DOCSLIB.ORG

LITCHFIELD PLAN of CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT Adopted on June 4, 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LITCHFIELD PLAN of CONSERVATION and DEVELOPMENT Adopted on June 4, 2007 Provided Courtesy of: Arthur H. Howland & Associates, P.C., Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, Call Us! (860) 354-9346 We Offer Full Service Civil Engineering, Land Surveying, Soil Science & Land Use Permitting! '~, ,")f LITCHFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT adopted on June 4, 2007 LITCHFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Town ofLitchfield, Connecticut Adopted by the Litchfield Planning and Zoning Commission on June 4, 2007 1 Visit Us At: http://ahhowland.com To Learn How We Can Help You With Your Next Project! Provided Courtesy of: Arthur H. Howland & Associates, P.C., Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, Call Us! (860) 354-9346 We Offer Full Service Civil Engineering, Land Surveying, Soil Science & Land Use Permitting! LITCHFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT adopted on June 4, 2007 INTR0 DUCTION......................................................................................................................... 4 1. HOUSING..... .. ..................•.... .....•..•....... 5 AFFORDABILITY OF LITCHFIELD'S HOUSING IS DECLINING 7 OUR POPULATION IS CHANGING 9 HOME-BASED BUSINESSES ARE CHANGING 10 LITCHFIELD IS THREATENED WITH SPRAWL 10 2. COMMUNITY FACILITIES...........................................................•...................•................ 11 VOLUNTEER FIRE AND AMBULANCE SERVICES 11 TOWN OFFICES 12 SOCIAL SERVICES 13 LIBRARIES.............. 14 PARKS ANDREcREATION 16 OTHER PUBLIC RECREATION 16 SANDY BEACH 17 THE VILLAGE GREENS 17 3. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ..................................•.......................................•................ 18 TAX REVENUE FROM COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES 18 THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE ON OLD ROUTE 8 19 TOLL GATE HILL 19 490 PROPERTIES 20 FARMING AND OTHER LAND-BASED BUSINESSES 20 NEW ENTERPRISES 21 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 21 4. TRA.NSPORTATION........................................................................•...................•................ 22 THREAT OF FUTURE STATE ROAD WIDENING 22 PARKING IN LITCHFIELD CENTER 23 "STRIP" COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 24 THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25 RECREATIONAL TRAIL SySTEM 25 MASS TRANSIT 28 5. EDUCATION.....................................................................................•...................•................ 29 EDUCATION FACILITIES AS COMMUNITY FACILITIES 29 OTHER ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 30 CURRENT AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGY NEEDS 30 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 30 STUDENT DRIVING AND PARKING SAFETY 31 6. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES........................•......•...................•................ 32 OVERALL ISSUE: 32 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 33 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE 34 THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE ARTS, HUMANITIES AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 35 LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION 36 2 Visit Us At: http://ahhowland.com To Learn How We Can Help You With Your Next Project! Provided Courtesy of: Arthur H. Howland & Associates, P.C., Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, Call Us! (860) 354-9346 We Offer Full Service Civil Engineering, Land Surveying, Soil Science & Land Use Permitting! t' J LITCHFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT adopted on June 4, 2007 7. OPEN SPACE, FARMS, FOREST AND NATURAL RESOURCES 38 FARMS 38 OPEN SPACE 40 RIDGELINE PROTECTION 44 GATEWAY HIGHWAYS 44 WILDLIFE AND BIODIVERSITy 45 8. PUBLIC SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER SUPPLY PROTECTION AND SEWER AVOIDANCE.....................................................................•........................................................ 46 HAMILL WELL FIELD AND AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONE 46 PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WATERSHEDS 47 INLAND WETLANDS REGULATIONS AND WATER QUALITY 51 BANTAM LAKE WATER QUALITY 51 SEWER AVOIDANCE AND SEWER EXPANSION LIMITS 52 MAPS ..•.......................................•...................•...................•.......................................•................ 