PD Committee Hearing Transcript for 02/07/2005

SENATOR COLEMAN: --convene the public hearing of the Continuing Committee on the State Plan of Conservation and Development. The format for the public hearing is the same as for the public hearings of the Standing Committees.

There are sign-up sheets. Please check with the clerk of the Committee if you want to sign up to provide testimony to the Committee and have not yet done so.

The first person or first organization to testify will be the Office of Policy and Management, David LeVasseur.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Thank you, Senator Coleman, Representative Wallace, and Members of the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development.

My name is Dave LeVasseur. I'm the Undersecretary of the Intergovernmental Policy Division of the Office of Policy and Management.

My responsibilities include the revision and implementation of the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut. The Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut is a five-year Plan, developed in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes 16a-24 through 16a-33.

The Recommended Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2004-2009 that is being considered today is the fifth revision to the original Conservation and Development Plan that was adopted in 1979.

The Plan is a policies guide for prioritizing State investment and State agency planning. The objective of the Plan is to act as a guide to balance the economic and environmental needs of the State, and to maintain and enhance the quality of life for Connecticut residents.

This revision of the Plan, as has been the case with all previous revisions of the Plan, guides state agency actions in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes, Section 16a-31. This revision has no more or less statutory authority than previous iterations of the Plan.

State agencies are required to consider the Plan when preparing their own agency plans. State agencies are also required to be consistent with the Plan when purchasing or improving real property in excess of $100,000, when purchasing public transportation equipment or facilities in excess of $100,000, and when authorizing any State grant in excess of $100,000 for the purchase or improvement of real property or for the purchase of public transportation equipment or facilities.

As you know, OPM submitted, and the Continuing Committee endorsed, the Recommended Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2004-2009 during the 2004 Legislative Session.

However, the General Assembly did not act on the Recommended Plan, and pursuant to P.A. 04-248 required OPM to resubmit the Recommended Plan to this Committee by December 1, 2004.

OPM resubmitted this Recommended Plan on November 22, 2004, and has forwarded copies of the Recommended Plan to new Members of this Committee, as appointed since the inception of the 2005 Legislative Session.

I would like to note that this public hearing is also being held within the mandated timeframe of 35 days of the commencement of the Session, as required under Section 16a-30 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

I also wish to clarify that the Recommended Plan that you are considering today is the same Plan that this Committee endorsed on April 20, 2004.

This Plan represents the culmination of a lengthy process that began with the development of a draft outline that was shared and discussed with this Committee in 2002.

OPM has also contacted all 169 municipalities and 15 Regional Planning Organizations to obtain their latest plans of conservation and development, and municipal zoning regulations, in order to assist with our review of Locational Guide Map consistency and recommended changes.

In addition, Regional Planning Organizations and municipalities have been given multiple opportunities over the past three years to provide input into the development of both the Plan text and the Locational Guide Map.

We have included with our submittal a 40-page summary description of all requested Locational Guide Map changes and our responses to these requests.

OPM, in conjunction with the Regional Planning Organizations, also held seven public hearings across the State during January and February of 2004 to solicit additional public comment.

Finally, subsequent to this Committee's public hearing on the Recommended Plan last April, and at this Committee's direction, additional changes were made to the Plan that was then endorsed by this Committee on April 20^th.

During the ensuing months, from April 20, 2004, to today's date, the Committee and OPM have received additional written comments on the Recommended Plan.

Copies of these comments are attached to this testimony. Based on these written comments, as well as additional conversations my staff has had with the Regional Planning Organizations, State agencies, and other interested organizations, I wish to offer a number of modifications to the Plan, and they are attached here.

I'll go through them very briefly, but I also wanted to incorporate a few of my remarks from earlier for the benefit of those Members joining us since 4:00 public information session.

The Plan itself is made up of two equally important components, the written Plan text and the Locational Guide Map. These two parts must be interpreted together in order to effectively apply the principles stated in this Plan.

It should also be remembered that the Locational Guide Map is not a zoning map. It is also important to note that, because this Plan is adopted by resolution and not by statute, this revision has no more statutory authority than previous iterations of this Plan.

Any language to make the Plan either stronger or weaker would have to be done through statute, and that is not part of the Plan process.

It is also important, now that I've discussed what the Plan does do, to explain what it does not do. It does not supercede local land use planning and zoning decisions.

It does not preclude the use of municipal or private funds for the development of projects that are not consistent with the Plan.

It does not regulate the investment of all State money. For instance, it does not regulate projects funded by State operational funds, it does not regulate local educational school construction projects, and it does not regulate non-site-specific bond authorizations.

In short, when you impose these limitations, the Plan impacts the direct award of some 42% of all State bond funds.

The major changes between this iteration and past Plans are twofold, number one, a reorganization of the chapters to facilitate coordinated review by State agencies, and number two, a series of recommended Map changes which make this proposed Map more accurate than the Map currently in use.

As I noted above, the Plan seeks to strike a balance between economic and environmental concerns, in order to preserve or enhance the quality of life for all of Connecticut's citizens.

Toward that end, it is my belief that most of the testimony you will receive today will be neither wholly supportive of nor wholly dismissive of the merits of this Plan.

To be sure, there will be calls to make it stronger or to change how it is utilized. I would point out to the Committee that the Statutes make it clear that neither type of suggestion should be the subject matter of today's hearing, and should not either divert you from the purpose of this process nor influence how you vote on this proposal.

I have respectfully requested that the Co-Chairs of this Committee not call for a vote today because of the unfamiliarity with the Plan on the part of some of the newer Members, and also because of the fact we are recommending additional proposed Amendments today.

I would ask that you review all of the material we've provided you, review the testimony that will be provided you today, and feel free to call my staff or me should you have any questions, either today or in the future.

And we stand ready to meet with the Committee, either formally or informally again, if it is the opinion of the Members that this would be helpful and useful in helping you evaluate the Plan.

The Statutes indicate that the Committee's task during this process is to evaluate the proposed changes we have put before you, and ultimately decide if it will recommend the adoption of this Plan through a Resolution by the General Assembly.

Finally, several of you have asked me what the impact would be if the General Assembly does not vote to adopt this Recommended Plan.

In that event, my office and other State agencies will be required to continue to use the less accurate 1998-2003 Plan to evaluate current and future bond-funded projects.

Due to amendments to the development areas made in this proposed Plan, some 66 municipalities could be adversely affected if they apply for State funding for economic development projects.

There were also a number of communities that have requested other changes that we are recommending to the Committee. Therefore, it is in the best interest of these communities that the General Assembly adopt this Plan this year.

The scope of review that I've spoken of, with regard to State bond projects, is not new. It's not something proposed under this Plan. It has been the standard for measurement under past iterations of the Plan.

With that, I will briefly touch on the Amendments. And specifically, there are, let's see, well, they're actually sort of grouped by submission. So I will go through them real briefly.

On page 59 of the Recommended Plan, the first paragraph that appears under the heading Wetlands should be changed as follows.

And I'm not going to read through the specific changes. You folks have them in writing, take a look at them at your leisure.

But this is to address comments attached, submitted by the Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions and the Rivers Alliance of Connecticut regarding development pressure on wetlands and the use of wetlands mitigation.

Page 59, the last bullet on the bottom of the page, we're suggesting a modification. And this is, again, to address comments submitted by the Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions regarding the need for better understanding of the interaction between wetlands, watercourses, and buffer areas, and the cumulative effects of development adjacent to these areas.

On page 69 of the Recommended Plan, the first bullet would be changed. And that's to address concerns in the attached Rivers Alliance of Connecticut comments.

Number 4 on page 85 of the Recommended Plan text, to change the policy statement. And that change is to address the attached comments received by the Rivers Alliance.

Number 5 was to insert the following language on the back of the Locational Guide Map, and I'll explain this a bit. We have made a point in the Plan of putting in the interrelationship between the Map and the text.

It was brought to our attention by the South Central Connecticut Council of Governments that we should do the same on the Map. So we are submitting that the following language be incorporated on the Map, since people sometimes look at one and not the other.

And the following language would be, the Locational Guide Map is a component of the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut.

The Map spatially interprets the Growth Management Principles contained in the Plan, with respect to each area's potential to fulfill and to balance the conservation and development priorities of the State.

The Map is based on digital and demographic data developed by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Office of Policy and Management, the Department of Economic and Community Development, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

It comprises the best available Statewide digital and demographic data, and also reflects local and regional plans and policies which most closely reflect the Map's definitional criteria.

If the criteria defining a particular site changes subsequently to the Plan's adoption, a proposed project should be judged for consistency, based on the most current data sources available at the time of the evaluation.

There may also be instances where the proposed reuse or redevelopment of an existing site for economic development, affordable housing, or other public-supported initiatives may be eligible for State funding, even if the proposed project is not located within a development category on the Map.

When a conservation priority is reflected on the Map in an area where development currently exists, the Plan text must be consulted to help interpret the proposed action's consistency.

A full review under the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, CEPA, may be necessitated if the proposed development is of a greater dimension or intensity than the past use, thereby requiring a thorough analysis of all potential impacts and mitigation measures, as well as consideration of alternative sites within the region.

This suggestion, as I indicated, was being suggested, based on the comment and conversation with the South Central Regional Council of Governments and other municipalities, to help clarify the relationship between the Plan's text and the Map.

And the potential to utilize State or federal funding for projects in Conservation Policy Categories on the Map.

Change 6, on page 1 of the Recommended Plan text, the first sentence of the second paragraph includes the figure 3.1 million, referring to the number of Connecticut citizens. Based on the latest census data, this figure should be changed to 3.5 million.

On page 51 of the Recommended Plan text, the eighth bullet from the bottom should be changed as follows.

The Route 7 corridor improvements, including completion of the Merritt Parkway interchange in Norwalk and widening of existing Route 7 from Danbury to Ridgefield.

This change then is based on updated data that has been brought to OPM's attention.

The following changes under this item are based on comments received from the State Department of Agriculture, following the conclusion of the Farmland Preservation Task Force meetings.

On page 65 of the Recommended Plan, text to add the following new paragraph after the first paragraph on the page.

