluster development with its primary aim the preservation of open space), regulations to encourage new development that mesh with historical development, mixed use development in community centers, and traditional street networks are some of the methods to maintain rural character and the resources that define that character.
Investment in infrastructure has shaped community character. Public sewer and water systems and highway improvements support urban scale and densities that are not consistent with rural character. Recent advances in on-site wastewater treatment technology have the potential to complicate greatly the issue of infrastructure in rural land use, even though their use will continue to be limited by soils and groundwater conditions. Their greater treatment efficiencies may enable substantially larger and more intensive development projects without conventional sewer service. Yet, they may also provide communities more flexibility in applying such techniques as cluster development and community centers.
Development and infrastructure in rural areas should be guided by the following guidelines:
o Encourage development in Rural Lands of a form, density, and location compatible with the carrying capacity of the natural environment, and which avoids the need for large scale and costly urban infrastructure for water supply, waste disposal, and transportation;
o
Encourage
rural plans and land use regulations to protect the rural environment
through
controls and techniques, such as cluster subdivisions, that direct
development
patterns in conformity with rural values.
Further, rural communities should pursue a watershed planning
framework
that encourages inter-town cooperation to promote water quality and
natural
resource protection;
o
Encourage
the concentration of higher density or multiple use development into
Rural
Community Centers where practical and consistent with historic
character;
support industrial and business development within Rural Community
Centers only
of a scale and type which respond to an existing local employment need
without
inducing major development;
o Promote development and refinement of design and engineering standards for community infrastructure and facilities that are consistent with historic rural character and natural resource values, while adequately meeting public health and safety concerns;
o
Ensure
new projects are consistent with “rural design” principles and do not
have
unacceptable adverse impacts upon districts and sites of historic
significance,
important natural areas or concentrations of prime farmland;
o
Supporting
industrial and business development within Rural Community Centers only
of a
scale and type which respond to an existing local employment need
without
inducing major development;
o
Foster
application of best available design practices and control methods to
nonpoint
water pollution sources;
o
Give
priority to transportation improvement projects that recognize and
reinforce
the viability and character of village centers, particularly with
regard to
pedestrian access and safety;
o
Encourage
greenway projects that provide links both to and within Rural Community
Centers
and that provide alternative transportation and recreation
opportunities;
o
Locate
highway interchanges in urban rather than rural areas to support the
concentration of growth in those areas;
o
Protect
the capacity and safety of existing state roads through cooperative
efforts
with municipalities to control the number and location of access
points;
Improve traffic flow on existing highways, where feasible, as a
preferred
alternative to the construction of new highways;
o
Protect
significant natural areas, resources and ecological systems in order to
protect
and enhance the local economy and quality of life;
o
Vigorously
pursue sewer avoidance programs and limit development to those uses and
densities that ensure indefinite functioning of on-lot or small
community water
supply and waste disposal systems, review zoning regulation and
eliminate
insufficient lot sizes, assure sufficient oversight of the permitting
and
maintenance of septic systems to ensure that on-site septic systems
function
indefinitely, and encourage enactment of local ordinances that require
septic
tanks to be inspected every three to five years and pumped out as
needed; further, limit of water pollution
control
facilities to project costs required to correct an existing pollution
problem (as environmental carrying capacity depends
on many factors, site-specific factors and proper installation and
maintenance
have to be considered in any decisions as related to actual lot size);
o Support application of advanced on-site wastewater treatment technologies only when their long term functioning is assured and only where the development they support meshes with and complements existing rural patterns and avoids scattered development; in particular, they may be necessary:
· To develop affordable housing in conformance with local and regional plans,
· To support higher intensity uses and economic development within Rural Community Centers, or
· To enable cluster development to preserve environmental resources;
o Support the introduction or expansion of public facilities or services only when there is a demonstrated environmental, economic, social, or general welfare concern and then introduce such services only at a scale which responds to the existing need without serving as an attraction to more intensive development. An exception may be made to assist municipalities in the provision of infrastructure to service a particular site when: a) there is a definite commitment from a firm to relocate to the site in the immediate future; b) substantial employment will result from the relocation; c) a feasible site is not available within a development area; d) a project plan is prepared which sets forth the costs and the anticipated economic, social, and environmental impacts including availability of affordable housing; and e) there is no overriding environmental condition or concern that would preclude such service.
o Limit the extension of public water supply infrastructure to rural areas by using individual wells where well capacity is adequate.
Similar to the State Plan of Conservation and Development, the SWRPA vision for Weston is "rural" land and "low density neighborhoods"--plus a "Town Center" in the same places as such land uses exist today. Read the whole CT Plan here.
For greater
explanation of what the previous State of Connecticut Plan of
Conservation and Development
has to say about the role of WATER QUALITY as a planning determinant,
click
below:
Water
Quality
