Color coded updates have been removed. The last update on May 24, 2023, updated the status of certain bills. Immediately prior to that the update on May 5, 2023, updated other statuses. An update on April 26, 2023, provided updates to the transit-oriented development bill, Raised H.B. 6890, the exemption from later passed zoning regulations for certain vacant lots in Raised H.B. 6893, and the Governor’s Bill S.B. 985 on housing growth zones.

Contained herein is a list of the bills pertaining to planning, zoning and inland wetlands matters currently before the Connecticut General Assembly. An effort has been made to summarize the bills and provide an analysis of the bills that have been formally drafted. As much as possible, this blog will be updated occasionally to communicate revisions made to the bills and their progress through the legislature.

This one-man blog cannot possibly keep track of every land use related bill before the General Assembly. Of course, many bills are unlikely to make it into law. For instance, there are dozens of bills related to affordable housing and the 8-30g affordable housing appeals scheme. Many of these bills seek to limit the applicability and scope of the affordable housing statutes. Some seek to expand access to affordable housing. Many of these will not make it into law. This blog will cover affordable housing that are raised or committee bills.

The deadlines for bills to make it through committee has passed. If a bill did not make it out of committee, it is likely dead unless it gets tacked on as an amendment to another bill.

Raised bills are bills created by a legislative committee with cognizance over the subject matter and can have a greater chance of passing. These bills are fully drafted and have formal statutory language that the committee has voted to have drafted. The following raised bills are before the legislature at this time.

Proposed bills are raised by individual legislators or groups of legislators and state the general purpose of the bill without formal statutory language. Such bills are referred to committees with responsibility over the subject matter. These bills are then screened by the chairpersons of the committee with input from other committee members. Bills that survive screening may be brought before the full committee for approval of the concept proposed. If approved, it is drafted into statutory language and becomes a committee bill.

Raised Bills Before the General Assembly

• Raised H.B. 6890 AN ACT CONCERNING QUALIFYING TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITIES. Housing Committee.

Last Updated April 26, 2023

Status: A joint favorable substitute of this bill was approved by committee and is now on the House Calendar

This bill would codify the Office of Responsible Growth (ORG), which exists by executive order, within the Office of Policy and Management (OPM). ORG would maintain some of its current duties and take on some duties currently held by OPM including preparing the state plan of conservation and development and facilitating interagency and intergovernmental coordination.

The bill would also “provide financial incentives for municipalities that adopt certain transit-oriented development policies and to coordinate related state funds through the Office of Responsible Growth.” It would prioritize certain discretionary state funds to municipalities that adopt zoning regulations which create a “transit-oriented district.”

Qualifying municipalities host a district meeting certain criteria. These municipalities must amend their zoning regulations to allow and encourage higher density development near transit stations. Among other things, the zoning regulations would be required to allow a certain number of units (“homes”) per acre depending on the size of the municipality and the existing transit infrastructure at a range of ten to thirty per acre. The regulations would also have to provide compliant affordability requirements depending on the size of the development or the local housing market and quality of life (“opportunity”) as determined by the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority. The regulations could not require excessive parking or excessive lot sizes as determined by the Coordinator of ORG.

The bill prioritizes discretionary infrastructure funding for qualifying communities and those that announce their intent to become a qualifying community by adopting a resolution through their zoning commission (and presumably some other body exercising zoning authority) indicating such intent. Municipalities intending to become qualifying municipalities must adopt regulations creating a transit-oriented district within 18 months of adopting the resolution. Municipalities could become eligible for bonus funding by adopting certain policies including greater density requirements than the bill would require, greater affordable housing set asides than the bill would require, and developing public land or public housing.

Discretionary infrastructure funding includes grants, loans and other financial assistance that the state administers under the following programs:

a. Urban Act Grant Program,

b. Targeted Brownfield Development Loan Program,

c. Brownfield Municipal Grant Program (if related to planning),

d. Main Street Investment Fund, and

e. Incentive Housing Zone Program.

Discretionary infrastructure funding also includes any other OPM-administered grants, loans or other financial assistance related to transit-oriented development.

This bill could provide much needed market rate and affordable housing while focusing on reducing the burden on cars by placing new development near existing transit facilities thereby also reducing urban sprawl. However, some argue that the bill is flawed in several ways. It defines transit-oriented communities in a way to include almost every town in the state. It demonstrates a misunderstanding of the zoning statutes by, among other things, having a zoning commission adopt a resolution committing the municipality to implementing zoning regulations without a public hearing. The bill also puts substantial authority in the hands of the new ORG coordinator in reviewing regulations, determining the reasonable size of the transit-oriented district, and setting criteria for bonus funding, among other things.

• Raised H.B. 6648 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ONLINE RECORDING, INDEXING AND SEARCHING OF MUNICIPAL LAND RECORDS AND MAPS. Planning and Development Committee

Status: This bill passed the House, as amended, on May 10, 2023, and is now on the Senate calendar.

As originally drafted, this raised bill would have required the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to establish a commission for the online recording, indexing and searching of municipal land records and maps and then create a statewide database for the recording, indexing, and searching of municipal land records. The House amended and passed the bill to require a task force to study the online recording, indexing and searching of municipal land records and maps. The task force would examine the processes, costs and benefits of creating and maintaining a statewide online database for the recording, indexing and searching of land records and maps.

Land records are currently maintained by each municipality with each municipality contracting for its own online access to its records with one of five companies. Not all records are available online. The original bill and possible task force are motivated by a widespread outage that occurred when one of the companies that many of the towns use to provide their records online was hit with a cyberattack that made records inaccessible online for three weeks. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that some towns were not maintaining backups of these records including up to date paper records. In one case, a town had not updated its printed index in two years.