In recognition that the State's growing population and expanding economy have had a profound impact on the ability of public and private sectors to maintain and preserve agricultural land for farming and food production, the General Assembly declared that, unless there is a sound, Statewide program for its preservation, remaining agricultural land will be lost to succeeding generations, and that the conservation of certain arable agricultural land and adjacent pastures, woods, natural drainage areas, and open space areas is vital for the well-being of the people of Connecticut.

On page 65 of the Recommended Plan, there is an additional text change which, again, I'm not going to go through the entire paragraph in the interest of time.

Page 66 is an additional change, in fact, two more changes, three more changes. And then on page 67 of the Recommended Plan, a fourth bullet from the bottom of the page, making the following technical change from U.S. Farm Services to read as USDA Farm Services Agency.

On page 66 of the Recommended Plan, change the policy statement in the middle of the page to add the following language and delete the old language.

The following language would be, unless and until the land is no longer viable for agricultural uses, deleting, until the necessity for conversion to non-agricultural uses is substantial or preservation is no longer feasible through available programs.

This change is based on discussion and input from various farming constituencies.

Number 10 is something my staff came up with, and it seemed timely, so I thought I would bring it to the table and include it in my testimony, which has changed the five year cycle by which the Plan is in effect, from 2004-2009 to 2005-2010, thereby changing the title of the Plan to the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut 2005-2010.

As the Plan was not acted on by the General Assembly in 2003, because we received a one-year delay in submission, and again, in 2004, this change will enable the Plan to be in effect for a full five-year cycle.

Change 11, on the Plan's Locational Guide Map in the Town of Enfield, change a 48.5-acre parcel located southeast of Crescent Lake and Route 220 from Growth designation to Rural Lands designation.

The land was previously under the budgeted custody and control of the Department of Correction as land associated with the Somers Prison.

The property was transferred to the control of the Office of Policy and Management, and has been established as a grassland bird habitat to mitigate the loss of grassland habitat at the Rentschler Field Stadium site in East Hartford.

As such, a change in the Locational Guide Map should be made to reflect the conservation value that's now associated with the property.

On page 86 of the Recommended Plan, under Water Quality heading, delete the first paragraph and replace it with the following two paragraphs. Again, I won't read it in excruciating detail, but it's available in my testimony for your review.

This change is based on the attached comments received by the Rivers Alliance of Connecticut and in consultation with the DEP regarding these comments.

This language corrects any factual discrepancies in the Recommended C&D Plan with current DEP reports, as noted by the Rivers Alliance.

On page 87 of the Recommended Plan, the first paragraph should be changed as I indicate in my testimony. This change is based on attached comments received by the Rivers Alliance of Connecticut and consultation with DEP regarding those comments.

Please note that both the Towns of East Granby and Granby have submitted comment, requesting that an area located in southeastern Granby and southwestern East Granby, encompassing the Towns' boundaries, be changed from Conservation designation to the Growth designation on the Plan Locational Guide Map.

Mapping provided by both the State Department of Agriculture and Department of Environmental Protection indicates that this area is comprised of prime and important agricultural soils, and, therefore, should remain as Conservation.

As such, C&D Plan policy would not support changing this to a Growth Area. C&D Plan policy indicates that prime agricultural lands should be maintained by minimizing development pressure on these lands, created by the placement and design of infrastructure and major utilities.

Changing the designation of this area to Growth would allow for State-supported introduction of this type of development.

However, my staff has met with representatives from both East Granby and Granby, who have indicated that, due to previous agricultural practices, these soils may have been stripped of their prime and important characteristic.

At this point in time, the true nature of these soils is unclear. We recommend no change to the Plan Locational Guide Map until further study of the soil's characteristics in this area is done. At the time a change to the Plan could be pursued through the interim change process.

In addition, I would like the Committee to note that my staff received written comment from the Town of North Stonington very recently.

These comments are also attached to this testimony. As these comments were received just over a week ago, my staff has not had the opportunity to analyze North Stonington's request to expand the size of the Town's Rural Community Center on the Plan's Locational Guide Map.

We recommend no change to the Plan Locational Guide Map until my staff has had the time to fully analyze this request. At that time, a change to the Plan could be pursued through the interim change process.

The Town of Groton also resubmitted comments previously submitted to OPM in January 2004. OPM has addressed Groton's concerns on pages 32 and 33 of the Recommended Changes to the Locational Guide Map document that Committee members received as part of the Recommended C&D Plan package.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear in front of the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development. My staff and I are available to respond to any questions you might have.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there any questions of Mr. LeVasseur? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, again.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Good evening.

REP. MINER: Earlier, at a Planning and Development public hearing, we heard requests relative to bonding, and I had asked if individuals that had made their presentations whether they were in compliance with the State's C&D Plan, and they indicated that they were.

And one such request had to do with the acquisition of farmland to be converted into municipal use property. I guess I'm trying to balance that with some of the changes that you've recommended here now and then some of the comments that were in the Plan on or about the 66 with the changes in use.

Would it be OPM's normal course of action to have someone come in and substantiate the diminished value of soil before they made a recommendation that was in compliance or would they--

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: I think it varies on the circumstances involved. I mean, there are some instances, and I don't know which particular projects you're alluding to, but, for instance, there are have been situations where the State of Connecticut, through the surplus lands, have transferred properties to municipalities for very specific reasons.

One may be an open space, in which case, clearly, that needs to be preserved and protected. But there have been other instances where lands have been surplussed to municipalities for other purposes.

And so, I mean, it varies. There's no, I mean, this is used as a general guide for State action, but also primarily for that 42% of the bond money we discussed.

REP. MINER: Another question?

SEN. COLEMAN: Please proceed.

REP. MINER: I'm not sure that maybe I made myself clear enough.

This wasn't surplus land owned by the State, this was, as I understood it, someone's farm the municipality had an interest in buying for a variety of municipal uses, that I would only imagine they would come back to the same State and the same Office of Policy and Management to seek approval for necessary bond funds for the kind of infrastructure that you'd normally associate with a school or a highway garage or a town hall. And it just seems to me that--

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Oh. Oh, I see what you're saying. In other words, can we--

REP. MINER: It just seems to me that if they were in compliance with the State Plan on Conservation and Development, it's almost contrary to what the comments within the Guide currently are and the comments that you've made, relative to some concerned members of the agricultural community have made about that section.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: I guess I'm still not catching.

REP. MINER: If I came to you as a municipal leader and wanted your concurrence that my local map, my local plan said that we could convert this farmland to municipal use land, no longer agriculture, that would be my local choice to do that within the municipality, let's call it Litchfield.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Okay.

REP. MINER: You would then review your State map to see if that was in concurrence. I almost can't imagine that the State map, given all the discussion we've had over the last four, five years about not converting farmland, would somehow have, within its Map of Conservation and Development, changed that designation to allow that kind of development on farmland that we're trying to protect.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: The municipality can do, with land in its community, as it sees fit. Where the State Plan comes in is if it comes to the State for State bond money for a site-specific project on its property. So I guess I must be missing it. I mean, I--

REP. MINER: It's conceivable then that the State Plan and the Town Plan could be in concurrence in your mind.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Absolutely. And they might not be in concurrence, in terms of what the proposed use that the municipality foresees.

But if it does not come to the State for funding for whatever infrastructure changes it wishes to make, the State is not in a position to say, that's inconsistent.

You can't do what you want to do with your property using your local funding, whether it be private or municipal.

REP. MINER: Would that include acquisition of the land, not infrastructure changes, as you understand it in the Statute?

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: With regard to State funding--

REP. MINER: Yeah.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: --to purchase the property, to transfer the use?

REP. MINER: Right.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: In other words, it is a farm, and the municipality wants to utilize State funding to turn it into some use other than a farm?

REP. MINER: Correct.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Okay, at least I understand it now.

REP. MINER: It's been a long day.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: I'm going to have to turn to my staff for this one.

JEFF SMITH: [inaudible - microphone not on] over $100,000, the acquisition should be consistent with the State.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: But would we be, if they were talking about changing the use, would we be funding that?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

JEFF SMITH: There's so many detailed, I'll just speak up. This--

SEN. COLEMAN: Yeah, Dan, David, or Jeff, you should feel free to pull to the microphone if--

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Yeah, by all means. Because these are the guys that do the interpretation, so--

JEFF SMITH: I'll just speak up. I could hear it over the PA, then I could be heard. There are, in the text of the Plan, there are many or call them rules or guidelines for the use of agricultural land, and they're applied on a case-by-case basis.

Generally speaking, Prime or it's important to farmland is held as Preserved, if it's still viable, and that's one of the proposed changes, if it's still viable for use as agricultural land.

If development pressures are such or if, for other reasons, it's pretty clear that this is no longer viable for agricultural use, then we would entertain the request to convert it over into a different category within the C&D Plan.

I don't know if that exactly answers your question. I think what I'm saying is, there's really no black and white here. We need to look at, you know, on a case-by-case basis, is it still viable for agricultural land? And, as such, if we would urge that, it would stay that way.

As for your saying that someone said, did I understand you to say that this is a case where someone said it was consistent with the C&D Plan?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.

JEFF SMITH: Perhaps we could talk about what the case is and whether we saw it, what the situation is. Is that fair?

REP. MINER: No, that's fair. Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there any further questions?

REP. WALLACE: Just, Mr. Chairman?

SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: This is always an interesting Committee, because it's run a little, perhaps a little bit more loosely than the Standing Committees.

And just reflected on what Representative Miner said, certainly, I assume you're referring to the 141-acre parcel of downtown--

REP. MINER: I didn't want to get into detail, but you can go ahead and get--

REP. WALLACE: It's public information, right? And it recalled to mind, actually, one of the interim changes that was proposed a year or two ago.

And I can't remember if that community was Southington or somewhere where they had farmland, but it was adjacent to already developed property. It was a smaller acreage, and I think there was either a further use down the road.

And I recall that OPM approved that change, because granted, while it was farmland, there was development pressures all around it. And with a realistic eye down the road, it seemed unlikely that could be sustained as farmland.

So I guess I'm really just concurring that it is, as I learned it, it all depends. And there are some on a case-by-case basis, even if it is farmland that is not sacrosanct to, as I understand it, to having it be maintained as such.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I can talk [inaudible - microphone not on].

SEN. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: I think it's this one he was talking about for--

SEN. COLEMAN: Any further comment or questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. LeVasseur.