53 REFERENCES: .....•...................•...................•...........................................................•................ 54 LOCAL STUDIES 54 BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................•...................•................ 56 FORMER LITCHFIELD PLANS 56 AGRICULTURE 56 ARCHEOLOGy 57 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS 57 ARCHITECTURAL SURVEYS 58 BOTANy 59 CULTURAL TOURISM 59 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 59 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES 60 FORESTS & WOODLANDS 61 GEOLOGy 61 HISTORY AND GENEALOGy 61 INDUSTRY 62 LANDSCAPE 62 RAILROADS 63 RECREATION 64 ROADS & HIGHWAYS 64 TOWN FACILITIES 64 STONE WALLS 65 TURNPIKES 65 WILDLIFE ~ 65 ZONING 65 SURVEY MAPS AT DODD CENTER LIBRARY, UCONN 65 MAps 66 MAPs ON LINE 67 WORK GROUPS.......................................................................................................•................ 68 3 Visit Us At: http://ahhowland.com To Learn How We Can Help You With Your Next Project! Provided Courtesy of: Arthur H. Howland & Associates, P.C., Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, Call Us! (860) 354-9346 We Offer Full Service Civil Engineering, Land Surveying, Soil Science & Land Use Permitting! J LITCHFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT adopted on June 4, 2007 Introduction The Plan ofConservation and Development's primary purpose is to guide the work ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission in tailoring its zoning regulations to the needs ofthe town. The Plan ofConservation and Development is also an advisory document that provides a rational framework to review all local policies and regulations, and to recommend necessary revisions. State statutes require that the Plan be reviewed and amended every ten years. Our last plan, The Vision Plan, was adopted in 1994, so this plan is late. The extra time it took is due in part to the fact that we chose to create a "home grown" plan, without hiring outside consultants. Much ofthe work was done by local volunteers. It was initiated by Katherine Davis and Vicki Claman, members ofthe Planning and Zoning Commission, with guidance and encouragement from Jim Gibbons, the UConn Cooperative Extension Educator who gives workshops and classes on planning to towns allover the state. Maps were created with ArcView on computers. Tremendous effort was spent on creating a base parcel map with volunteers, Katherine Davis, David Thomas and Mark Brown, saving the town tens ofthousands ofdollars, and enabling us to keep maps updated easily in the future. Work groups, comprised ofpeople familiar with different aspects ofthe town, wrote each ofthe chapters, which were then reviewed and compiled by Tom McGowan, our Town Planner. The draft has been read and reviewed by Jim Gibbons, Rick Lynn ofthe Litchfield Hills Council of Elected Officials, and members ofcommissions, groups and private citizens, many ofwhose valuable feedback is incorporated in the final draft. Final maps were drawn up by Shane Kramer ofthe Northwest Conservation District. This plan is consistent with the "Regional Growth Policy Map" adopted by the LHCEO and the "Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 2005-2010" and consistent with the six growth management principles contained in the State Plan. Growth Management Principles: . 1. Redevelop and Revitalize Regional Centers and Areas with Existing or Currently Planned Physical Infrastructure 2. Expand Housing Opportunities and Design Choices To Accommodate a Variety of Household Types and Needs 3. Concentrate Development Around Transportation Nodes and Along Major Transportation Corridors to Support the Viability ofTransportation Options 4. Conserve and Restore the Natural Environment, Cultural and Historical Resources, and Traditional Rural Lands 5. Protect and Ensure the Integrity ofEnvironmental Assets Critical to Public Health and Safety 6. Promote Integrated Planning Across All Levels ofGovernment to Address Issues on a Statewide, Regional and Local Basis The process ofresearching and inventorying the needs ofthe town offers an opportunity for the many commissions and groups who are involved in shaping the town's future to communicate their points ofview. To have all this work compiled in one document gives all ofus the opportunity to better understand our town's regulations, land, and resources as well as its citizens' goals and needs. 