The original bill would have required the Secretary of OPM to appoint and convene the commission by January 1, 2024. By June 30, 2024, the commission would have had to report to the Planning and Development Committee describing the commission’s findings, the plan for the creation and maintenance of such an online database, the process by which existing land records would be recorded, indexed and made searchable, and any legislative changes that might be necessary. OPM would then have until January 1, 2025. to create such a database.

The undersecretary of OPM opposed the original bill as it did not indicate how commission members are appointed, there was no funding mechanism for the bill, and OPM has no experience with municipal land records. The municipal clerks’ association also opposed the original bill.

There were additional issues with the original bill not included in the opposition described. The timetable provided only provides six months from the report from the commission to the establishment of the database. Each of Connecticut’s 169 towns has hundreds of volumes of land records and maps dating back over 200 years. It seems there is no way that OPM could have complied with the timetable provided. A statewide database would be subject to the same possible outage that one of the online providers experienced but on a statewide basis. There was also little time provided, and none within a legislative session, between the commission’s report and implementation of the database for the General Assembly to respond to the report. As this author suggested before the amendment, a study may be in order but implementation in 18 months was premature and impracticable.

• Raised S.B. No. 915 AN ACT CONCERNING THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES BY ZONING BOARDS OF APPEALS. Planning and Development Committee

Status: This bill did not pass out of committee.

This bill would clarify and revise the standards for obtaining variances. It has been before the legislature before in a similar form but failed to pass. The Connecticut Bar Association including its Planning and Development Committee has been involved in creating the bill, but the current language is that raised by the committee. The bill also has the general support of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association and the Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials. The bill will surely change through the legislative process and there are improvements that could be made to achieve its goals and to clarify potential issues.

As currently drafted, the bill would clarify and codify the standards for use variances. It would also create a different standard for obtaining area or bulk variances, which is clearer, puts into law the balancing that often happens in variance decisions, reflects the realities of the issues at play for communities and applicants, and is potentially more reasonable. Further, it would allow municipalities to limit the extent to which area variances are allowed in certain districts. Currently, municipalities are only permitted to limit, but not bar, use variances.

Use Variances under the Bill

Under the bill, applicants for a use variance would still have to prove an “unusual hardship.” Under current law, a zoning board of appeals may grant a use variance when:

the application of the zoning bylaws, ordinances or regulations in harmony with their general purpose and intent and with due consideration for conserving the public health, safety, convenience, welfare and property values solely with respect to a parcel of land where, owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel but not affecting generally the district in which it is situated, a literal enforcement of such bylaws, ordinances or regulations would result in exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship so that substantial justice will be done and the public safety and welfare secured

An applicant must also presently demonstrate that the variance will not “affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan.”

The bill would allow a variance “where, owing to conditions especially affecting such parcel but not affecting generally the district in which such parcel is situated, a literal enforcement of the bylaws, ordinances or regulations would result in unusual hardship, and so that substantial justice will be done and the public safety and welfare secured.” The applicant would also need to demonstrate that

1. “The use for which such variance is requested will not impair the essential character of the neighborhood or the objectives of the plan of development of the municipality in which such parcel is situated; and
2. “Such unusual hardship is not the result of any act or omission of the person requesting such variance.”

The proposed language is simplified from the current variance statute. It removes “exceptional difficulty” from the standard for granting variances. Currently, an applicant must prove that the enforcement of the regulations would result in an “exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship.” Connecticut courts have not distinguished exceptional difficulties” from unusual hardships. Contrast this with other jurisdictions that apply a “practical difficulties” test to area variances and an unusual hardship test to use variances. Connecticut courts apply the phrase as a whole. The bill recognizes the duplicative and confusing nature of the phrase and merely uses “unusual hardship.”

The bill would effectively pair the requirement that variances not affect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan with a requirement that the proposed variance must not impair the objectives of the plan of development. The comprehensive zoning plan and plan of development (also known as a plan of conservation and development) are distinct. Absent a formally adopted comprehensive zoning plan, the comprehensive zoning plan is found in the zoning regulations and zoning map themselves. It evolves from the history of zoning in the town and is reflected in these documents. The plan of development is a planning concept not based on existing conditions and regulations but is a scheme for future development within exclusive control of the planning commission. Requiring that a use variance not impair the plan of development and not effect substantially the comprehensive zoning plan may prove confusing for applicants and boards. One is backward looking and the other is forward looking. The bill may be improved without the reference to the plan of development.

The bill would still balance the claimed hardship against the proposal’s potential impact on public safety and welfare. The bill does not list the potential impact on property values, convenience, and public health as considerations to balance against a proposed variance. Arguably, public health could be considered under “safety and welfare.” The potential positive, neutral or negative effects on property values can be hard to demonstrate with expert evidence beyond claims from property owners that there will be a negative effect.

The bill would also codify the rule applied by the courts that self-created hardships are not a basis for granting a variance.

Both the use and area variance sections of the bill reference the possible effects on the character of the neighborhood. The use of the phrase character is potentially problematic. Public Act 21-29 attempted to remedy appeals to the effect on neighborhood character as a consideration in zoning regulations and as a basis for decisions. (More here.) The Connecticut Council on Human Rights and Opportunities also opposes the references to character because appeals to character have been used as a pretext for discrimination and blocked affordable housing projects.

Assumedly, variance decisions based on character would be limited by Public Act 21-29, which would require that the term character be “expressly articulated in the regulations by clear and explicit physical standards for site work and structures.” Nonetheless, the variance bill would be improved by clarifying that appeals to character are limited by Public Act 21-29 or otherwise revising the language regarding character to be consistent with the use of character in that act.