W. DAVID LEVASSEUR: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: And staff. Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: Thank you, Senator Coleman, Representative Wallace. Thank you very much, Members of the Committee. Len Fasano, 34^th Senatorial District, Wallingford, North Haven, and East Haven, and also Ranking Member of Planning and Development.

I was not here when this Plan for Conservation and Development was started. And in the beginning of 2002, being a rookie, I didn't know what the heck was going on with this.

But now that we had an opportunity to have two years, and working with the planning development on our Growth Planning Bill, sometimes referred to as Smart Growth, it occurs to me that, I think the Office of Policy Management did a great job.

They have a lot of information that they had to go through and sift through, and a lot of plans, but it occurs to me that we may be running in two different directions.

The idea of growth planning, as I see it, is the ability of municipalities to develop in a manner consistent with what they want to see in the future.

And we originally began growth planning, we talked about, very consciously, do we want to do it from the top-down, that is, State telling us and then, being the Towns, and then reacting, or do we want to have some sort of bottom-up, municipalities growing, talking to each other, so everyone knows what's going on on the borders, but that a municipality would have a right to grow.

And we came to the conclusion, I believe, that we wanted municipalities to dictate their future. And we did a very complex mechanism, which would allow the process to work its way up through regional, and then to the State for comments, so we could all understand where we're going.

In addition to that, we allowed municipalities to dictate the areas of their own development priorities, that area where they wanted to create their economic base, where they wanted to create, next to highways or State roads, the ability to generate a development.

When you look at this Conservation Plan, that idea is completely tossed out the window. Because what the State is saying is, yes, you could do it with your own private funds, which is really not a reality for most Towns. We need the help from the State.

But if you don't do it the way they want to do it, it's going to count against you. So, in reality, the Smart Growth goes so far, but when it comes to looking at the State, if a Town needs the money from the State, it has to cave in to this Plan.

And I don't think that you could have it both ways. I don't think, straight-faced, we could walk up here in front of Planning and Development, have our public hearings on Smart Growth, and promise the 169 Towns that they have the ability to grow in a manner that they see fit.

But say, if you need money to purchase the property for economic development, you need money for the infrastructure to create the priority funding area that you desire, you can do it your own way, as long as the State Plan is followed.

I do want to compliment OPM for putting on the Map and having the conversation with South Central COG, with respect to the comments. And Mr. LeVasseur told him he would do that, and he did testify to that. And I think that that's a good idea.

But I think, as far as this overall Plan, I think we have to make a conscious decision or perhaps this Committee does, is, what is going to control?

Are we going to allow Smart Growth to go through, the principles we decide, or are we going to allow the State to put their Map in and say, you've got to follow our guidelines?

That being said, I think they have good guidelines in here. If they truly were guidelines, when you look on page 4, State agencies are required to be consistent with the Plan when asking for money.

Now that's just yeah or nay, with respect to a development area. Does this match the Plan?

And when you look at the municipal comments where they decide, I can think of one which is Brooklyn, where they said they wanted a particular route to be their priority funding area.

The State said, well, we don't agree with you. Well, I think that's a local call. I think that's a local decision. And that's the way we wrote the Bill for Smart Growth.

So I think we're at a fork. I think we've got to decide what is going to control. So I just ask you, when you deliberate this issue, those of you on Planning and Development are very familiar with Smart Growth or Growth Planning, as I prefer to call it.

Those of you who are not should take a look at the Bill and see what the real process is in that Bill we're trying to do, and you'll see the conflict that I so suggest. And I want to thank the Chairs for allowing me the opportunity to testify.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Senator. Are there questions of Senator Fasano?

REP. WALLACE: A question?

SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And not so much a question, but really just to expand on your remarks.

Bottoms-up, top-down, or, to a large degree, meeting in the middle, which is what I see this Plan doing, because it's not just, as I understand it, municipalities have the opportunity for input, they have the opportunity to request interim changes.

And my understanding is, it is a cooperative process between the municipality and the State to come to as much as can be done with 169 different municipalities and different people, elected officials, and zoning to come to some logical plan for development.

And you are right that sometimes, if the municipality's request does not comport with the past policies and plans or future going forward, then that area would not be, may or may not be eligible for the 42% of State funds that the Undersecretary spoke about.

As we've all learned in this process, it's not simple. But I guess I feel that the State Plan of Conservation is not purely a top-down, but rather an opportunity for conversation about how municipalities can grow, which, of course, they need to, because they've got to develop their own tax base because of limited State funding.

But again, you raise a good point. I can't dispute it. But only to say that I think the State might try to carve that middle ground.

SEN. FASANO: I agree with you, Chairman Wallace, that they have the opportunity to have the Towns voice their views, and we have pages and pages of the views that the Towns are doing.

But what we've done is, we have added now another layer, if you would, of bureaucratic red tape a Town has to go through to do what it wants to do. Not only must do what it wants to do if it comes out with a plan and says, Route 169, between this point and this point, it's going to be our area of development.

Now it's going to have to be, well, if we can convince the State that we make an interim report for which they accept and agree, and we'll call our Reps and we'll call our Senators and we'll see what's going on up there, that's going to be a delayed process.

It's just, if we believe that the Towns are going to do the right thing, and we believe the people in charge of the Towns are trying to do the right thing, and we put out the law, which is our Smart Growth, that gives them the tools of which to make that decision, so it's a thought-out process, it's not just the idea of the week, it's a thought-out process, then I don't think we should come to the State and say, please change the designation, we think it's the right thing to do.

And then have to bring up all the information or restarting from a peg down that they don't believe it's the right thing to do, because they said it wasn't in this Plan.

So we have to change the minds of the State before we could even look at the local issue. So it's another layer that I don't believe we need.

I think we need to allow municipalities under our Bill, which is depict the area to be designated, that's the area they concentrate on, and that's what they should be able to do with the help of the State for financial reasons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. COLEMAN: Any further questions? If not, thank you, Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO: Thank you very much.

SEN. COLEMAN: David Sutherland is next, to be followed by Patty Pendergast.

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Good evening. I'm here today representing The Nature Conservancy, which is an international organization committed to preserving biological diversity.

And on behalf of the Conservancy, I'd like to express our strong support for this Plan and our appreciation for the very innovative ideas that are sprinkled throughout it.

And I don't think the staff from OPM is probably encouraged to share this, but my recollection is the last time they worked on this Plan in '98, they had about twice as many staff people to do all this work and all the other work they're charged with.

So I think, in light of the staffing cutbacks that they've suffered, along with many other agencies in the last couple of years, I think the Plan is all the more admirable for the work that they've put into it.

We've submitted some suggestions for changes that are in my testimony. I did want to highlight one section or one reference the Plan makes to the importance of the State taking the opportunities we have left to maintain large, contiguous forest blocks.

Smaller blocks of forest, ranging anywhere from five acres to a couple of hundred acres, are very important for a variety of purposes and functions that open space provides.

But in order to truly protect the broadest array of plant and animal species possible, and all of the different relationships that go on between those plants and animals, we need to preserve several areas around the State of large, primarily contiguous, forest blocks.

I've attached to my testimony a brochure that The Nature Conservancy has put out that explains how our scientists approach this concept and determine how large the forest blocks we need to have, in order to preserve certain types of species, and in order to help these forests withstand certain types of natural catastrophes, such as ice storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, that we've had experience with here in Southern New England.

Maintaining these large forest blocks is crucial, not only for these particular species, such as certain songbirds, bobcats, bears, other types of roaming mammals and birds that certainly pass comfortably through our suburban neighborhoods, but need these large forest blocks in order to breed successfully and to continue to survive.

But these forest blocks are also important for the health of some of the other nearby, smaller forest blocks, because the large blocks are what provide some of the species that pass through the smaller forest areas.

I very much agree with the change that OPM is recommending for the Wetlands Section, as recommended by the Rivers Alliance. We're also recommending that the Plan explicitly call for the State to establish a GIS Council.

The Planning and Development Committee has passed a Bill the last couple of years that, ultimately, hasn't gotten through the full Legislature that would do this.

We're the only New England state, I believe, that does not have a GIS Council, and we believe it would greatly help some of the initiatives that are called for in this Plan.

I'd just lastly mention that on page 39, under the Housing Section, there is a bullet that recommends that our open space priorities be determined by whether or not communities have met certain housing goals.

And I think those are absolutely critical goals, but I think open space land and directing our funding towards it should be based on what kind of open space functions various properties provide.

DEP, even when they had the most bonding money a few years ago to spend on open space acquisition, they were still rejecting the vast majority of projects that came before them.

So there is still a lot of land that does not get preserved, even when the DEP has a lot of open space money. And we feel it's, they've got very good criteria in place now for choosing how our open space money is spent.

And one of the criteria they use, for example, is proximity to urban areas. That does get a project more points. So we feel that's the best way to handle that type of criteria.

And just lastly, I guess Senator Fasano has left, but just in response to his comments, I thought he raised some very important points.

But I think a Plan like this is essential. I think if we're spending State money, it is critical that the State weigh in on how that money should be spent and where it be spent.

We certainly have arguments, at times, with DEP, when we think they ought to be preserving certain parcels of land. They don't always agree with us.

And if we're asking for a State grant or asking them to spend their money, we fully expect that they're going to weigh in with their opinions.

And so we think it's very important that this Plan move forward as it's drafted. Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there questions for Mr. Sutherland? Seeing none, thank you, Sir.

DAVID SUTHERLAND: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Patty Pendergast.

PATTY PENDERGAST: Good evening. My name is Patty Pendergast. I'm with the Connecticut Forest and Park Association. My Executive Director, Adam Moore, is submitting supportive testimony for this document.

I'm here today, first off, to thank David LeVasseur and his staff for putting this document together. It's tremendously progressive.

And all we had done was request the inclusion of our 700-mile Blue Blaze Hiking Trail System in the Maps. And part of the reason we were adamant about that is now we're looking at parts of our trails being included as a National Scenic Heritage Trail, and we are also working with communities, with the [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to Tape 1B.]

--format. And I know a lot of people are kind of twitchy about the way it has turned out. I feel that it's an important resource document for Towns when they're working on their own plans of conservation and development, and it'll make them ask a lot of questions that they hadn't asked of themselves in the past.

