Members of the Continuing Legislative Committee on

State Planning and Development:

The Honorable Eric D. Coleman

The Honorable Lewis J. Wallace, Jr.
The Honorable Joseph J. Crisco, Jr.

The Honorable Antonio (Tony) Guerrera

The Honorable Jonathan A. Harris

The Honorable Jack Malone

The Honorable Craig A. Miner

The Honorable Andrew W. Roraback

The Honorable Richard Roy

The Honorable Andrea L. Stillman

Dear Senators and Representatives:

In accordance with Section 16a-32(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes and Sections 16a-24b-1-8 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) hereby submits it recommendations on the application submitted by the Town of New Milford for an interim change to the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 1998-2003 (C&D Plan). Please note that because the 2004-2009 revision to the C&D Plan is currently before the Continuing Committee, any action taken with respect to this interim change application will also apply to the new Plan revision.

The New Milford application requests certain changes to the C&D Plan’s Locational Guide Map designations to accommodate the town’s proposed expansion of sewer service into areas that are not currently eligible for such state investment. A copy of the application package was previously submitted by OPM to the Continuing Committee on January 28, 2005.

At the time of that submittal, the Town of New Milford was given the opportunity to request a joint public hearing on the application. On February 17, 2005, Mayor Patricia Murphy notified OPM that the town did not wish to request a hearing.

-2-

In accordance with R.C.S.A. Section 16a-24b-8, the Continuing Committee has thirty (30) days from receipt of OPM’s recommendations to act on the proposed interim change application.

My staff and I are available to meet with you at your convenience during this period, if you should have any questions.

Sincerely,

W. David LeVasseur, Undersecretary

Intergovernmental Policy Division

Attachments

Cc: Secretary Robert L. Genuario, OPM

Mayor Patricia Murphy, New Milford

Senator Andrew Roraback, 30th District

Representative Clark J. Chapin, 67th District

Representative Mary Ann Carson, 108th District

Jonathan C. Chew, Executive Director

Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials

Mrs. Vivian Harris, New Milford Planning Commission

William Johnson, New Milford Sewer Commission

Trip Rothschild, New Milford Economic Development Commission

Findings and Recommendations

Town of New Milford

Interim Change to the Locational Guide Map

Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 1998-2003

In accordance with Section 16a-32(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Town of New Milford requests an interim change to the Locational Guide Map of the State’s Conservation and Development Policies Plan to reflect the town’s proposed sewer expansion plan. The Town of New Milford is in the process of upgrading its sewage treatment plant capacity, and wishes to expand sewer service into certain areas that are presently not eligible for state-funded development.

Please note that the planned upgrade to the sewage treatment plant is not an issue with this interim change request. However, the plant’s final engineering design will need to be based upon the resolution of this process, once the 20-year sewer service area is delineated and approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The resulting flow capacity of the plant design will be based on projected effluent from existing and potential users located within the 20-year sewer service area, as well as users outside the sewer service area where there are current or anticipated problems due to poor soils or a history of septic system failures. The C&D Plan policies allow for sewer service to be extended beyond the approved sewer service area when public health and safety is an issue.

The Office of Policy and Management (OPM) has met with town officials on this matter and has helped guide them through the interim change application process. OPM’s role is to consider all information received in an application and at a public hearing, and to make a recommendation to the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development. New Milford chose not to request a public hearing on this interim change application.

The Town of New Milford’s interim change request is based primarily on the town’s desire to enhance its ability to attract economic development along, and adjacent to, the Route 7 corridor. OPM generally supports the need for sewer service within the commercial corridor to maximize opportunities for infill development. OPM recognizes the large state investment that is currently underway with regard to the widening of Route 7 from the Brookfield town line north to Bridge Street (Route 67), as well as the finite capacity of New Milford’s road network to handle future vehicle demand.

The following recommendations are based on OPM staff interpretation of both the C&D Plan text and the Locational Guide Map, and how they relate to the information contained in New Milford’s interim change application.

Area 1. Route 7 corridor from Boardman Bridge District south to the Brookfield town line

Request: Town requests that areas marked as #1 on Map B (attached) of their application be changed from the Rural Land designation to the Growth Area designation. Conversely, areas marked as #2 on Map B should be changed from Growth Area and Neighborhood Conservation Area to Rural Land designations.

Recommendation: OPM agrees that this section of the Route 7 corridor comprises the principle area for commercial and industrial expansion that requires sewer service. While OPM understands the town’s desire to achieve consistency with the Locational Guide Map at the parcel level, it should be noted that the underlying environmental characteristics (floodway, flood fringe, etc.), and not the parcel boundary, dictate the limits of the Growth Area and Neighborhood Conservation Area designations east of Route 7. Encroachment into these types of areas is generally not recommended. However, redevelopment opportunities within such areas may be acceptable and eligible for sewer service if it can be demonstrated that any areas of environmental concern can be appropriately avoided, minimized, or otherwise mitigated.

