DOCSLIB.ORG

Waterbury Naugatuck River Greenway Routing and Feasibility Study Waterbury, Connecticut

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Waterbury Naugatuck River Greenway Routing and Feasibility Study Waterbury, Connecticut WATERBURY NAUGATUCK RIVER GREENWAY ROUTING AND FEASIBILITY STUDY WATERBURY, CONNECTICUT FINAL REPORT FEBRUARY 2010 This project has been funded by a grant from the United Way of Greater Waterbury Waterbury Naugatuck River Greenway Advisory Committee Ronald A. Napoli, Chair Kathleen McNamara, Vice-Chair Kristen M. Bulkovitch Theresa A. Caldarone Kenny Curran Joyce DeCesare Lawrence V. DePillo Samuel Gold Senator Joan V. Hartley John P. Lawlor, Jr. John Murray Miriam Niederman Paul K. Pernerewski, Jr. Michael A. Ptak James M. O’Rourke M. Catherine Smith William Wesson Kevin R. Zak For additional information about the Naugatuck River Greenway, please contact: Waterbury Development Corporation 24 Leavenworth Street Waterbury, CT 06702‐2121 203.346.2607 www.wdconline.org Table of Contents I. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 Public Process ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................. 3 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................... 5 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................ 5 PHYSICAL FEATURES MAPPING ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Length, Dimensions, Boundaries and Topography ................................................................................................................. 6 Composition of Soils and Geology .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Surrounding Land Uses ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Erosion and Drainage ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Traffic and Roadway Capacity ......................................................................................................................................... 10 NATURAL FEATURES ..................................................................................................................................................... 13 CULTURAL, HISTORIC AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 16 Structures in the Potential Routes ........................................................................................................................................ 16 Huntingdon Avenue ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Utility Assessment ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Utility Poles ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Signalized Intersections .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Bridges ............................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Utilities on Other Properties ........................................................................................................................................... 20 LINKS/CONNECTIONS ................................................................................................................................................... 21 IMPACTS TO ADJACENT LAND USES ................................................................................................................................. 21 BRIDGES, INTERSECTIONS AND ACCESS POINTS .................................................................................................................. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ............................................................................................................................................... 26 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 27 References ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS DIAGRAMS ................................................................................................................. 29 III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 37 IV. PROPOSED GREENWAY ROUTE ..................................................................................................................... 43 North End ............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Thomaston Avenue Section .................................................................................................................................................. 46 Downtown Section ............................................................................................................................................................... 50 South Main Street Section .................................................................................................................................................... 56 V. CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 63 Green Construction ............................................................................................................................................................... 63 Construction Methods .......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Construction Materials ......................................................................................................................................................... 64 VI. COST ESTIMATE ........................................................................................................................................... 65 Right‐of‐Way Acquisition Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 65 Engineering Costs ................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Construction Costs ................................................................................................................................................................ 65 Remediation Costs ................................................................................................................................................................ 69 VII. FUNDING SOURCES ..................................................................................................................................... 71 Municipal Bonds ................................................................................................................................................................... 71 Greenway Trust Fund ........................................................................................................................................................... 71 Adopt‐A‐Trail Programs........................................................................................................................................................ 71 Federal Transportation Funding ........................................................................................................................................... 71 Recreational Trails Program ................................................................................................................................................. 72 State Funding ....................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Design Arts Program ............................................................................................................................................................ 72 VIII.
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]
  • 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]
  • 2018 Plan of Conservation and Development Final
    Photo: Charger Way, Ansonia High School ©Melissa Cavanaugh PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ANSONIA, CONNECTICUT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Effective Date: August 6, 2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks and Acknowledgements to: Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Jared Heon-Chairman Larry Pellegrino- Vice Chairman Micheal Bettini Maureen McMcormack Conrado Kenneth Moffat Timothy Holman William Malerba And to: Mayor David S. Cassetti David Elder, AICP – City Planner Sheila O’Malley - Economic Development Director Ronda Porrini - Land Use Administrator Anna Andretta – Grants Specialist As well as to the residents of the City of Ansonia, all past Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and all Boards and Commissions that contributed to this process. Technical assistance provided by NVCOG staff: Mark Nielsen - Director of Planning / Assistant Director Joanna Rogalski - Regional Planner Glenda Prentiss - GIS Program Coordinator Max Tanguay-Colucci – Regional Planner Note: Special Thanks to Planimetrics; portions of this Plan are taken partly or entirely from the 2002 Ansonia Plan of Conservation and Development, originally prepared by Planimetrics. PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ANSONIA, CT Contents About the POCD ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 POCD Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Borough of Naugatuck
    BOROUGH OF NAUGATUCK BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Mayor and Burgesses, in a meeting duly assembled on September 2, 2014 that Ordinance #49 Chapter 15 – Planning, Article VII – Regional Council of Elected Officials, Sections 15-134 – 15-136 of the Code of Ordinances of the Borough of Naugatuck, Connecticut is hereby repealed and Ordinance #127 is hereby adopted, to read as follows: Ordinance #127 Chapter 15 – Planning, Article VII – Ordinance Regarding Adoption of Connecticut General Statute §§4-124i – 4-124p Pertaining to Creating and Joining the Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, Sections 15-134 – 15- 140. WHEREAS, the Borough of Naugatuck has heretofore been a designated municipality within the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region; and, WHEREAS, as an eligible member the borough adopted Ordinance #49, entitled, “Regional Council of Elected Officials”, voted and adopted on July 8, 1970 by the Board of Mayor and Burgesses, joining the Council of Governments for the Central Naugatuck Valley (“COGCNV”) as a regional council of elected officials and remains a member at the present time; and, WHEREAS, the State of Connecticut has determined that a reorganization and redesignation of planning districts shall be completed on or before January 1, 2015; and, WHEREAS, said reorganization recommended the consolidation of the Central Naugatuck Valley Planning Region (comprised of the following municipalities: Beacon Falls, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Middlebury, Naugatuck, Oxford, Prospect, Southbury, Thomaston, Waterbury, Watertown, Wolcott
    [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]