4 Visit Us At: http://ahhowland.com To Learn How We Can Help You With Your Next Project! Provided Courtesy of: Arthur H. Howland & Associates, P.C., Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, Call Us! (860) 354-9346 We Offer Full Service Civil Engineering, Land Surveying, Soil Science & Land Use Permitting! J LITCHFIELD PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT adopted on June 4, 2007 1. HOUSING Litchfield traditionally has had a diverse mix ofhousing, income groups, and workers who live in the town as well as outside ofthe town. However, several factors threaten this historic diversity that has been an important factor in shaping the town's character and one ofits greatest strengths. » Affordable and moderately-priced housing is in short supply relative to demand. This especially affects young and elderly people with lower incomes.. » Litchfield's attractions-beautiful environment, good schools and relatively reasonable taxes-draw new residents seeking larger lots, larger homes, and retirement homes. » The rise in Litchfield's housing prices diminishes the pool ofemergency service volunteers. Litchfield's housing mix is a good balance ofsingle and multi family units. Single/Multi Family Units: 20001 number % total Litchfield Housing Types Single family 2922 80% Multi family 606 17% Mobile 101 3% home/other Single Multi Family~ Family Total 3629 800/0 17% Mobile &other 3% OwnershiplRentals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2011 at a Glance Nonprofit Org
    FINANCIAL REPORT 2011 AT A GLANCE NONPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE HOUSATONIC VALLEY ASSOCIATION HOUSATONIC VALLEY ASSOCIATION, INC. AND HVA FOUNDATION, INC. The Housatonic Valley Association’s mission is to save the PAID PERMIT NO. 19 natural character and environmental health of our communities by CORNWALL BRIDGE HVA CONNECTICUT 2011 ANNUAL REPORT protecting land and water in the Housatonic River valley. Cornwall Bridge, CT 06754-0028 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 OF FINANCIAL POSITION JUNE 30, 2011 How we spent our THE HOUSATONIC WATERSHED TEMPORARILY PERMANENTLY ASSETS resources UNRESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED TOTAL Current Assets Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 237,257 SUPPORT AND REVENUE Accounts Receivable 94,345 Membership Dues $ 52,294 $ - $ - $ 52,294 Prepaid Expenses 7,050 Massachusetts Contributions Above Dues 247,138 - - 247,138 __________ Grants 266,936 44,900 - 311,836 22% Total Current Assets __________338,652 HVA STAFF Events 191,462 - - 191,462 LAND PROTECTION Fees 21,169 - - 21,169 Lynn Werner BARON DAVID Executive Director Rent 10,292 - - 10,292 30% Investment Income 4,523 20,701 - 25,224 Property and Equipment MASSACHUSETTS Dennis Regan Donated Goods and Services 8,736 - - 8,736 Land 216,206 WATER Buildings and Renovations 306,414 Berkshire Program Director Unrealized Gains on Investments 51,718 99,294 - 151,012 PROTECTION Northern Furnishings and Equipment 166,848 ADMINISTRATIVE/ Alison Dixon Net Assets Release From Restrictions _________78,646 ___________(78,646)
    [Show full text]
  • Anglers Please Plan Ahead!
    79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer Anglers Please Plan Ahead! Trout stocking is well underway in anticipation for Opening Day on April 8, 2017 and we are all looking forward to an enjoyable season. The Connecticut DEEP will be stocking over 530,000 catchable size trout (average size of 12 inches) into Connecticut’s lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams this spring (before opening day and until mid-May). This number is about 90,000 less fish than the number stocked last year, which will bring some changes to our stocking program in order to minimize the impact on anglers and make the most efficient use of the trout we have available. The reduced fish production is the result of three key factors: - A reduction in production capacity at Kensington Fish Hatchery to achieve budgetary savings; - Critical maintenance of several production ponds at Quinebaug Trout Hatchery, which required them to be taken out of service and drained of water while repairs were made; - Moderate to severe statewide drought in 2015 and 2016 (ongoing) resulting in less flow of water to fill ponds, raceways and supply flow at all three hatcheries. With the reduced number of trout, changes to our stocking program mean that the Fisheries Division will not be stocking some waters or sections of some waters, and is reducing total number of trout stocked in others. The reason for eliminating previous stocking locations varies but in many instances is due to one of the following reasons; - Low documented usage by anglers; - Reduced public access; - Locations are currently stocked with brown trout fry or fingerlings; - To eliminate stocking on top of wild trout populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Amendment to the Restoration Plan