I just hope that you get it done and get it through this Committee, and get it okayed quickly. Because as Towns are facing updating their plans of conservation and development, this document will make them think differently, and it will update all of their plans a lot better. And that's all I have to say, just get it done as quickly as you can. Thanks.

SEN. COLEMAN: Questions for Ms. Pendergast? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next is Karl Wagener.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He just stepped out [inaudible - microphone not on].

KARL WAGENER: I'm sorry. Ms. Pendergast was so fast, I didn't think I'd be up so soon. Good evening. My name is Karl Wagener. I'm the Executive Director of the State Council on Environmental Quality. And the Council asked me to come here this evening, just to urge you to adopt this important and excellent plan. We also recommend a couple of minor revisions.

First, however, the Council wants to go on record as saying that this Plan is better than parallel plans you'll find in many states. And we've looked at a lot of plans over the years.

And certain other states get a lot of fame or notoriety for their leadership efforts in growth management or smart growth. But this Plan can stand with the best of those plans in other states.

We don't get a lot of acclaim in Connecticut, because we don't really implement land use planning at the State level. But this Plan is very good.

I was going to address some specific recommendations, but listening to the Undersecretary, it sounds like two of our three have already been addressed.

So I'll just mention on the wetlands, I did attach our most recent annual report on the status of Connecticut's environment, which indicates wetland trends.

And it shows the pressure on wetlands is increasing, not easing, but I think that's been corrected now. And it sounds like our recommendation on water quality, which also had some statements which the data did not support, are also being changed.

So I'm going to cut right to number three, and I don't want this one to sound overly academic, because I don't believe it is. But that goes right to the objective of the Plan.

We recommend changing it, because the Plan states throughout that Connecticut seeks to achieve a balance between its conservation and development policies.

And it says the objective of the Plan is to guide a balance response to the current and future human, economic, and environmental needs of the State.

How could one object to balance? Well, the term balance suggests that economic and environmental policies are always at odds, and they're always pulling at each other. And this simply is not true.

And if you look at the various policies and priorities that are in the Plan, you'll find policies, such as ones that encourage new land uses within water supplies area, watersheds that are appropriate for that, and encouraging and spurring development of housing and employment in locations that have mass transit.

No balancing is required. This is integration of our State's collective goals, not balance. And you can spend your money, the State's money, in a way that expands the economy, while simultaneously protecting the environment.

And I think that's what this Plan hopes to achieve. And I think if you replace the term balance with integrate or balanced with integrated, it's not a mere semantic change. I think it would help the readers understand the purpose of the Plan.

And thanks to previous comments, my comments have been abbreviated, and that's them for now. And I thank you for your consideration.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wagener. Are there questions for this witness? Seeing none, thank you. Commissioner Jack Betkoski is next, followed by John Filchak.

COMMISSIONER JACK BETKOSKI: Good evening, Senator Coleman, Representative Wallace, Members of the Committee.

I'm here this evening on behalf of the Connecticut Water Planning Council, expressing its support for the Recommended Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut for 2004-2009.

Pursuant to Connecticut's General Statutes, Section 25-33o, the Water Planning Council is comprised of designees of the Chairperson of the Department of Public Utility Control, the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, and the Commissioners of the Departments of Public Health and Environment Protection.

The Council is responsible for addressing issues related to State policies, water resources, and water companies regarding the future of the State's drinking water supply.

As a member of the Water Planning Council, the Office of Policy and Management has consulted with its sister agencies in developing the Plan's policies related to water supply and water quality.

We believe the Recommended Conservation and Development Policies Plan creates the appropriate context for and represents a favorable method of implementing the long-range strategies of the Water Planning Council, particularly Principles #4 and #5.

The Water Planning Council endorsed the adoption of the Recommended Plan last Legislative Session. We urge the Committee to endorse the Recommended Conservation and Development Plan this year and support its adoption by the full General Assembly during the 2005 Legislative Session. Thank you for your interest, and any questions? Nice to see everybody.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you for your testimony. Are there questions for Commissioner Betkoski?

COMMISSIONER JOHN BETKOSKI: Thank you much.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. John Filchak, followed by Karen Burnaska.

JOHN FILCHAK: Good evening. My name's John Filchak. I'm the Executive Director of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments.

And I've submitted a written statement, so I'll be very brief. We're simply here to support the Plan. We offer no dissection of the Plan or Amendments to it.

However, we do want to go over the suggestions that the Undersecretary made, especially those related to the Map language.

I kind of lost it in that and need to review that, because I'm not sure I quite agree with what was stated there. And additionally, the language regarding agriculture, which, again, didn't fully make sense to me, but I haven't seen it in writing, so I'll have to reserve judgment on that.

I say that I don't offer details, because we think the Plan offers some great fundamental change for planning in the State.

And one can quibble with the details. I also represent Brooklyn that Senator Fasano talked about, but we're not here today offering Brooklyn's changes. We understand that was rejected, as were a couple of others, but that's part of the process.

And we may be back with those, but on balance, the Plan, it's a significant shift. I think Karl spoke well to that from where we were, and offers just a very good foundation going forward for planning for our Towns, for our region, and for the State.

So thank you. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer those.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there questions for Mr. Filchak? Apparently not. Thank you, John, for your testimony.

JOHN FILCHAK: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Karen Burnaska is next, followed by Mary Ellen Kowalewski.

KAREN BURNASKA: Senator Coleman, Representative Wallace, Members of the Committee. My name is Karen Burnaska, and I am the Coordinator for the Endangered Lands Coalition at the Connecticut Fund for the Environment.

CFE is a non-profit environmental organization, with over 4,000 members Statewide. For more than 25 years, CFE has used law, science, and education to protect and preserve Connecticut's natural resources.

And I am here today to speak in support of the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for 2004-2009, or 2005-2010, whichever it may be.

CFE commends the Committee and OPM for the work that they have done on the revised Conservation and Development Policies Plan, and we urge the adoption, subject to certain caveats identified below.

Sprawling growth patterns are strangling our economy, choking our roads, polluting our air and water, and eating up our open space.

The Plan is a well-considered approach to keeping Connecticut a healthy and clean place to live and raise a family, in light of the very real development pressures of the 21^st Century.

I also have several comments that I believe have already been addressed by Mr. LeVasseur, and that is too in regard to wetlands.

And that is the fact that all evidence indicates that development pressures are seriously increasing on inland wetlands, and that has not been the case that they are disappearing.

We also feel that emphasis should be placed upon preserving existing wetlands. The experience has shown that mitigation projects generally have not replicated the full functionality of the original wetlands.

It should be made clear in the Plan that creating new wetlands or restoring degraded ones is a strategy of last resort, when preservation proves to be infeasible.

Our comment on water quality we also believe was addressed by Mr. LeVasseur. And we agree that DEP's 2002 Water Quality Report to Congress is the most recent and comprehensive data available, and should form the basis of statements regarding water quality trends in Connecticut.

The last comment is on transportation. We believe that more emphasis should be placed upon prioritizing funding for public transportation projects, such as the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Rail Line and rolling stock for Metro-North New Haven Line over continued highway expansion.

The Plan accurately identifies the failure of highway construction to build our way out of our congestion problem and identifies the need for transit support of land use planning, clustered around the public transportation nodes.

If we continue to over-fund highway expansion at the expense of public transportation, however, there is little chance that future development patterns will change in any meaningful way.

CFE does support the adoption of the Plan, and I thank you very much today for your consideration.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Are there questions for this witness?

REP. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman?

SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Just a comment on where that last section regarding transportation--

KAREN BURNASKA: Yes.

REP. WALLACE: --and more emphasis upon prioritizing, you don't have any specific language, is that correct? And my question is, I'm looking at the document itself, pages 51--

KAREN BURNASKA: Right.

REP. WALLACE: --and 52, where--

KAREN BURNASKA: The list of projects?

REP. WALLACE: --they're listed, based on identification in the Connecticut Master Transportation Plan. And then some of the projects that you listed, New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Commuter Line, Rolling Stock seemed to be listed on page 52--

KAREN BURNASKA: They [inaudible].

REP. WALLACE: --in terms of studies have yet to be completed.

KAREN BURNASKA: Oh.

REP. WALLACE: That's how I read it. Maybe I--

KAREN BURNASKA: Oh, I didn't mean to be confusing, as there is a list of the projects and a list of anticipated studies. CFE would like to see more emphasis placed on public transportation.

REP. WALLACE: Okay, easily--

KAREN BURNASKA: Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Easily understood.

KAREN BURNASKA: Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Further questions? If not, thank you for your testimony. Mary Ellen Kowalewski is next, to be followed by Tom ODell.

MARY ELLEN KOWALEWSKI: Thank you, Chairman Coleman, Chairman Wallace, and Members of the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development.

My name is Mary Ellen Kowalewski. I'm the Director of Community Development of the Capitol Region Council of Governments. We are the largest of the State's 15 Regional Planning Organizations, and we appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.

On behalf of the Capitol Region Council of Governments, I urge your legislative support and eventual legislative adoption of the Recommended Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 2004-2009.

The State Plan's six Growth Management Principles are consistent with the six major themes that guide our regional conservation and development goals and policies, as embodied within our recently adopted Regional Plan of Conservation and Development.

A key to implementing CRCOG's, as we're called, vision for the future, as well as the State Plan's vision, is a commitment to planning and investment decisions that work towards the overarching principles that are found, both in the State Plan and our regional planning document.

And these include focusing new development in areas in which existing and planned infrastructure can support that development, supporting efforts to strengthen and revitalize central cities, and also support the revitalization of the older urbanized areas within our regions, to support development carried out in a manner that respects and preserves community character and key natural resources, to implement open space and natural resource protection plans that acknowledge and support the multi-town nature of our resources, to support the creation of new employment and housing opportunities and transportation choices that meet the diverse needs of our citizenry, and to encourage intermunicipal cooperation in the protection of our natural resources, the revitalization of our urban areas, and also our economic development.

Through pursuing these principles and objectives at multiple levels of government, the State, the regional, and the local, we have the greatest chance of achieving the balance between conservation and development that keeps our region strong and keeps our State strong.

We commend the staff of OPM for their effort to produce a document that reflects local, regional, and Statewide concerns, and presents a balanced vision for our growth and conservation in the future.