Area Variances

Under the proposed bill, area variances would no longer be subject to the hardship standard currently in place and described above. A variance could be granted where the benefit to applicant outweighs any adverse effects on granting such variances on health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. The bill provides certain considerations to weigh, if applicable, but an unfavorable finding on any one consideration would not require denying the application. Those considerations are as follows:

• Such variance will adversely affect the character of such neighborhood or any nearby property;
• Such variance will adversely affect the physical or environmental conditions of such neighborhood;
• Such benefit may be achieved by a feasible alternative that does not require such variance;
• Granting such variance will facilitate compliance with the requirements of any bylaw, ordinance or regulation concerning life, health or safety, including, but not limited to, regulations for flood-prone areas and accessibility requirements for disabled persons;
• Such variance will violate any provision of the National Flood 74 Insurance Program, 44 CFR Part 59 et seq.;
• Granting such variance will reduce impacts on any wetland, watercourse or upland review area;
• Such variance will be consistent with the plan of development of the municipality in which such parcel is situated; and
• Such parcel’s noncompliance with any zoning bylaw, ordinance or regulation is the result of any act or omission of such person.

The proposal replaces the hardship standard and is intended to allow zoning boards of appeals to consider the needs and realities of communities and weigh the interests involved. This reflects the reality that many boards are weighing the interests and issue and not necessarily objectively applying a clear hardship standard. The bill also provides a number of factors for boards to consider, which may result in more consistent deliberations from one board to the next. Currently, each board is left to define what a hardship means.

Opponents argue that the bill would destroy the uniformity standards of zoning, almost require that any variance be granted without a court being able to overturn the decision, place the interests of individual property owners over those of the community, and replace an objective standard with a subjective one that is ripe for favoritism and abuse. However, boards currently are forced to turn down reasonable variance requests that benefit the property owner and do no harm to the community but do not rise to the level of what would be considered an undue hardship. It is unclear though whether the change to a benefits and harms balancing test would in fact result in more variances being granted. By reframing the balance of the applicant’s interest as mere “benefits”, the bill may dilute the impact to be rectified for the applicant. Surely zoning boards of appeals will have no trouble outweighing the myriad potential adverse effects on the larger community to the benefit of a property owner. Nonetheless, where a variance would otherwise would have been denied for the inability to show an unusual hardship distinct from other properties in the district, a variance may be granted if the bill passes. However, it appears that boards would benefit from a standard that reflects the reality of what they consider in weighing variances and provide a standard that is easier to comprehend and apply.

It is not clear though how other general variance principles would interplay with this new variance standard as the bill is currently worded. For instance, zoning generally seeks the elimination of nonconformities. Will a property owner seeking to expand or enlarge a nonconforming structure be able to do so if the benefit to the property owner outweighs any negative effects it may have? Or will such expansions of nonconformities still be barred? Additionally, under the current hardship standard, financial disadvantage or advantage is insufficient to grant a variance unless it rises to the level of an unconstitutional confiscation. Does the undefined “benefit” to the property owner include financial benefits? Also see the discussion above regarding character.

Similar to the proposed change for use variances of ensuring that the proposal not “impair” the plan of development, the bill calls for weighing the proposed area variance’s “consistency” with the plan of development. Confusion may arise from trying to comprehend and apply these different standards regarding the plan of development to use and area variances while still ensuring that the proposal does not substantially affect the comprehensive zoning plan.

The bill would also codify the Adolphson exception which allows a variance where there would be a reduction in nonconformities as a basis for approval of a use or area variance. As drafted, the bill refers to reductions in “nonconforming uses.” Assumedly, the exception would apply to a reduction in bulk nonconformities and nonconforming uses but the language could be clearer. Additionally, the language of the bill focuses on reduction in the number of nonconforming uses in the municipality and not on the property itself. The language could be improved by shifting the focus to the property at issue.

These changes to the variance scheme would be significant but may result in a system that reflects reality, is easier to apply, and fairer to property owners. Improvements can be made as the bill makes it through the legislature. This blog will continue to follow the bill’s progress.

• Raised H.B. No. 6559 AN ACT CONCERNING ZONING REGULATIONS AND COMMUNITY RESIDENCES. Planning and Development Committee

Status: Joint Favorable Substitute approved by Planning and Development and now on House Calendar.

This bill would make technical and other changes to the regulation of “community residences”.

For community residences, the substitute bill would define community residences under General Statutes Section 8-3g as follows:

means (1) any residential facility that houses six or fewer persons with intellectual disability and necessary staff persons and that is licensed under the provisions of section 17a-227, (2) any child-care residential facility that houses six or fewer children with mental or physical disabilities and necessary staff persons and that is licensed under sections 17a-145 to 17a-151, inclusive, (3) any residential facility that houses six or fewer persons receiving mental health or addiction services and necessary staff persons paid for or provided by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and that has been issued a license by the Department of Public Health under the provisions of section 19a-491, if such license is required, or (4) any residence that provides licensed hospice care and services to six or fewer persons, provided such residence is managed by an organization that is tax exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding internal revenue code of the United States, as amended from time to time.

The original bill would have repealed and incorporated the definitions of community residences and mentally ill currently found in General Statutes § 19a-507a. The substitute bill redefines community residences and repeals Sec. 19a-507a.

The bill also would revoke the prohibitions found in General Statutes § 8-3f and 19a-507b on community residences being within 1000 feet of each other. Further, it would revoke provisions in General Statutes §§ 8-3e (b), 19a-507b, and 19a-507d for persons to petition licensing agencies to revoke the licenses of community residences and child-care residential facilities.