    Final Amendment to the Housatonic River Basin Final Natural Resources Restoration Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Impact Evaluation for Connecticut May 2013 State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 7 2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Proposed Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................. 7 2.2.1 Power Line Marsh Restoration ...................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Long Beach West Tidal Marsh Restoration ................................................................. 10 2.2.3 Pin Shop Pond Dam Removal...................................................................................... 12 2.2.4 Old Papermill Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Study ................................................. 15 2.2.5 Housatonic Watershed Habitat Continuity in Northwest Connecticut ........................ 18 2.2.6 Tingue Dam Fish Passage ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lower Housatonic and Lower Naugatuck Rivers Assessment Report June 2006 Lower Housatonic and Lower Naugatuck Rivers Assessment Report
    Lower Housatonic and Lower Naugatuck Rivers Assessment Report June 2006 Lower Housatonic and Lower Naugatuck Rivers Assessment Report Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 Overview Map of Survey Area ........................................................................................... 5 River Sections (Eastern and Western Shores) Section 1 (Oxford and Monroe) ............................................................................. 6 Section 2 (Seymour and Shelton) .......................................................................... 9 Section 3 (Derby and Shelton) ............................................................................... 13 Section 4 (Derby and Shelton) ............................................................................... 16 Section 5 (Derby, Shelton and Orange) ................................................................. 19 Section 6 (Shelton and Orange) ............................................................................. 21 Section 7 (Milford and Stratford) .......................................................................... 24 Section 8 (Milford and Stratford) .......................................................................... 28 Section 9 (Milford and Stratford) .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix
    Preserving Connecticut's Bridges Report Appendix - September 2018 Year Open/Posted/Cl Rank Town Facility Carried Features Intersected Location Lanes ADT Deck Superstructure Substructure Built osed Hartford County Ranked by Lowest Score 1 Bloomfield ROUTE 189 WASH BROOK 0.4 MILE NORTH OF RTE 178 1916 2 9,800 Open 6 2 7 2 South Windsor MAIN STREET PODUNK RIVER 0.5 MILES SOUTH OF I-291 1907 2 1,510 Posted 5 3 6 3 Bloomfield ROUTE 178 BEAMAN BROOK 1.2 MI EAST OF ROUTE 189 1915 2 12,000 Open 6 3 7 4 Bristol MELLEN STREET PEQUABUCK RIVER 300 FT SOUTH OF ROUTE 72 1956 2 2,920 Open 3 6 7 5 Southington SPRING STREET QUINNIPIAC RIVER 0.6 MI W. OF ROUTE 10 1960 2 3,866 Open 3 7 6 6 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 MARKET STREET & I-91 NB EAST END I-91 & I-84 INT 1961 4 125,700 Open 5 4 4 7 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING EASTBOUND 1965 3 66,450 Open 6 4 4 8 Hartford INTERSTATE-91 NB PARK RIVER & CSO RR AT EXIT 29A 1964 2 48,200 Open 5 4 4 9 New Britain SR 555 (WEST MAIN PAN AM SOUTHERN RAILROAD 0.4 MILE EAST OF RTE 372 1930 3 10,600 Open 4 5 4 10 West Hartford NORTH MAIN STREET WEST BRANCH TROUT BROOK 0.3 MILE NORTH OF FERN ST 1901 4 10,280 Open N 4 4 11 Manchester HARTFORD ROAD SOUTH FORK HOCKANUM RIV 2000 FT EAST OF SR 502 1875 2 5,610 Open N 4 4 12 Avon OLD FARMS ROAD FARMINGTON RIVER 500 FEET WEST OF ROUTE 10 1950 2 4,999 Open 4 4 6 13 Marlborough JONES HOLLOW ROAD BLACKLEDGE RIVER 3.6 MILES NORTH OF RTE 66 1929 2 1,255 Open 5 4 4 14 Enfield SOUTH RIVER STREET FRESHWATER BROOK 50 FT N OF ASNUNTUCK ST 1920 2 1,016 Open 5 4 4 15 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EB BROAD ST, I-84 RAMP 191 1.17 MI S OF JCT US 44 WB 1966 3 71,450 Open 6 4 5 16 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 EAST NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 NEW PARK AV,AMTRAK,SR504 1967 3 69,000 Open 6 4 5 17 Hartford INTERSTATE-84 WB AMTRAK;LOCAL RDS;PARKING .82 MI N OF JCT SR 504 SB 1965 4 66,150 Open 6 4 5 18 Hartford I-91 SB & TR 835 CONNECTICUT SOUTHERN RR AT EXIT 29A 1958 5 46,450 Open 6 5 4 19 Hartford SR 530 -AIRPORT RD ROUTE 15 422 FT E OF I-91 1964 5 27,200 Open 5 6 4 20 Bristol MEMORIAL BLVD.