And we would welcome your favorable consideration of this document, and also hope that it will come to a favorable vote within the Legislature in the coming session. Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Are there questions? Seeing none, thank you--

MARY ELLEN KOWALEWSKI: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: --for your time and your testimony. Next is Mr. Tom ODell, to be followed by Bonnie Burr.

TOM ODELL: Good evening. My name is Tom ODell. I'm President of the Connecticut Association of Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commissions, better known as CACIWC. And on my left is our Executive Director, Ann Letendre. We are submitting this testimony for our organization.

CACIWC is an education information organization serving the 169 Towns and 2,000-plus volunteers of our municipal Wetlands and Conservation Commissions.

We welcome this opportunity to comment on the draft of this Plan, and we appreciate the efforts that have gone into producing the document.

We are very supportive of the smart growth initiatives that are recognized in the Plan, and we are pleased to see that emphasis finally taking place in the document.

In August 2004, we sent a six-page document to Mr. Steve Azzara with our comments, and that document we cited statements that concerned us and provided suggested language changes.

But rather than read that entire document, we have prepared a summary of our four main points. At least three of those points have been apparently added as Amendments to the document, at least according to OPM's testimony.

We have not had a chance to review those Amendments. So rather than go through all of our points, I'll just mention the points that mentioned. That was the pressure on wetlands, the use of wetland mitigation, and the State's taking a proactive role in sponsoring this research.

In terms of the mitigation area, our comments were specific to that the Plan now sets forth a policy of no net loss for wetlands, based on the presumption that the creation of wetlands is a viable technique for wetland mitigation.

However, based on recent studies of wetland mitigation projects that have proposed wetland creation, we believe that the State should set forth a more aggressive wetlands protection policy with a no-loss policy, rather than a no-net-loss policy.

The concept of no net loss was developed in the late 1980s. While it might appear to provide a workable solution to wetlands loss, recent reports indicate these problems.

Created wetlands fail to look or function like natural systems, the required mitigation activity is never undertaken, and three, the stated goals established in the permit are usually not met.

We have provided in an attachment too a recent article in our newsletter, The Habitat, citing these studies.

The Plan proposes evaluation of wetland banking as a mitigation tool to achieve no net loss. CACIWC strongly opposes wetlands banking.

This mention suggests that the State considers banking as a potentially feasible mitigation tool, that is, it has generally supported that position of the concept.

This concerns us greatly, and we ask that the Committee strike the banking from this section. Wetlands are protected, by law, in the State. How you go about banking is a very difficult process to evaluate.

Certainly, evaluations of the concept could be made, without the mention in this Plan. But right now, how you would actually go about banking wetlands, when they're already protected, is difficult for us to figure out.

One point that was not mentioned in OPM's testimony was a need for additional training programs for local commissioners. The training program in the Plan now states that the training program for the wetlands commissioners should be continued.

We believe training should be expanded. Connecticut's home rule system of government provides Towns the authority to protect inland wetlands and watercourses by local regulation.

Therefore, the majority of decisions that impact Connecticut's wetlands and watercourses are made at the local level by local volunteers.

Connecticut has invested millions of dollars to clean up the rivers, lakes, and Long Island Sound. Investing in additional training for the municipal inland wetlands volunteers that are responsible for protecting those water resources is good environmental and economic policy.

DEP conducts an annual training program, but only a small percentage of the State's 1,500-plus inland wetlands commissioners and staff actually complete that training.

This program is not sufficient to protect Connecticut's investment in clean water. The State's policy should recognize this investment and recognize that it is the local wetlands commissioners that are making daily decisions that impact our State's water resources.

The State's policy should support an expanded training program for municipal Inland Wetlands Commissioners and Staff.

We thank you for your time and ask the Committee to accommodate our suggested changes, and ask that you at least review the changes that are submitted with our testimony, relative to the Amendments that are now apparently in the Plan. Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Ms. Letendre, did you have anything to add?

ANN LETENDRE: No.

SEN. COLEMAN: Well, thank you both for your appearance before the Committee. Any questions? Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. A couple of questions, one, are there any, when you speak of State sponsorship of research and collaboration with State schools, are there any programs currently in place in any of our public higher institutions regarding wetlands science or etc.?

TOM ODELL: Well, there are some programs at the University of Connecticut that are funded, primarily, through federal funds, which are shrinking very rapidly.

But those do not deal with all of the issues that wetland commissioners really need some information on, particularly since there's so much pressure from development on those wetlands at this time.

REP. WALLACE: And then, just for your knowledge, as well as for anyone else, the Standing Committee on Planning and Development had passed legislation last year that would have directed OPM to work with UConn and Regional Planning Authorities or Agencies, etc.

Because a number of agencies state that they hold training sessions for zoning, EIC, inland wetlands, etc., but you're on top of something when you say it's certainly unclear as to how many of our volunteer commissioners actually attend and take access to this training.

And we certainly need to make it more available to them and easier to attend, so that they can have the level of expertise needed. Because the decisions that they make change our State irrevocably, so thank you for that.

TOM ODELL: Thank you for that same.

SEN. COLEMAN: If not, thank you for your testimony. Bonnie Burr is next, followed by Jiff Martin.

BONNIE BURR: Chairman Coleman, Chairman Wallace, and Members of the Continuing Legislative Committee on State Planning and Development. My name is Bonnie Burr, and I am Director of Government Relations for Connecticut Farm Bureau.

Thanks certainly go to this Committee and to OPM for providing leadership in addressing this very complicated issue.

The topic that agriculture struggles with, especially when you bring this issue up, is how do you balance land use planning with private property rights?

And we certainly give credence to the fact that this Committee and OPM have tried to address that.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that we understand Mr. LeVasseur has certainly been receiving comments from the agricultural industry and from the Department of Ag, and do look forward to seeing how those comments are more fully incorporated into the Plan.

We want to set the tone of this testimony by adding that our 5,800 members take great pride in agriculture's growing economy.

Like many of the European countries who have had to struggle to address their planning, well, we look at agriculture in a very multifunctional role, in terms of the place that it has in our communities, and as well as in our State infrastructure.

We are very, very cognizant, clearly, trust and understand that this Committee will certainly benefit from having agriculture be an active part and a key component in Connecticut's land use planning.

You certainly have my remarks in front of you, just a couple of quick points that I do want to highlight. We do have concern as to why agriculture is not really mentioned in the opening remarks under Growth Management Principle #4.

The term Traditional Rural Lands is used. We feel very strongly that, if this State wants to put emphasis on the importance of agriculture in the State, that the word agriculture might be utilized in some manner in those opening remarks.

We certainly feel that that's not to take away from the term Traditional Rural Land, but would hope that this Committee would understand our somewhat prejudiced view in having agriculture mentioned.

On page 56, we want to note that, with regards to how Connecticut addresses the environment, especially with regards to the environment, for your knowledge, farmers, in conjunction with USDA in the last six years, have implemented about $9 million worth of environmental stewardship projects on our farms and in many of your communities.

And I think that that certainly comes to light, in terms of how agriculture, once again, plays that multifunctional role in the community.

There are a couple of things that we want to comment on, starting on page 64 under the Conservation Areas and Agriculture. We do want to note that agriculture is not confined to prime soils.

Certainly, our greenhouse and bedding plant industry is the highest grossing in New England, and we don't need to have prime soils for that part of the industry.

Nursery stock certainly also contributes greatly to our farm viability. Mr. LeVasseur and I have discussed what some of the issues are with regards to what we call ball and burlap, where some of our soils certainly are taken out when we take the larger nursery stock out for planting, especially in areas of new development.

A lot of those homes like some of the larger stock, so there is soil that is lost. One of the key things that we need to address is how to mitigate that soil loss, so that we can best address that situation.

We've got a number of studies that are underway, and they do look at how do we do container-grown and bare root. So certainly, there are ways that we can address those soil losses.

Under the policy on page 66, where it calls for protecting all prime agricultural lands, I think this is, again, something that we can certainly work very closely with Mr. LeVasseur and the OPM staff, again, to help bring up new ideas that are happening on our farms that would help to address the fact that if this is, if the ball and burlap issue is the sole concern that they have with regards to converting lands, that I think that we can certainly help to address that.

We do have concern that, for those that may not have had the opportunity to have that conversation with OPM, that other ideas might be taken when we talk about converting those prime farmlands, and certainly hope that that doesn't address what we're doing with our Farmland Preservation lands.

We also want to make sure that this Committee is very, very aware that the aquaculture industry, which is discussed under the areas of Preservation Areas for Long Island Sound, is very, very important to our agricultural industry.

They are very vital, in terms of the number of acreages that we harvest our shellfish from and the challenges that we're facing when we farm, as well as the competing uses that we have in Long Island Sound.

On page 67, where the policy for enhancing the economic and environmental viability of our farms, we feel very, very, very strongly that we need to do a lot more work, with regards to how we work with our municipalities when they do land use planning with regards to some of our agricultural operations.

I can tell you, at Farm Bureau, on a ratio of 2 to 1, are the calls that we get from our farmers who have got issues with land use regulations at the municipal level versus all the other calls that we get.

And when they call and they look for additional advice, that can sometimes be counterproductive to what they feel they need to have in their Town, yet how we need to carry out our agricultural operations.

Again, I want to thank the Continuing Committee, as well as OPM and the, I was going to say months, but at this point, it's years of work that they put into bringing this plan to fruition, and certainly look forward to working with this Committee, and Mr. LeVasseur and his staff, to address any of these issues.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you for your testimony. Are there questions of this witness? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank you for being here tonight, Bonnie. I know that the Undersecretary and his staff have made a number of attempts to, I'll say mitigate, but I think, you know, probably incorporate some of the thoughtful suggestions that people have made.

On page 66, viable is used along with agriculture. And as I listened to you, is it the agricultural position that viable in the eyes of Craig Miner may not necessarily be the same as viable in your eyes [inaudible]?

BONNIE BURR: I think, Representative Miner, that's a very, very fair statement to make. Certainly, what we look at from our Farm Bureau perspective, in terms of viability, may very well differ from everybody that sits in the circle here.

You know, some people may look at viability in terms of the, as one person who works in the farm and preservation field calls it, the picture in the picture window.

That's not good enough for us, but that might be good enough for folks that are outside of our industry. So I think it's a very fair statement.