This blog misstated the amendment to Section 1-2b of the General Statutes. The bill would merely revoke the reference to sections to be repealed under the bill. With regard to certified mail return receipts, the Section 1-2b of the General Statutes, including planning, zoning, and wetlands statutes, already defined “certified mail, return receipt requested” to include modern methods of receiving the return receipt and in line with the USPS Domestic Mail Manual.

Raised H.B. No. 6633 AN ACT CONCERNING A NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLANS FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Housing Committee

Status: On March 2, 2023, joint favorable report out of the Housing Committee and now on House Calendar.

This bill has been assigned a fiscal note by the Office of Fiscal Analysis projecting several thousand dollars in costs for the Office of Policy and Management to implement the bill and, in out years, several thousand dollars for the Department of Housing. The municipal costs are deemed potentially significant for non-exempt municipalities (most municipalities), including the costs for additional staff and consultants to develop and report on their fair share plans and in litigation. Further, OFA assumes that municipalities would have to develop units themselves in order to meet their fair share goals if developers do not build the necessary units after zoning revisions. I am not aware of this being the intent of the bill and housing advocates have indicated that towns will not have pay for or build affordable housing unless they so choose as part of their plan.

This raised bill known as the “Fair Share” law is an effort by housing advocates and policy makers to increase the availability of affordable housing in the state. According to housing advocates, the state is in need of 140,000 affordable housing units although there are multiple estimates. There seems to be general agreement that Connecticut needs affordable housing. A version of this bill was before the legislature in 2022. It won approval of the Housing Committee but the Office of Fiscal Analysis assigned a fiscal note indicating that the state would incur up to $500,000 in additional annual costs and small municipalities might have to hire more staff to develop their fair share plans. Municipalities opposed the proposal claiming, among other things, (1) it would create a whole new affordable housing process that doesn’t take into account existing law, (2) it failed to consider the existing requirement to submit by spring 2022 an affordable housing plan under General Statutes § 8-30j, (3) it created a state mandated policy “on the backs of local government”, and (4) “Fair Share” was a failure in the only state where it has been implemented, New Jersey. The bill was referred to the Appropriations Committee where it died.

This year’s version of the Fair Share bill is similar to the prior year in many ways but adds two provisions not present 2022. First, it would allow a points system by which a municipality could reduce its fair share by 20 percent. Second, it adds enforcement and appeal provisions.

This bill would allocate to each municipality its “fair share” of the minimum need for affordable housing units in a planning region. By July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Office of Policy and Management would develop a methodology for determining the need for affordable housing units and for assigning each municipality its fair share allocation in consultation with the Commissioners of Housing and Economic and Community Development and, as may be determined by the secretary, experts, advocates and organizations with expertise in affordable housing, fair housing and planning and zoning.

Beginning July 1, 2024 and decennially thereafter, the bill would require the Secretary to determine the minimum need for affordable housing in each planning region and assign to each municipality its fair share of such need. Municipalities with a federal poverty rate of twenty percent or greater would be exempt. This would likely exempt Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Waterbury, Danbury Windham, New London, and New Britain under recent statistics. The fair share allocation for municipalities with higher property values, higher median income, lower percentage of population living in poverty, or lower percentage of population living in multifamily housing compared to other municipalities in its region would be allocated a greater percentage of affordable housing units. Allocations could exceed 20 percent of a municipality’s existing housing stock.

Beginning July 1, 2025 and every 10 years thereafter, each municipality would have to develop a plan to meet its fair share goal. The plan would need to address how the goal will be met through deed restricted affordable housing ensuring that:

• At least 50 percent of the units are affordable to households making 50 or less of the state median income;
• At least 13 percent of the units are affordable to households making 30 or less of the state median income;
• 50 percent or less of the units are affordable to households making between 50 and 80 percent of the state median income;
• At least 25 percent of the units are rental units;
• No more than twenty-five per cent of units are restricted by occupant age;
• At least fifty per cent of the units would have to be unrestricted by occupant age and include two or more bedrooms;
• No more than 25 percent of the units are studios or one bedroom; and
• All units are marketed pursuant to General Statutes § 8-37ee and associated regulations.

The bill would also create a point system by which a municipality’s fair share allocation could be converted to a fair share goal and could reduce its allocation up to 20 percent by meeting certain requirements. Each affordable housing unit would be one point. Additional points could be awarded toward a municipality’s fair share goal for certain types of housing units at a ratio conforming to the above. A municipality could not reduce its fair share goal below 80 percent of its initial fair share allocation and only one bonus point could be awarded per affordable housing unit. One bonus point could be awarded for each units that is affordable to those making 30 percent or less of the state median income, each unit with 2 or more bedrooms, or each unit qualifying as supportive housing under General Statutes § 17a-485c.

Municipalities would have to meet their fair share goals by issuing certificates of occupancy as follows: 5 percent of its fair share goal by year three, 30 percent year 5, 60 percent by year 7 and 100 percent completion by year 10.

Municipalities would have to submit annual reports to the state explaining how it is meeting its goal and the state would have to audit 10 percent of fair share plans per year.

The bill has teeth. If a municipality failed to submit a fair share plan or issue certificates of occupancy under the preceding schedule, it would be subject to default zoning that allows multifamily affordable housing as of right if certain conditions are met.

The bill would also create a right of action for non-profits representing low income households or addressing their housing needs or a developer if a municipality failed to submit a fair share plan or provide a realistic opportunity for it to meet is fair share allocation. It also shifts the burden to the town to demonstrate on appeal from a denial of an affordable housing proposal why its decision was proper under the bill.