    [Show full text]
  • Renaissance Place Final
    Fiscal Impact and Market Analysis Renaissance Place Naugatuck, Connecticut Prepared For: Borough of Naugatuck Naugatuck Economic Development Corporation The Conroy Development Company By: Harrall-Michalowski Associates, Inc. in association with Milone & MacBroom, Inc. – Civil Engineering John Thompson – Traffic Engineering MAY 3, 2006 Executive Summary • Market trends support the feasibility of proposed uses. • A significant amount of demand for residential units will come from eastern portion of Fairfield County. • Retail component will be unique destination lifestyle retail drawing from a regional market area. • Off-site infrastructure improvements will be needed to support site- generated traffic. These will include increased capacity at the Route 8 / Route 63 interchange as well as signalization and geometric improvements at several local street intersections. • On-site improvements to the flood control system may be needed as such relate to outfalls into the Naugatuck River and related pumps. It should be noted that no flooding has been experienced in the recent past and the project site is not within the 100-year flood area as shown on the official flood maps. • These infrastructure needs can be provided at a cost consistent with the value of the development. • The net tax increase to the Borough after payment of municipal and school costs will be approximately $3.5 million on an annual basis. This revenue could support infrastructure investments and contribute to the General Fund. • The development of the project will generate an estimated 1,425 construction jobs and 950 full-time jobs upon occupancy. • The spin-off impact of the project construction will be $179 million in expenditures including $45 million in wages supporting another 1,100 jobs in the region beyond direct construction jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Watersheds
    Percent Impervious Surface Summaries for Watersheds CONNECTICUT WATERSHEDS Name Number Acres 1985 %IS 1990 %IS 1995 %IS 2002 %IS ABBEY BROOK 4204 4,927.62 2.32 2.64 2.76 3.02 ALLYN BROOK 4605 3,506.46 2.99 3.30 3.50 3.96 ANDRUS BROOK 6003 1,373.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.09 ANGUILLA BROOK 2101 7,891.33 3.13 3.50 3.78 4.29 ASH CREEK 7106 9,813.00 34.15 35.49 36.34 37.47 ASHAWAY RIVER 1003 3,283.88 3.89 4.17 4.41 4.96 ASPETUCK RIVER 7202 14,754.18 2.97 3.17 3.31 3.61 BALL POND BROOK 6402 4,850.50 3.98 4.67 4.87 5.10 BANTAM RIVER 6705 25,732.28 2.22 2.40 2.46 2.55 BARTLETT BROOK 3902 5,956.12 1.31 1.41 1.45 1.49 BASS BROOK 4401 6,659.35 19.10 20.97 21.72 22.77 BEACON HILL BROOK 6918 6,537.60 4.24 5.18 5.46 6.14 BEAVER BROOK 3802 5,008.24 1.13 1.22 1.24 1.27 BEAVER BROOK 3804 7,252.67 2.18 2.38 2.52 2.67 BEAVER BROOK 4803 5,343.77 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.95 BEAVER POND BROOK 6913 3,572.59 16.11 19.23 20.76 21.79 BELCHER BROOK 4601 5,305.22 6.74 8.05 8.39 9.36 BIGELOW BROOK 3203 18,734.99 1.40 1.46 1.51 1.54 BILLINGS BROOK 3605 3,790.12 1.33 1.48 1.51 1.56 BLACK HALL RIVER 4021 3,532.28 3.47 3.82 4.04 4.26 BLACKBERRY RIVER 6100 17,341.03 2.51 2.73 2.83 3.00 BLACKLEDGE RIVER 4707 16,680.11 2.82 3.02 3.16 3.34 BLACKWELL BROOK 3711 18,011.26 1.53 1.65 1.70 1.77 BLADENS RIVER 6919 6,874.43 4.70 5.57 5.79 6.32 BOG HOLLOW BROOK 6014 4,189.36 0.46 0.49 0.50 0.51 BOGGS POND BROOK 6602 4,184.91 7.22 7.78 8.41 8.89 BOOTH HILL BROOK 7104 3,257.81 8.54 9.36 10.02 10.55 BRANCH BROOK 6910 14,494.87 2.05 2.34 2.39 2.48 BRANFORD RIVER 5111 15,586.31 8.03 8.94 9.33 9.74
    [Show full text]
  • New Haven County, Connecticut (All Jurisdictions)