REP. MINER: So as we, again, this is really focused on State participation in future development, I guess is the best way to put it, not local, not private. How do you see us making the determination of viability or how would we best make that determination of viability?

BONNIE BURR: I think, certainly, the conversations that we started to have this summer with the Farmland Preservation Task Force certainly were an excellent place that we can start.

But when you take a look at what viability means, you know, again, it comes down to, what does somebody have to do in order to, A, make a living, and, B, be able to prosper in that job, with the hopes that their children or succeeding generations may want to come into the business?

And I think to do that, the viability, the farm prices that we're getting, certainly need to be increased. And there's a whole host of things that that door will open up.

But I think you also need to ask, it does, while we certainly want to address it on a Statewide basis, what might be viable in Litchfield, Connecticut, could be very different than what might be viable, you know, a nursery, let's say in Litchfield, versus a dairy farm in Canaan.

That viability is going to be different, based on the inputs that they have on their farms and what they have to do in order to make that operation prosper.

REP. MINER: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Any further questions? If not, thank you for your--

BONNIE BURR: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: --appearance and your testimony. Next is Jiff Martin, to be followed by Dennis Moore.

JIFF MARTIN: Good evening, Senator Coleman, Representative Wallace. My name is Jiff Martin. I'm the Project Director of Working Lands Alliance. It's a multi-interest coalition of over 140 organizations working to increase the State's commitment to farmland preservation.

I've submitted testimony from our Working Lands Alliance Chairman, Terry Jones, but I'm going to focus my comments, actually, on the page 66 clause that we have talked about already a few times.

Before I say anything about that though, I would like to emphatically thank the drafters of the Plan at OPM for incorporating comments which we supplied them a year ago, really, at the last minute.

And we were asking them to modify the language about farmland preservation, to include language that recognizes the value of economic growth and food production as a good reason to preserve farmland.

The most important farmland preservation policy that's outlined in this document is on page 66, under Growth Management Principle #4.

And it says the policy is to protect enough prime ag land to ensure a long-range food production capacity within the State and to consider food production as the most appropriate use for those lands.

But it goes on to state that the policy is to protect all ag lands until the necessity for conversion to non-agricultural uses is substantial or preservation is no longer feasible through available programs.

Now I understand from the testimony of Mr. LeVasseur that there is some change to that language.

But I just want to be very clear that, from the Working Lands Alliance's perspective, this statement is analogous to saying something like Connecticut will protect its wetlands until we decide to fill them or Connecticut will seek to protect rare and endangered species in their habitats until we decide to kill or destroy them.

So our concern is that, by keeping this language intact or something like it that sort of creates a hole through which you could drive a truck, we're basically saying the State will continue to protect farmland, so long as it is convenient.

Barring a homeland security situation, if the State is interested in developing farmland or spending State funds to do so, then the State should do so only on land that is no longer suitable for agriculture use, which should be scientifically determined by an irreversible change to soil quality.

I would also submit that American Farmland Trust has submitted testimony with a possible change to that statement as well.

Working Lands Alliance urges that the Continuing Committee amend the language of this particular policy to make it clear that it is not the State's policy to advocate the conversion of prime agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, and such language should be deleted from the Plan.

In addition to this, we have some much smaller changes that we are submitting that is part of our testimony under Terry Jones' name, just to improve the accuracy of the Plan and to keep the language of the Plan in harmony with the broader consensus.

These changes are very simple. Echoing what Farm Bureau has just said, we also feel that Traditional Rural Lands clause should be replaced with Agricultural Lands.

We also feel that a fact should be included in the document, specifying that on page 65, where the paragraph goes on to talk about the loss of agricultural land to development, we are proposing a specific statement that cites the latest figures of that loss.

And on page 67, we are also proposing inserting two bullets to recognize existing State programs for farm viability. That would be the Environmental Assistance Program and the Farm Reinvestment Program.

We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments to the Committee and hope you will consider these constructive suggestions as you move forward with your deliberations. Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Are there questions for Ms. Martin?

REP. WALLACE: A question?

SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What a great confluence, you right behind Bonnie Burr, and emphasizing to me, and I'll speak for myself, the importance of agriculture, making sure that agriculture is properly reflected in the Plan.

A comment, actually not from you, but from the American Farmland Trust, an organization I'm not familiar with, the Governor's Council for Agricultural Development. Do we have that in our State? What do they do?

JIFF MARTIN: You have it. It hasn't been active for a number of years. The agricultural community is hoping that Governor Rell will reactivate that group or we're hoping that this Session there might be statutory language to modify that group.

But it does exist in statute, absolutely, and it just simply hasn't been active for a number of years. But we're hoping that it'll come back, because it would be very helpful for ag viability.

SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: Thank you. I'll be brief. In terms of the State's ability to sustain itself through agriculture, is it conceivable that through modern technology, the productivity may require less land than we currently have set aside for farming?

JIFF MARTIN: I'm not an expert, but I would assume the answer to that question is yes.

REP. MINER: And so the principle upon which we set aside farmland, at least what I heard this summer and continue to hear, is that it's, you know, our sustainable viability as a State, that we need to be able to plan for ourselves. Doesn't that kind of undermine our protection, I guess, of farmland?

JIFF MARTIN: Well, the goal that was set out in, I think, 1979 to protect 130,000 acres was based on a very different agricultural context than exists right now.

And if there's an interest in revisiting that goal or looking at that goal, perhaps a group like this Governor's Ag Council would be able to do that.

But as it stands right now, the goal is 130,000 acres, and so far, the State has only preserved about 30,000, so just about a 25% of that goal over 25 years.

SEN. COLEMAN: Further questions? Question? Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Just to follow up on Representative Miner's, and to help my thinking with it, there is preserving farmland, which the State would take a proactive approach or municipalities through P.A. 490, as well as preservation rights, easements, etc.

And there is the State Plan of Conservation, where, through the Plan, we would, we, the State, would decide that we will not support State economic development dollars towards that property, which is a little different than preserving the property through an easement or something.

So it's, I guess, when I think of preserving the 130,000, it's a little different to me than saying we won't develop on, both of which are important, but I'm just trying to, in my own mind, compartmentalize what we're kind of talking about here. Is that how you would see it or--

JIFF MARTIN: I'm not sure. I guess I'm not sure what your question is. I mean, sometimes we use the word protecting, rather than preserving.

But that's true, there's a difference between buying the development rights, which is the State's program, the Farmland Preservation Program, which permanently places an easement on that land in perpetuity, and that's different from a private farm that's applying for assistance from the State through a municipality to convert prime land.

But from the Working Lands Alliance's perspective, our prime farmland is precious, and we don't want to see any of it converted in such a manner if the justification is one, such as we saw in the earlier text, you know, necessity for conversion to non-agricultural uses.

Determined by whom and based on what? Who's supposed to make that decision? That's our fear.

REP. WALLACE: Just typically, it would actually come from, the property owner would say, I've got this property. I don't want to farm on it anymore, but I want to put up a skyscraper [inaudible], but I want to turn it into an office park or something.

So it would actually come from the farmer or former farmer, because there could be, I'm just thinking about it, there could be some instances where a State agency, DECD, might say, well, as part of a larger project, we're also going to take over 20 acres of land. We need State dollars to do that.

So I'm just kind of ruminating, but there are a lot of different ways it could play out, it seems.

JIFF MARTIN: Well, I mean, the Working Lands Alliance coalition is working on some concepts regarding mitigation policy, where if a State or a municipality were to do something like that, there's some sort of mitigation, whether it's purchasing other agricultural land or preserving other land somewhere else or actually paying into a fund that would do such a thing.

So the coalition is working on that concept. But just in the context of this document, we're just very concerned about that one clause.

REP. WALLACE: And thank you for bringing this to my attention.

SEN. COLEMAN: [inaudible - microphone not on] Dennis Moore is next [inaudible - microphone not on]. You may proceed when you're ready.

DENNIS MOORE: Very well, then. I'm Dennis Moore from Shelton, Connecticut, Southwest region. And I was actually asked by Congresswoman Mushinsky at the hearing, public meeting last week, to speak about smart growth in front of you.

And I spoke about it then, in terms of basically the impact that it'll have on global warming and as we seek to become more conservative towards, you know, our ecological standing.

But as a student of landscape architecture, I also come with this perspective. And dealing with smart growth planning is a really broad subject to sort of discuss and manage mentally.

But basically, involving, setting aside, actually, our footprint as we know it. Everything we do with our lifestyles has an impact on the land. And, you know, there are property rights issues and whatnot.

But setting aside what our impact is for now, I guess, if we were to approach smart growth in like walkable communities, and these solutions in a fashion, as in like how you live your life, then basically, well, what I could come up with is that we're dealing with the results of how we live. I mean, that's the simple truth.

But we're in a development crisis today. And another tidbit I'd like to add, to saying like, yes, we're stuck with this massive bubble of economic growth.

People want to build more houses. But we also have to look at it like there are developers who want to build houses. Not to say that the people won't need the houses, but developers want to build because they found this way to profit.

And the people who are looking for new homes have one solution, for the most part, and that's suburban life. You know, a bigger acre, maybe three acres if you're lucky.

And you find yourself moving further and further away if you want this new, not even new, but people who are looking for, you know, this status symbol, this lifestyle to sort of, you know, stand up to.

And I see that there's a hurdle and sort of sense in what we want to say to the people. And what I want to say to you is, first of all, like I really think that how we choose to grow is very much a factor of our influences like car culture.

Four TV ads a commercial break is the average for an automobile, four automobile ads, that is. And cars are toys. We need them because they have been necessitated. Not to say, since the 1950s, this necessitation has not been good progress.

I mean, we can get around all we need to. I got to Hartford today and didn't even need to ask for a ride. I would have loved to have, you know, had one, but anyways, that's something else, I guess.

This sense of progress communities have is defined, in my eyes, some of my opinions towards that are, I guess, like a municipality has their self-interest. And I guess they want to develop in a certain fashion.

A fellow mentioned earlier how his municipality [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1B to Tape 2A.]

--they'll have a, if they bring in more of the types of developments they want, then their tax base will grow.

Not to say like, you know, you could say you can grow in the sort of sense as, you know, like commercial, like blocks, like office complexes are really good.