The 2022 version of Fair Share died in the Appropriations Committee. The changes to the bill would likely increase the enforcement costs for the state compared to last year’s bill. Municipalities would also likely have additional costs from last year’s bill to meet the annual reporting requirements. Further, municipalities may have added litigation costs if it is alleged that they failed to comply with the bill. Financial costs to the state and municipalities are often a barrier to passage.

• Raised H.B. No. 6556 AN ACT CONCERNING THE ONLINE PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES BY MUNICIPALITIES. Planning and Development

Status: This bill has been approved by the committee and is on the House Calendar.

This raised bill would amend Section 1-2 of the General Statutes to allow towns, cities, and boroughs to post public notices required to be published in a daily newspaper by any section of the General Statutes, Special Act or municipal charter to instead be posted on the website of the town, city or borough. This would include notices required under the general statutes for wetlands agencies and planning and zoning bodies. Such notices would have to include the date and time of posting online. This would modernize the public notice requirements as statutes often require that publication be made in a newspaper of “general” or “substantial circulation.” This is sometimes an issue on appeal from land use and other municipal bodies in an age of declining newspaper circulation and in rural towns where there may not be a many newspaper subscribers. In some instances, there may not be a paper of general or substantial circulation in a given municipality potentially nullifying its actions.

Newspapers have objected to this bill. They claim that running the notices in newspapers ensures public access, transparency and accountability, maintains public access for those without internet access or who are not tech savvy, and maintain other objections. Notably, they admit that this could mean lost advertising revenue of $5 million. This is reflected in the Office of Fiscal Analysis report stating that this could mean savings for municipalities as each notice can cost several hundred dollars to advertise in a newspaper.

• Raised S.B. No. 1141 AN ACT CONCERNING TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. Planning and Development Committee.

Status: This bill was not approved by the committee but other transit-oriented development bills were approved.

This bill would amend Section 8-2 of the General Statutes to permit “as of right” development of housing that has a minimum overall average gross density of fifteen dwelling units per acre and is within one-half mile of a passenger rail, commuter rail or bus rapid transit station. As of right development means that the proposal would have to comply with applicable zoning but without requiring a public hearing, variance, special permit or special exception, or any other discretionary zoning action. For such developments, municipalities could require one parking space per studio or one bedroom unit and two parking spaces for each dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms. Such developments with six or more units would have to set aside at least 10 percent of its units as assisted housing or affordable housing as defined in General Statutes § 8-30g. Municipalities could incentivize assisted housing by, among other things, higher density development standards for projects including assisted housing. Certain properties would be exempt under the act from these provisions, including wetlands, flood prone areas, wetland and watercourse regulated areas, steep lots, lots not served by public water and sewer, and others. Municipalities would have to amend their regulations by October 1, 2024, to comply with the bill or conflicting regulations would be void, requiring the municipality to approve or deny applications in accordance with the bill until compliant regulations are passed. Municipalities could not prohibit such transit-oriented development nor could they impose conditions that impose unreasonable costs or delays. Further, such developments could not be required to correct nonconforming uses, structures or lots.

• Raised H.B. No. 5796 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY MANDATORY  PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS AT PUBLIC AGENCY MEETINGS. Planning and Development Committee

Status: Passed the House on May 3, 2023 with an amendment to reduce the number of task force members appointed by the House Speaker and President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

A joint favorable substitute bill replaced the original bill which would have required that members of the public be able to present “oral testimony” at any public meeting. Instead, the joint favorable substitute bill would establish a task force to study the feasibility of requiring a public comment period at any public meeting of a public agency. Although they all value and encourage public participation, the bill faced opposition from the Connecticut Council of Small Towns, Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, and Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials, as well as concerns raised by the Freedom of Information Commission. Opponents have issues with the breadth of the language applying to any public meeting, what is meant by “oral testimony” (is it under oath?), practicality and appropriateness issues, whether the public comments would create ex parte communication issues with public hearings and creating a public hearing process where not called for under zoning statutes.

• Raised S.B. No. 918 AN ACT CONCERNING COASTAL SITE PLAN REVIEW. Planning and Development Committee

Status: This bill was not approved by the committee.

This bill would require only one coastal site plan required where multiple could be if multiple applications triggering coastal review are necessary for the project. Currently, multiple coastal site plans may be required if multiple applications are filed before planning and zoning commissions or zoning boards of appeals. For instance, a project may require a variance before a zoning board of appeals and a special use permit before a planning and zoning commission. Both applications would also require a coast site plan application to be filed in tandem. This is needlessly duplicative. Additionally, coastal site plans reviews often require fully engineered site plans that may be unnecessary and costly if the variance is not granted. This proposal would remove the needless redundancy and cost.

• Raised S.B. No. 905 AN ACT CONCERNING ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR AND TOBACCO BARS. General Law Committee

Status: Joint favorable substitute bill passed out of Committee on March 7, 2023 and is now on the Senate Calendar.

This bill would not make changes to the zoning statutes. References to zoning in the raised bill are for where such rules are not inconsistent with zoning or applicable permits are required. Municipalities may by ordinance or zoning regulation prohibit the offering of free samples by holders of temporary auction permits. Stated purpose: “To: (1) Establish permits for the retail sale of alcoholic liquor at auction, annual outdoor open-air liquor permits and event sales permits; (2) authorize wholesaler permittees to sell kegs containing cocktails and premixed drinks to certain retail permittees for on-premises consumption; (3) require the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to amend certain regulations in order to provide that certain pipes and lines used to serve alcoholic liquor shall be cleaned at least once every two weeks; (4) eliminate the prohibition against provisional seasonal outdoor open-air liquor permits; (5) authorize spirits manufacturers to sell products they manufacture under farmers’ market sales permits; (6) provide that neither the State Fire Marshal nor any local fire marshal may require any liquor permit premises to be inspected more than once during any calendar year; (7) amend the alcoholic beverages tax to provide that liquor, certain alcohol and liquor coolers are taxed at the same rate as beer; and (8) allow for the establishment of new tobacco bars and for existing tobacco bars to expand or change location.”