OPM recommends that the requested changes, with two exceptions, be accommodated to the extent possible under existing environmental constraints. First, OPM does not recommend any change to the area marked #1 that runs north from the Brookfield line to the west of Route 7. This area is characterized by steep slopes and is zoned for 2-acre residential (R-80). OPM recommends that this area remain designated as Rural Land, and not be included in the town’s sewer service area. Second, OPM recommends that no change be made to the area marked #2 in the vicinity of Sullivan Road to the south, and north of Perry Drive, since this land is zoned for either Industrial or ¼-acre residential (R-20). Current zoning is not appropriate for a Rural Land designation, but it is the town’s option whether or not to include this area in the sewer service area.

Please refer to OPM map “Area 1” to view the change recommendations.

Area 2. Route 202 north of the Downtown area

Request: Town requests that areas marked as #3 on Map A (attached) of their application be changed from Rural Land to the Neighborhood Conservation Area designation. Conversely, areas marked as #4 on Map A should be changed from Neighborhood Conservation Area to the Rural Land designation.

Recommendation: OPM agrees with the request to limit the northeasterly boundary of the Neighborhood Conservation Area to an area just north of the intersection of Routes 202 and 109. OPM also recommends that the area east of the intersection of Van Car Road and Route 202 be changed to Neighborhood Conservation Area.

For the area east of Heacock Crossbrook Road, OPM recommends that only the lots with frontage to this road be changed to Neighborhood Conservation Area. OPM recommends that the land east of these frontage lots remain as Rural Land, since it is zoned for 2-acre residential (R-80) and it has steep slopes.

OPM does not recommend changing the Town Hill area east of Prospect Hill Road and the area east of Upper Malletts Lane from Rural Land to Neighborhood Conservation Area because it is predominantly zoned for 1.5-acre residential (R-60) and 2-acre residential (R-80).

Please refer to OPM map “Area 2” to view the change recommendations.

Area 3. Boardman Road Corridor East of Housatonic River

Request: Town requests that areas marked as #5 on Map A of their application be changed from Rural Land to the Growth Area designation. The town also requests that the small area marked at #6 on Map A be changed from Growth Area to the Rural Land designation.

Recommendation: OPM recognizes that past sand and gravel excavation activities at this site have diminished its conservation value and the site now poses a reuse opportunity. OPM recommends that the above request be granted, with the understanding that boundary lines may be need to be altered in the future based on the delineation of the potential West Aspetuck water supply watershed area.

Note: The area just north of Boardman Bridge that is zoned ¼-acre residential (R-20) is not identified by the town to be part of the sewer service area. If there are future septic system failures in this area, it is understood that sewers may need to be extended to this area.

Please refer to OPM map “Area 3” to view the change recommendations.

Area 4. Route 7 Corridor West of Housatonic River

Request: Town requests that areas marked as #7 on Map A be changed from Rural Land to the Growth Area designation. This request is based on the 1997 Town Plan that designates this area for industrial growth accompanied by sewer service to facilitate that growth. Furthermore, the town indicates that there are plans to build a 500 unit age-restricted community on the Dunham Farm property to the east of Candlewood Mountain Road that would require sewer service.

Recommendation: OPM recommends no change to the current classification for this large area that is predominantly shown as Rural Land. The magnitude of the proposed development for this area is inconsistent with the C&D Plan policies for Rural Land (see Appendix A). Consideration of the town’s request to make this a Growth Area would entail a vast overhaul of the local road system to accommodate such intensive development in this area, and would likely induce additional development westward toward the Town of Sherman.

Furthermore, such densities were not envisioned when the Route 7 widening project was planned, and access to this area is considerably removed from the northern terminus of the widening project. ConnDOT does not have plans to widen Route 7 beyond the current project limits, and the physical nature of the topography is also prohibitive to further widening. OPM believes that interagency planning for state roadways and sewers should be reasonably consistent and, therefore, does not support the introduction of public sewers into this area.

OPM recognizes the town’s desires to increase its tax base, and encourages an alternative approach based on community septic systems and perhaps a somewhat reduced scale of overall development for both the residential and industrial components planned for this area.

Please refer to OPM map “Area 4” to view the change recommendations.

Summary:

OPM believes that the above recommendations enable New Milford to plan for and accommodate the town’s fiscal needs and corresponding level of services for its residents. OPM does raise some concern with the lack of consistency between the Town Plan and the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials’ Regional Growth Guide Map that were both updated in 1997. We believe that the ongoing transportation improvements in the Route 7 corridor present significant opportunities for future infill development without having to introduce state subsidized sewer infrastructure into relatively undeveloped areas of town.

Any changes recommended above will still reflect existing environmental constraints. For example, floodways and wetlands will continue to show as Preservation Areas, and development within Aquifer Protection Areas must be in conformance with DEP’s land use regulations.