    VOLUME 1 OF 10 NEW HAVEN COUNTY, CONNECTICUT (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME NUMBER TOWN OF PROSPECT 090151 CITY OF ANSONIA 090071 TOWN OF SEYMOUR 090088 TOWN OF BEACON FALLS 090072 TOWN OF SOUTHBURY 090089 TOWN OF BETHANY 090144 TOWN OF WALLINGFORD 090090 TOWN OF BRANFORD 090073 CITY OF WATERBURY 090091 TOWN OF CHESHIRE 090074 CITY OF WEST HAVEN 090092 CITY OF DERBY 090075 TOWN OF WOLCOTT 090093 TOWN OF EAST HAVEN 090076 TOWN OF WOODBRIDGE 090153 TOWN OF GUILFORD 090077 BOROUGH OF WOODMONT 090168 TOWN OF HAMDEN 090078 TOWN OF MADISON 090079 CITY OF MERIDEN 090081 TOWN OF MIDDLEBURY 090080 CITY OF MILFORD 090082 BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK 090137 CITY OF NEW HAVEN 090084 TOWN OF NORTH BRANFORD 090085 TOWN OF NORTH HAVEN 090086 TOWN OF ORANGE 090087 TOWN OF OXFORD 090150 REVISED: MAY 16, 2017 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 09009CV001D Version Number 2.3.3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 – May 16, 2017 Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The National Flood Insurance Program 1 1.2 Purpose of this Flood Insurance Study Report 2 1.3 Jurisdictions Included in the Flood Insurance Study Project 2 1.4 Considerations for using this Flood Insurance Study Report 5 SECTION 2.0 – FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 16 2.1 Floodplain Boundaries 16 2.2 Floodways 16 2.3 Base Flood Elevations 32 2.4 Non-Encroachment Zones 32 2.5 Coastal Flood Hazard Areas 32 2.5.1 Water Elevations and the Effects of Waves 32 2.5.2 Floodplain Boundaries and BFEs for Coastal Areas 34 2.5.3 Coastal High Hazard Areas 35 2.5.4 Limit of Moderate Wave Action 36 SECTION
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Fish Distribution Report2012
    Connecticut Fish Distribution Report 2012 Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources Inland Fisheries Division 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106 860-424-3474 www.ct.gov/deep/fishing www.facebook.com/ctfishandwildlife The Connecticut Fish Distribution Report is published annually by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Daniel C. Esty, Commissioner Susan Whalen, Deputy Commissioner Bureau of Natural Resources William A. Hyatt, Chief Inland Fisheries Division Peter Aarrestad, Director 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127 860-424-FISH (3474) www.ct.gov/deep/fishing www.facebook.com/ctfishandwildlife Table of Contents Introduction 3 DEEP State Hatcheries 3 Connecticut’s Stocked Fish 4 Stocking Summary 2012 7 Fish Distribution Numbers 8 Catchable trout 8 Broodstock Atlantic salmon 18 Brown trout fry/fingerlings 18 Kokanee fry 18 Northern pike 19 Walleye 19 Channel catfish 19 Miscellaneous Diadromous Fish Stocking 20 (Atlantic salmon, brown trout, Shad, Alewife) Cover: Rearing tanks at the Quinebaug Valley State Trout Hatchery (top), a Seeforellen brown trout, from Kensington State Fish Hatchery being stocked (middle left-photo credit Bill Gerrish), channel catfish being unloaded and stocked (middle right-photo credit Neal Hagstrom), CT DEEP IFD trout stocking truck (lower left-photo credit Justin Wiggins), and a net of brown trout being removed from the rearing tank at the Burlington State Fish Hatchery and headed for the stocking truck (lower right-photo credit Bill Gerrish). The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer that is committed to complying with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Heminway Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Analysis
    United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service CONNECTICUT Steele Brook Watershed Heminway Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Analysis Watertown, Connecticut April 2009 Helping People Help the Land An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer CT-TP-2009-2 This page intentionally left blank for double sided printing - ii - Steele Brook Watershed Heminway Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Analysis Watertown, Connecticut (DEP-NRCS Agreement No. 67-1106-7-17) Prepared for: Department of Environmental Protection 179 Elm Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Prepared By: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service 344 Merrow Rd. Suite A Tolland, Connecticut 06084 NRCS Project Manager: Joseph Kavan, Civil Engineer This report may be cited as follows: Connecticut NRCS Staff. 2009. Heminway Pond Dam Removal Feasibility Analysis, Steele Brook Watershed, Watertown, Connecticut. CT-TP-2009-2. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tolland, CT. CT-TP-2009-2 April 2009 - i - The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement of Litchfield County