• Raised H.B. No. 6590 AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN PROTECTIONS FOR GROUP AND FAMILY CHILD CARE HOMES. Housing Committee

Status: Passed by the House, as amended, on May 10, 2023, and now on the Senate Calendar.

This bill would protect family child care homes and group child care homes by prohibiting or limiting restrictions or prohibitions by municipalities and their zoning. The original bill had the support of the Office of Early Childhood to alleviate up to 50 percent of the shortage of infant and toddler care in the state. Other testimony submitted is against the original bill claiming it is a state government overreach, will increase costs for landlords, and disturb neighbors. Some of these concerns were addressed by earlier substitute language.

Earlier versions of the bill included protections for tenants or prospective tenants who operate family child care home and group child care homes and protections for their landlords. These protections were removed by House amendment.

The definitions of “family child care home” and “group child care home” are found outside the raised bill. Pursuant to General Statutes § 19a-77 (a) (3), a “family child care home” is a private family home caring for up to six children, including the provider’s own children not in school full time, where children are cared for three to twelve hours a day. The section also allows for more children at certain times of year if conditions are met and additional care hours in certain circumstances. A “group child care home” is defined by General Statutes § 19a-77 (a) (2) as providing or offering program of supplemental care to seven to twelve related or unrelated children on a regular basis or otherwise meeting the definition of a family child care home except that it is not located in a private family home.

This raised bill would prohibit zoning regulations from treating family child care homes or group child care homes located in a residence and licensed by the Office of Early Childhood any different than single or multi-family dwellings. The raised bill would also amend section 8-2(d) of the General Statutes to prohibit the zoning regulations from prohibiting the operation of a family child care home or group child care home in a residence located in a residential zone or require any special permit or special exception for such operation. The chief executive officer would be required to submit a sworn statement by December 31, 2023, and annually thereafter to the Office of Policy and Management that the municipality’s zoning regulations are in compliance with the above or the specific timeframe within which the municipality will come into compliance.

The following provisions are not directly related to land use but provided as they may otherwise be of interest to readers:

Municipalities would also be prohibited from subjecting licensed group child care homes located in a residence to any conditions other than those imposed by the Commissioner of Early Childhood under General Statutes § 19a-80 (b), if the home complies with all ordinances and regulations applicable to single and multifamily dwellings.

The original bill would have voided provisions in written instruments relating to real property that prohibit the leasing property for use or occupancy as a licensed family child care home. This language was removed in the substitute bill.

The original bill would also have voided provisions in written instruments relating to real property that prohibit the leasing of property for the use or occupancy as a licensed group child care home in a single-family dwelling. Further any restrictions in such written instrument on use or occupancy of the property as a group child care home would also have been voided. Those provisions were removed in the substitute bill.

The original bill would also have voided any restriction through covenant, contract, or condition that restricts or indirectly limits the use or occupancy of a single-family home in a residential zone as a licensed family or group child care home. That provision is also not included in the substitute bill.

• Raised H.B. No. 6548– AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION’S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR REGULATION. General Law Committee

Status: On March 2, 2023, joint favorable substitute reported out of General Law Committee and is now on the House Calendar.

Among other things, the bill would allow a temporary auction permit for the sale beer, spirits, and wine obtained from one or more collectors through an auction conducted by an auctioneer. The permit holder would be allowed to offer free samples if certain conditions are met except that a municipality could prohibit the offering of such samples by ordinance or zoning regulation. All other references to zoning in the bill do not change existing law. Stated purpose: “To: (1) Authorize (A) alcoholic liquor manufacturers to enter into alternating proprietorship agreements, and (B) certain liquor permittees to enter into contract manufacturing agreements; (2) establish temporary auction permits; (3) provide that a permitted manufacturer of spirits or beer that also holds a farmers’ market sales permit may sell, and offer free tastings of, its spirits or beer at a farmers’ market operated as a nonprofit enterprise or association; (4) expand the off-site farm winery sales and wine, cider and mead tasting permit to include additional liquor permittees; (5) eliminate the sunset date concerning the period during which certain liquor permittees may sell liquor in sealed containers for off-premises consumption; (6) replace temporary beer and liquor permits with a temporary liquor permit for noncommercial entities; (7) authorize the Department of Consumer Protection to issue farmers’ market sales permits to spirits manufacturers; (8) authorize certain liquor manufacturers that hold out-of-state shipper’s permits for beer to engage in additional sales and shipping activities under festival permits; (9) provide that no person who assists an applicant, backer or liquor permittee in submitting an application for a liquor permit shall submit, or cause to be submitted, any false statement in connection with such application, or engage in any conduct which delays or impedes the Department of Consumer Protection in processing such application, provide that submitting any such statement or engaging in any such conduct shall constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice within the meaning of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and authorize the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to impose civil penalties on any person who submits any such statement or engages in any such conduct; (10) provide that a liquor permittee shall be a director, employee, member, officer, partner or shareholder of its backer; (11) provide that the department may summarily suspend a renewed liquor permit if the liquor permittee fails to timely submit a fire marshal certificate to the department; (12) subject beer manufacturers to beer keg identification, receipt and refund requirements; (13) eliminate special club, charitable organization, nonprofit public television corporation and nonprofit corporation permits; and (14) make minor, technical and conforming changes to the Liquor Control Act.”