But then overall, they want it to grow, they want to get more residents. Why? It's this self-governing body that has been created. And do we need it? We need, I'm not going to get into everything.

But consumers also demand services, like where they live. If you choose to live out in, well, you know, I guess from Hartford, I guess maybe like Bloomfield is further out.

But no matter where you live, you're going to want to have this gas station, once you move there. And why has this happened? Why is this trend occurring?

It's because, in a sense, issues that people have been dealing with for a long time, since people came to America. And in Connecticut, we're dealing with this on a grander scale because we live next to the nexus of New York.

And there's a lot more pressure involved. There's the way people live near New York. A lot of times, the reason people come to Connecticut is to make money.

And if you travel, you know, to the Red States, they're being called now, even like as far as Syracuse, New York, where I've been studying, to a small extent.

The manner, and like the tone, and the intensity of life is relaxed, just because there's not a big city nearby. I don't even know why people would move there. It's cold all year, you know.

But basically, if we were able to strip down these misconceptions, and there are many more to be identified, then people will be able to have a clearer vision on what lifestyle they choose to live, what dwellings they choose to move into, what cities they, you know, they want to be grown around them.

And if you choose a walkable community, then there's all of a sudden, like just because you're walking, you can stop and not have someone behind you, honking their horn and saying, keep moving.

You know, this is like a fault. That's a clear example of speed, and speed is a misconception that we need to develop, we need to keep this progress moving.

And if you can keep this, if we can keep everything stripped down and show people what choices they may choose to make because we're not influencing them to make the choice that they now need to make for their car.

And, you know, a car's a big toy. I like to drive, but I don't like to need to drive, and there's a major difference there. And I noticed you said something about mass transit. And basically, let's get it moving.

I mean, I'm at the point where there's all these hurdles that are stopping us from, you know, the 21^st Century and what we really want to make of this.

I can say about the 20^th Century, from what I know from the tail end of it, that, you know, we've got to the point where, for the people who know, we actually, for the people who have accomplished what they've wanted to accomplish, then there's this sense of loss.

And for the people who haven't gotten there yet, they're saying, look, like the immigrants from Bridgeport. I say immigrant, because, you know, these are people who are coming to get what we have.

And if we show them what they want, then, well, they want what we have, but they don't know what it's like. And that's their perspective.

Now, see, look, I keep hitting these hurdles. Maybe I should just move on to like to instilling this vision. I was saying to you about mass transit, how we can use it.

And we're looking at mass transit as like something that, oh, it's good, because we'll get cars off the roads. And we really need to look at mass transit as a tool, and how can we use this tool most effectively?

And basically, I can assume or ask that most of you haven't ridden on the bus to get to work in a number of years, unless you live in the Hartford area.

And I encourage you just to pick up a bus schedule, and if it fits into your day on a whim, then maybe try it. Because first of all, you have to park your car.

And if you have to park your car somewhere, you might as well just park it at work, because you're getting in your car to begin with.

Mass transit, I think, works best in New York, when people walk to the station and then, when they're done with their ride, they walk to the office.

And it basically, it moves people. It doesn't move people and all their things. And now, if we were to apply this to the State of Connecticut, then, first of all, I want to make it clear, this isn't my plan.

This is something we can try in little increments. And the political aspects work well. Like from what I hear, there's a good review of your legislation.

And if this legislation helps, well, on the other side of things, past legislation has promoted the use of the automobile. And zoning still promotes the use of the automobile, even, now this is where landscape architecture comes in.

Zoning visually allows for people to drive faster on streets. If you were to drive in New Haven, you're going to drive 20 miles an hour to be safe, to make sure you don't hit someone, to make sure you don't hit someone who opens their car door at you.

And then, just like the feel of it. Once you just open up the road, of course, you're going to want to drive 40, because 20 miles an hour is slow.

And now if we were to instill this idea of walkable communities, I'm sure you might be familiar with it as an aspect of smart growth.

But if we were to instill this on, say, like maybe the red areas of the Map, then, see, everything works better when there's already a mass transit system in place, when there are already people walking.

You know, like the chicken and the egg. People are already walking to mass transit stations from New Haven, all the way down to New York, and then, on a lesser scale, into Danbury and in Waterbury.

And getting these people, the people who are moving to New York, is probably the best chance to start. And in saying, look, like, if we can offer you a spot near the train station, a comfortable place to live, and many of these places near the train station already have like stores with vitality.

South Norwalk is, you know, teeming with bars. Fairfield has like home amenities all nearby. Westport is sort of close to the train station, is great for shopping.

And these are places people like to visit, but they aren't able to live there, because they've got to get in their car and drive away.

And basically, I guess, this is a great means to instill a new lifestyle and show them, look, like you can live this walkable lifestyle in Connecticut.

Like we're offering you this opportunity, you, these people. And I think we need to help at the State level to sort of overcome the hurdle of the development crisis.

Because developers aren't even beginning to, the more and more they build the houses out in the exurbs, out in Brookfield, these distant places, then that's, I mean, that's a problem itself that could be, we are trying to solve. And I could go on forever about this, but--

SEN. COLEMAN: Are you coming from New Haven today?

DENNIS MOORE: What?

SEN. COLEMAN: Did you come from New Haven today?

DENNIS MOORE: Well, I guess New Haven is an ideal perspective and an ideal example.

SEN. COLEMAN: Let's see, you have an address of Shelton, Connecticut, here. And it looks like, at the conclusion of your testimony, like you're temporarily at Southern Connecticut State University. I'm just, some of us--

DENNIS MOORE: Yeah, that's correct.

SEN. COLEMAN: --are actually curious as to how you got here, because your testimony indicated you didn't drive.

DENNIS MOORE: What?

SEN. COLEMAN: Your testimony indicated that you didn't drive. Just--

DENNIS MOORE: I see, yeah.

SEN. COLEMAN: Some of us are just curious as to how you got here.

DENNIS MOORE: Fair enough. I guess, to sort of bring things together then, the example I've tried to create for you needs to be, I really think it needs to be put into perspective for people to actually like, you know, to sort of explore.

I mean, there are plenty of great places near mass transit. And once people have this place to explore, this example of a potential in-town lifestyle, we can say, then they'll use the mass transit to get to the next town.

Because, I guess, there are studies, you know, a half-mile is what people will walk. But if, I mean, if you use the bus, then the hub would be near the transit station, and everything might fit together.

And that's integrating these walkable communities. There are good examples of places like this, I guess, in the Maryland area, the State of Maryland. I mean, we could do more research.

The Smart Growth Network was founded by the U.S. EPA. I'm not sure if you're familiar with them, but to sort of tie in groups who are already achieving this goal, they actually, well, they provide resources.

And they maybe look at, as far as more of tools to support. Because I'm not asking you to, you, yourself, to, well, what I'm asking you is for support to create examples, so that we can spark these community interests and bring people together to live a lifestyle they choose to prefer.

I'm not saying everyone has to live this way. I'm saying the people who choose to live this way can live this way. And, I mean, if things turn out good, then we'll set a trend.

And that's why I propose on the final page of my testimony, written, to try and create a design team.

And basically, as a trial over a summer period, from like maybe two or four weeks, we'll invite a few professors from like the college I attended in Syracuse and plan to continue, maybe from UConn's landscape architecture minor department, and this doesn't just, well, who can be useful?

Like architects can be useful, planners, and basically, get in together on a, and also, on another scale, professionals and students, and get them together.

And just, you know, come up with examples, written down, and to show people, you know, like in an art gallery or something. And then if they work, then we can have developers come in and try to build them.

And that would be ideal, but this can be even just to show you what potential this has, smart growth.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Questions? There are no questions. Thank you for your testimony.

DENNIS MOORE: Please, I'll be waiting for your response.

SEN. COLEMAN: I'm still waiting for your response to my question.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I've got $20 that said he drove.

SEN. COLEMAN: Vilma--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There's nothing wrong with that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, there is.

SEN. COLEMAN: --Gregoropoulos.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Yes. I am the Chairman of the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission. And I'll try to be brief, because I know your time is valuable.

I submitted to you, you should have a request to change the Locational Map to include what we feel is our entire Rural Community Center. Right now, the Locational Map just has our Historic District, which is built out and constrained by the historic designation.

Some of the comments that Senator Fasano made really interested me, because I felt, as a local planner, that OPM's Plan is excellent, I think it's visionary, and it certainly supports what we're trying to do in North Stonington.

It supports our plan of conservation and development. And I think this Map would be helpful to perhaps offset some of the comments he made.

We cannot think of the State as little fiefdoms, autonomous fiefdoms that are going to plan themselves. It doesn't work that way.

This is our, what we believe is our Rural Community Center. You have a map of it. This is the area that's currently designated that way.

SEN. COLEMAN: I'm sorry [inaudible].

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: This is--

SEN. COLEMAN: I don't have correspondence that says--

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: You should have gotten it.

SEN. COLEMAN: Is this it?

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: I handed this guy--

SEN. COLEMAN: Yes.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Well, should I wait?

SEN. COLEMAN: I'm just--

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible - microphone not on]

SEN. COLEMAN: What's it look like?

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: You should have, it's this. This is the cover from the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's also referred to as an attachment to my testimony.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Okay. I'm not going to go into too much what's in here, you can read it, but just to comment on what he said. This is Connecticut Route 2, and this is the heart and soul of our community.

We have 56 square miles, this is a mile and a half, and it has one-third of our population, all of our Town services, all of our recreational facilities. It's highly walkable because of this series of [inaudible] road system. And we'd like to have it recognized.

What's vitally important to our Town is the fact that Connecticut Route 2 and 201 bisect that area. And the decisions that are made by State agencies about what to do with those roads have everything to do with the viability of my Town.

So we would ask that you pass the Plan, which I think is wonderful, and visionary, and accommodates rural communities, as much as it does cities, and with due haste.

Policy and Management has suggested that they'll work with us on trying to change the mapping. Whether you do that here or we do that later with them, we hope that gets done.

But we need State planning that recognizes the value of our communities and what's important in Connecticut. And I think this Plan is just visionary and really does that, and does balance or integrate, however you put it, conservation and development.

And I would hope you pass it, and that's all I have to say about it. And the rest is all in here, and I hope you have a chance to read it. Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Questions for Ms. Gregoropoulos? Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: Just one question.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Yes?