    TERCENTENARY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT COMMITTEE ON HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS Settlement of Litchfield County PUBLISHED FOR THE TERCENTENARY COMMISSION BY THE YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS I ' lilf:: m --'v TERCENTENARY COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT COMMITTEE ON HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS Settlement of Litchfield County DOROTHY DEMING IN 1719 Lieutenant Marsh of Hartford and Deacon John Buell of Lebanon, with many others, fifty- seven in number, petitioned the assembly for permission to settle a town, under committees appointed by the towns of Hartford and Windsor, at a place called Bantam in the western part of the colony. The assembly granted the petition and the town of Litchfield was begun, with the same powers and privileges that other towns in the colony enjoyed. This grant opened the question of the ownership of the whole area now included within the bounds of Litchfield County, commonly known as the "western lands," and the assem- bly took the territory into its own hands, prohibiting further settlement within its bounds. Rumors that sec- tions were being located without permission led to the appointment of a committee to investigate and report any evidences of occupation, with the threat that all occu- piers would be considered squatters and would be prose- cuted in legal form by the king's attorney. The committee found plans for settlement under way, but in so obscure and secret a manner as to defy exact information. 1 This report thoroughly aroused the assembly and brought the plans of the promoters into the open. Seven agents from Hartford and Windsor begged for a patent, claiming title by grant and Indian purchase, and express- ing the hope that the assembly would not make them "a peculiar instance of ptsH displeasure" but would re- scind its decision to prevent settlement, which was causing uneasiness among the inhabitants and arousing bad feelings against the government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Geology of the Shepaug Aqueduct Tunnel, Litchfield County, Connecticut
    Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/geologyofshepaugOOagar state of Connecticut PUBLIC DOCUMENT No. 47 State Geological and Natural History Survey W. E. BRIXTON, Superintendent BULLETIN NO. 40 HARTFORD Printed by the State Geological and Natural History Survey 1927 State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut COMMISSIONERS John H. Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut James Rowland Angell, President of Yale University James Lukens McConaughy, President of IVesleyan University Remsen Brinckerhoff Ogilby, President of Trinity College Charles Lewis Beach, President of Connecticut Agricultural College Benjamin Tinkham Marshall, President of Connecticut College for Women SUPERINTENDENT W. E. Brixton Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven DISTRIBUTION AND EXCHANGE AGENT George S. Godard, State Librarian Hartford The Geology of the Shepaug Aqueduct Tunnel Litchfield County, Connecticut By WILLIAM MACDONOUGH AGAR, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Geology, Yale University with a chapter by ROBERT A. CAIRNS, C.E. City Engineer, Waterbury, Conn. HARTFORD Printed by the State Geological and Natural History Survey 1027 1/ qE^^. SSA2. CONTENTS Page Preface g Introduction ii Topography and Drainage ii History of the Project—by Robert A. Cairns, City Engineer, Waterbury 13 General Geology . .16 The Hartland Schist 19 Structure 22 Faults 24 Metamorphism of the Hartland Schist 24 The Berkshire Schist 26 The Brookfield Diorite , . 28 The Schist Inclusions in the Diorite 31 The Mount Tom Hornblende Gneiss 32 The Thomaston Granite Gneiss 33 Buried Surface Features Exposed by the Tunnel and the Diamond Drill Holes . 35 Pre-Pleistocene Weathering Preserved South of Mount Prospect . 35 The Pre-Glacial Surface under the North End of Bantam Lake .
    [Show full text]