• Raised S.B. No. 1002 AN ACT EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CERTIFICATION. Planning and Development

Status- This bill was approved with a Joint Favorable Subsitute bill by the committee and is now on the Senate Calendar.

Public Act 21-29, codified at General Statutes § 8-3 (e), required zoning enforcement officers to be certified by the Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials beginning January 1, 2023. The bill would clarify that the existing law applies only to newly appointed zoning enforcement officials appointed after January 1, 2024. Further, zoning enforcement officials would have to be certified “as soon as practicable” after appointment as the Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials usually requires some time serving as an official before they will certify someone. These bills did not have the support of the Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials as originally drafted.

• Raised H.B. No. 6650 AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC ACCESS TO CERTAIN COASTAL RESOURCES. Planning and Development Committee

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

This raised bill would revise certain goals and policies under the Coastal Management Act to include considerations of public beach access including in coastal site plan reviews. It would also “prohibit municipalities from restricting nonresident access to municipal parks and beaches that are accessible to residents” or imposing entrance, use, or parking fees greater than twice that of residents. The ACLU of Connecticut supports the bill and explains the history of segregation of Connecticut beaches, including how current access policies have a discriminatory effect. The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) supports the underlying goals of the bill and coastal access for all residents of the state. (The bill does not limit the prohibitions to nonresidents of the municipality but who live in the state. It would apply to out of state residents as well.) Ultimately, CCM opposes bill and the cap set on nonresident fees.

• Raised S.B. No. 1004 AN ACT CONCERNING ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS. Planning and Development Committee

Status: Joint favorable substitute bill reported out of Committee on March 8, 2023 and is now on the Senate Calendar.

Similar to Proposed S.B. No. 518, this raised bill would remove from General Statutes § 8-19a the prohibition of members of a zoning commission or zoning board of appeals from sitting as alternate members of a planning commission. It would require alternate members who also sit on zoning commissions or zoning boards of appeals to recuse themselves participation in an appeal before the zoning board of appeal from a decision of the planning commission if such alternate member participated in such decision. The original bill had required a recusal from appeals from the zoning commission not the planning commission. It seems that this bill would apply to alternates for stand alone planning commissions and not where a municipality has a joint planning and zoning commission. General Statutes § 8-1b governs alternate members to zoning commissions or joint planning and zoning commissions.

• Raised H.B. No. 6646 AN ACT CONCERNING CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL FOR MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS AND REPAIR SHOPS. Planning and Development Committee

Status: Joint Favorable Substitute bill approved by the Committee on March 8, 2023 and is now on the House Calendar.

This bill is similar to Proposed S.B. No. 514. Section 14-54 of the Motor Vehicle code requires a certificate of approval for the location for motor vehicle dealers or repair shops. There are separate statutes that have the same procedure for filling stations (14-321) and motor vehicle recyclers (14-67i). These approvals are usually made by the zoning board of appeals. Under existing law, courts have held that these are not zoning decisions, which can confuse boards as to the standards being applied. Towns sometimes also don’t have clear applications or processes for obtaining these approvals. Add to the confusion, in 2003 the legislature repealed the hearing and suitability analysis standards for zoning boards to apply in hearing such applications. Our courts have held that it is up to zoning boards to determine what standards to apply in determining the suitability of a given certificate of approval. There is also a practical consideration as to where the location approval falls in conjunction with obtaining necessary land use approvals. As zoning boards are acting as agents of the state, really the Department of Motor Vehicles, and these are currently not zoning decisions, it is the state who should set the standards to be applied. The substitute bill assigns the certificate of location approval to the planning commission and would require the zoning commission to affirm that the proposed location and use of the property conforms to municipal zoning regulations. This would resolve some of the issues outlined above including that the determination is a confirmation of compliance with zoning and removes the zoning board from the process. However, if the legislature is working on a fix to the certificate of location approval process, it should apply to all such approvals and not piecemeal.

The bill has the support of the Connecticut Assocation of Zoning Enforcement Officials and the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA). The CCAPA would like time for municipalities to consider site plan standards and locations where such uses are allowed. They would also like to see these approvals moved to a staff level approval to streamline the process rather than another board or commission approval.

• Raised H.B. No. 6634 AN ACT CONCERNING NOTIFICATION OF PROPER PERMITTING PRIOR TO A HOME’S SALE. Insurance and Real Estate Committee

Status: This bill was replaced with a substitute bill relating to hospital billing to insurance. The original bill described below no longer exists.

This raised bill would require state mandated disclosures by sellers of residential property to disclose to a potential buyer whether building permits were obtained for any changes to the property, including, but not limited to, renovations, upgrades or remodeling on the property that were performed during their ownership. This is an obvious benefit to buyers. However, the bill would be further improved if it included notification of whether land use permits such as wetlands permits, zoning permits or zoning approvals were obtained for such work.

• Raised H.B. No. 6592 AN ACT REQUIRING THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSING NEEDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES IN MUNICIPAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANS. Housing Committee

Status: On February 28, 2023, unanimous joint favorable report out of Housing Committee and now on House Calendar.

This raised bill would “require municipalities to consider accessibility improvements for affordable housing units for individuals with developmental disabilities in the adoption of affordable housing plans” under General Statutes § 8-30j beginning October 1, 2023.

• Raised H.B. No. 6893 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE EXEMPTION OF VACANT LOTS FROM CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS. Planning and Development Committee

Status: A joint favorable substitute of this bill was approved by committee and it is now on the House Calendar

Last Updated: April 26, 2023

This raised bill appears to be in response to the proposal in Proposed H.B. No. 5189. This bill would exempt certain vacant lots in subdivisions or resubdivisions from changes to municipal zoning regulations or zoning district changes. [The purpose of the bill had stated that it was intended to create a task force on the topic but actual implementation is described in the substitute bill.]

