To the editor:

Recently I’ve seen folks talking about how “we need a plan” to guide development in Trumbull. But we have a comprehensive plan in place already. It’s a roadmap for our future. What we really need is for more people to become familiar with it.

Our 2014 Plan of Conservation and Development is a bipartisan document that was produced after a year of meetings, public hearings, surveys and extensive community feedback. The people who worked on this plan and the community members who lent their voices to it deserve better than an offhand remark claiming, “we need a plan.”

The POCD is available on the town’s website and is easily accessible. It’s a fundamentally forward-looking document. It’s a look at how we got here, plus an outline of current conditions and trends, plus a guide for the next 10-20 years.

It addresses:

 Development history. Trumbull was originally three crossroads hamlets. The plan recommends that commercial development continue to be clustered in community-focused “nodes,” including Long Hill Green, Trumbull Center, and Town Hall, while commercial centers on Monroe Turnpike, Hawley Lane, and the mall serve the region.

 Age composition. The POCD notes that Trumbull’s population continues to age and household sizes continue to shrink. Since 1990, Trumbull has seen an increase in adults aged 75 and over.

 Village-style development. The plan recommends sidewalks and walkability. It stresses that we should avoid turning our main roads into elongated commercial corridors.

 Business. Among many observations and recommendations, the plan noted that the industrial area around Lindeman Drive is accessible only through residential areas, and an exploration of new uses should be considered.

 Housing. The plan notes that as of 2010, 92% of all housing units in town were single-family homes. It calls for the preservation of the single-family character of the town, but recommends “allowing for additional housing types (apartments, starter homes, age‐appropriate housing, retirement housing, assisted living, life care facilities, nursing homes, etc.)” The precise volume of these alternative types is not addressed.

Here’s an interesting observation: Many of the issues now being debated are addressed in our POCD. If folks haven’t read it, they shouldn’t make development-related claims. Because if we don’t know where we’re going, any path will get us there—and we might not like where we end up.

Tony Silber, (D)

Planning & Zoning Commission