REP. ROY: You talked about the Historic District--

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Yes.

REP. ROY: --constricting?

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Yeah. We have a Historic District, which is built out. And if you look at, if you ever do find it--

SEN. COLEMAN: I have it now.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: --that is, currently, our Rural Community Center is currently what's designated. That's built out and it's constrained, both through zoning and through the registration of it. In trying to keep it historic, there's no place to go.

So we have, you know, been purchasing. We've acquired this piece of property down here for a new firehouse; we have our probate here, and our senior center, and our other emergency services.

We've expanded in the last 50 to 100 years outside of this little area, because it's protected and we want to keep it that way. So we definitely need a larger area, and we're, in fact, using it.

This is our fairgrounds, which is used continuously by various groups and organizations for recreation. Our recreation center's down here. There's a huge population center right here, which is accessible via some of these roads, which can access all of these services.

And the Town has stated in its Plan of Conservation and Development that we very much want to keep everything centrally located and keep this an enhanced, that the pedestrian viability of this area, which has some needs.

REP. ROY: How large is that area?

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Well, this is about--

REP. ROY: The proposed.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: --a mile and a half from this point to this point. And the Town itself is 56 square miles. So this is a very condensed, you know, for us, high-density, mixed-use area that we would like to make more pedestrian friendly.

And one of the things that that will provide is trying to keep local traffic off the State roads and have more, you know, interconnectedness that maybe isn't so reliant on Route 2.

We now have conflicts between casino traffic going down Route 2 and local traffic trying to get into these places.

So the more we can do to recognize, A, that we're here, and, B, that we have local needs that maybe could be met in more creative ways, you know, is just going to help the situation. So that's what we're asking for.

SEN. COLEMAN: Anything further from Members of the Committee?

REP. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman?

SEN. COLEMAN: Representative Wallace.

REP. WALLACE: Yeah, just how large an area are we talking about? There's not a, is this ten miles?

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: There's not a scale on here. This is about a mile and a half from this point to this point.

REP. WALLACE: Okay.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: And I haven't got an acreage or anything on it. But it's basically following the road system that's here, which is conducive to internal traffic.

REP. WALLACE: Great. And if I might be--

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Sure.

REP. WALLACE: --are those your daughters there?

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Daughter and son.

REP. WALLACE: A daughter and son, how--

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: And they go to meetings all the time, as you can tell.

REP. WALLACE: Well, they're very well-behaved. And we thank you for staying with us and for your behavior tonight, and commend the parents as well.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Thank you.

REP. WALLACE: Certainly.

VILMA GREGOROPOULOS: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Gary Crump is next, followed by Margaret Miner.

GARY CRUMP: Good evening, Senator Coleman and Representative Wallace. I thank you for having this hearing.

First of all, I'm a farmer. You've been hearing a lot about agricultural use of lands. I live in Colchester. I sit on Economic Development on my Town, so I helped draw up a Plan of Conservation.

I'm also on the Board of Connecticut River Coastal Conservation Commission, which Tom ODell spoke of earlier. And I'm Chairman of the Farm Wine Council. So I'm quite knowledgeable on the pressures associated with farms.

First of all, as a farmer, my primary job, I think, is to be a steward of the land. And your primary job, I'm not telling you what to do, but I think your primary job, as State Reps and Senators, should be making sure that we have good stewards of the land.

Concrete and houses are not necessarily the best use of that property. And when you go back to 1997, and you start looking at data from 1997 until now, we did have a plan in place, and obviously, we're trying to change it a little bit.

But we've lost 350,000 acres of prime agricultural land since then. That's 12%, do the math. When you have grandchildren, and they're sitting in your seats, there's probably going to be no more agricultural land left.

Now that's going to be a sad day and point in the history of the State of Connecticut. People haven't addressed it today. I'm actually for the Plan of Conservation that's here today. I think there are some Amendments to it that need to be put into place.

Primarily, I think Representative Miner touched on it, and I was kind of astounded by the answer, because we never really did acquire a true answer to, I think, that particular question, which is, if I've got a farm and the Town wants to buy it and develop it, and it's agricultural property being used for farmland, can the Town buy it, and turn around and use State dollars to develop it?

And what I got out of the answer was, yes, they can. And I think, from what I understand from the thrust of what's supposed to happen, is that is not supposed to happen.

And how can you guys, as a Committee, help tailor that, to keep it from happening? And I don't know the answer, so maybe these guys back here can come up with the answers to help solve that problem.

But, you know, truly, as farmers, we have a precious resource. Last year, Mr. Bishop came, we were talking about destroying the Department of Agriculture and doing away with it. I think probably some of you guys remember that hearing.

And he came in with an apple. This gentleman's been tossing one around all day. He cut the apple, sliced it up. Arable land, in the whole sphere of things, is only 1%.

You've got water, you got mountains, you got all the other places that you can do things with, and we choose to allow developers to chop up the best, easiest, prime land in the world.

It's a lot of pressure on me, as a farmer, to sell. There are a lot of people that would take their checkbook out and write a multi-million dollar check for my piece of property.

I've taken the position and spoken with our attorneys, and my wife and I have put our property, the development rights, if something were to happen to both of us, they would be given to a land trust so that doesn't happen.

I think more of us need to do that. But you, as State Reps, and State Senators, and Committee Members, need to make it so that it's economically viable for us to do that.

You're spending the money anyway. Whether you believe it or not, you're spending the money anyway. Three hundred and fifty thousand acres divided by 2, say you have a 2-acre building lot, now you've got 150,000, 175,000 houses at $7,000 a year tax burden to us.

You're spending the money. Whether you believe you're spending the money or not, you're spending the money. You need to decide if it's better spent to preserve it than it is to develop it.

And all you have to do is look at the map. You see all the red, and you see where the development patterns are. And the development patterns are around your major freeways.

And where there's access and you build the road, people are going to come. And it's always been, well, let's build bigger roads. I don't think that's necessarily the solution.

Trains and rail stations would be a much better way to accomplish some of those things.

But anyway, my main concern here this evening was, when you look at page 66 on policy, it says to protect prime agricultural land in sufficient quantity to ensure long-range food production.

And then it gets down to the spot that they were talking about. It says, until necessity for conversion. And obviously, in my opinion, necessity for conversion must have been yesterday.

I moved here 15 years ago, and two-thirds of our farmland's gone. So somehow, the necessity for conversion has to be taken out of the equation.

There's no necessity to take prime farmland out of agriculture use. There's no good reason for it. There's forestland, there's rocky slopes, there's other places that you can build a home. It just costs a little more money to do it and protect the farmland.

And I think that's all I have to say this evening.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Crump. Are there questions for this witness? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

GARY CRUMP: Thank you.

SEN. COLEMAN: Margaret Miner.

REP. MINER: If I was Chair, then you might have gone first, by the way.

MARGARET MINER: But if you were Chair, then you probably would have cut me off after about 45 seconds.

REP. MINER: I'll remember that.

MARGARET MINER: Oh, I'm with Rivers Alliance of Connecticut. I'm Margaret Miner. I'm the Executive Director. We're a statewide nonprofit that works on protecting and restoring rivers and other water resources.

I'll mention, we're also members of the Working Lands Alliance. And if you're focusing, as my distant cousin suggested, that you might look at food production and perhaps work with smaller acres, from our point of view, we always look carefully at that kind of plan.

Because there are often environmental tradeoffs that are negative, in terms of water and soil quality, when you try to intensify production in a smaller space. It can be done, but that's something that can have some bad tradeoffs.

I had submitted written comments, and OPM, the gentlemen have included quite a few of them. I'm not sure which ones, so I won't go over them. They're there.

I want to say that we support CACIWC and we work together, so we do support their concerns about mitigation and banking.

We had not thought about the GIS Council, which the Nature Conservancy was calling for, but we have called for that. All of our watershed groups have called for that in past years. It's a very important planning tool, and it brings science into the picture.

And you'll notice that, whenever I've inserted, tried to shoehorn in references to science, conservation, ecology, those are the directions I think we're going to be moving in the next few years. So if that language didn't get in, you know, I just hope you'll take a second look at it.

There is no place that the integration of planning is more important than with water resources. They're essential to environmental health, public health, and economic health.

I have to say it is, and I don't think OPM knows this, I discussed it with them, it is the weakest portion of the Plan. And I think that reflects the very fragmented jurisdiction over water in this State.

And it's one reason we have a Water Planning Council, to try to bring together some, to rationalize a water planning policy. But just to point to one big gap, there is nothing in here on water quantity.

There's not a mention of, in some places, there's not enough water to go around. Or maybe we can't have full rivers, healthy farms, green lawns, golf courses, and all that we want, and not have some conservation policies.

So I'm looking forward to working with OPM in the years ahead. I'm sure it will take the full five years to take a look at this section and see what more we can do.

I would just point out one thing that has come up recently, and I'm afraid it's statutory. The Plan can't do anything about it.

But we have various rules and guidelines for being consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development and the Environmental Policy Act for land acquisition.

We don't have hardly anything, and it kind of touches on Representative Miner's point, hardly anything for land disposal. So we have some properties that have been acquired by the State.

I can think of one that's being transferred now for $1. When you take a look at the, it doesn't appear to be consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development.

In fact, it isn't consistent. It hasn't even been looked at from that point of view. So when you're, I don't know at what point you might take up this kind of issue.

But it's something that recently came to our attention, and it comes up if a land moves, you know, is, well, you had some with the Litchfield County Courthouse.

When it moves from one agency to another, I think we want our disposal of those properties to meet the same kind of environmental standards and goals as our acquisitions would.

So that's my testimony, and I thank you very much for having this hearing and giving us all a chance to speak.

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you very much. And especially to you, thank you for your patience. And our condolences to you about your distant relation.

Are there any questions for Ms. Miner before she departs? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Ms. Miner was actually the last person who signed up according to our list.

If there's anyone in the audience who wishes to address the Committee, now would be your final opportunity.

GARY CRUMP: I would have one suggestion, if it's possible, which is when all these rules are rewritten and when it goes to a vote in the General Assembly, that you would forward a hard copy of the [inaudible - microphone not on].

SEN. COLEMAN: Thank you. Any further comments? If not, I would declare this public hearing now closed.

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.]