Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pocd Alignment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional planners back 10‑year cycle for state, regional and municipal POCDs but urge phased rollout (HB 6,994)
Summary
Regional and municipal planning representatives told the committee that aligning the State Plan of Conservation and Development with regional and municipal plans on a 10‑year cycle would improve policy consistency; speakers urged staggered schedules, coordination with census release and funding to avoid consultant capacity problems.
Regional planners, municipal officials and the Connecticut chapter of the American Planning Association told the Planning and Development Committee that aligning the state, regional and municipal plans of conservation and development (POCDs) on a 10‑year cycle would improve consistency and implementation — but they urged changes to how the transition would be scheduled and resourced.
Frank DeFelice, chair of the Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (RiverCOG) regional planning commission and chair of the Durham Planning and Zoning Commission, told the committee he “strongly support[s]” House Bill 6,994, which would change the State Plan of Conservation and Development to a 10‑year interval to match regional and municipal cycles. “The single most important aspect of this bill is the proposed change to a 10 year cycle for the State Plan of Conservation and Development so that its update frequency matches the regional and municipal 10 year cycles,” DeFelice said, adding the change could roughly halve the state plan preparation cost.
Professional planners and regional staff agreed with the policy goal but recommended adjustments to timing and transition rules. John Guskowski of the Connecticut chapter of the American Planning Association supported aligning schedules but urged staggered updates and a mechanism to avoid overwhelming consulting capacity: “If you try to go ahead and align all of these, there will be no Connecticut consultants and or they will be at a hyper premium in their costs,” he said, recommending a two‑to‑three‑year window for municipal plan updates.
Sam Gold, executive director of RiverCOG, said the bill’s sequencing—state plan first, region next, municipalities afterward—would raise the state plan’s profile and help municipalities rely on up‑to‑date state and regional policy when they prepare municipal POCDs. Gold suggested giving the OPM secretary authority to extend plan expirations to avoid forced simultaneous adoptions and asked that the schedule be coordinated with decennial census releases so plans reference the same core datasets.
Speakers also asked for practical provisions to smooth implementation: DeFelice proposed changing a single subsection in the statutory definition (change the word “5” to “10” in Conn. Gen. Stat. sec. 16a‑25(5), as described in testimony) and urged a phased transition. RiverCOG and planning professionals emphasized the need to stagger the work so the market for consultants and the capacity of councils of governments and municipal staffs are not overwhelmed.
Municipal officials and interest groups said they would work with the committee on technical fixes. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities raised concerns about timing and drafting in related bills heard at the same session, while professional planners said that updating the state plan could increase its influence on local decisions — a desired outcome if municipalities have time and data to adapt their plans.
There was no committee vote at the hearing; members collected testimony and indicated they would consider amendments to address consultant capacity, sequencing and data timing.