The exemption would apply to:

• Any vacant lot shown on a subdivision plan or resubdivision plan recorded on the land records of the municipality in which it is located before October 1, 2023, if the recorded chain of title for the vacant lot references such plan; or
• Any vacant lot shown on a subdivision plan or resubdivision plan recorded on the land records of the municipality in which it is located prior to the adoption of zoning regulations, if the lot shown at any time conformed to any zoning regulations that would have applied if the lot was depicted on such a plan after the adoption of zoning regulations.

Similar exemptions already exist for lots in subdivisions that were approved by a planning commission or other entity exercising its powers and filed or recorded with the town clerk.

Inland wetland regulations would still apply.

The bill’s provisions conflict with existing statutes requiring that subdivision plans be approved by a planning commission prior to the land being subdivided, prohibiting the recording of unapproved subdivision plans, and an unapproved plan submitted for recording is void.  (8-25 (a)).

Testimony from the Western Connecticut Council of Governments raises some interesting issues. The reasons for lots remaining vacant abound, including feasibility of development, use as open space, and combination with adjacent properties.

GOVERNOR’S BILLS

• S.B. No. 985– AN ACT INCENTIVIZING HOUSING PRODUCTION. Planning and Development Committee

Status: A joint favorable substitute of this bill was approved by committee and it is now on the Senate Calendar.

Last Updated: April 26, 2023

This bill proposed by Governor Lamont would allow municipalities to designate within their zoning regulations development districts known as “housing growth zones” designed to facilitate substantial development of new dwelling units. The bill could incentivize “middle housing” (duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, cottage clusters and townhouses), streamline approvals in such housing growth zones by requiring a single land use application before the zoning board of appeals without requiring approvals from other land use agencies, and provide funding for such development. The bill would also require municipalities to annually report to the Department of Economic and Community Development on the number of new dwelling units approved and the number of dwelling units demolished. Finally, the Department of Administrative Services would be required to identify state-owned property suitable for housing development, particularly transit-oriented development and affordable housing development. 

In 2019, the Connecticut General Assembly created but never funded the Connecticut Municipal Redevelopment Authority (MRDA), a quasi-public agency authorized to stimulate economic development and transit-oriented development in designated development districts. The governor’s budget proposal funds the MRDA for the first time. The bill would remove the current 70,000-person population threshold for municipalities to opt into membership in the MRDA and remove the mandatory membership requirement for financially distressed municipalities.

Under existing law, member municipalities must enter a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the MRDA to establish and demarcate one or more development districts near a central business district or passenger transit station. Prior to entering an MOA, the MRDA must review and approve a development master plan. The bill would add a requirement for the chief executive officer to make a Housing Growth Zone (HGZ) proposal with proposed zoning regulations for approval by MRDA. The MRDA must approve the HGZ before a member may receive MRDA funding for development projects. An HGZ must include the development district but may also extend beyond its borders.

According to the bill, MRDA would have to approve an HGZ if the proposal is likely to substantially increase production of housing to meet regional housing needs. In determining whether a proposal is likely to substantially increase housing production the MRDA would have to consider whether the proposal allows development of new units without requiring off street parking, whether the proposal requires affordable housing set aside units under Connecticut General Statutes § 8-30g if a project includes 10 or more dwelling units, and whether the proposal generally promotes residential diversity. The MRDA would have to presume that a proposal is likely to substantially increase housing production if it permits middle housing as of right and requires only one approval by the zoning board of appeals for the issuance of any applicable permits for housing other than middle housing that creates a net increase in dwelling units.

Such zoning board of appeals approvals would require that the board:

• Have the same power to issue a permit or approval as any other municipal body or individual from whom such approval is necessary;
• Hold a single public hearing no later than 30 days from the receipt of the application;
• Approve or deny the application within 30 days after the public hearing by a majority vote; and
• Require no further approval from any planning and zoning commission, sewer commission, water commission, municipal wetlands commission, municipal conservation commission or board or municipal historic preservation commission.

The obvious goal of the bill is to alleviate the housing crisis while promoting downtown redevelopment, encouraging development near existing transit to reduce automobile dependence, and diversify housing stock that is also affordable. The legislature should consider how this bill may conflict with and duplicate efforts of House Bill 6890, the transit-oriented development bill. If both bills were to pass, multiple state level agencies would have to approve zoning regulations with differing standards for municipalities that opted into both programs.

There are also possible issues with a zoning board of appeals (ZBA) acting as the sole decision maker for HGZ applications. First, a ZBA’s responsibilities are generally limited to deciding variances, appeals of zoning enforcement decisions, and, where applicable, special exceptions or exemptions. These lay people already have to keep up with their existing duties and legal standards. ZBAs are not equipped to also apply the differing standards of inland wetland commissions, planning and zoning commissions, historic preservation commissions, sewer or water commissions, or other municipal bodies all at the same time. The standard for each body and application is different and the purposes of them potentially in conflict. A variance has one standard, an inland wetland application another, a special permit a third, and a historic preservation another. These municipal bodies are separated because their focus may naturally conflict. The historic preservation of a neighborhood and property may conflict with the protection of wetlands. Inevitably, the thrift and expediency of a single hearing is going to be defeated by the reality of a single body acting as six and the resulting litigation.

Committee Bills

• H.B. No. 5616 AN ACT IMPROVING STANDARDS FOR INLAND WETLAND COMMISSION AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP AND ENFORCEMENT. Environment Committee. Sponsor- Rep. Frank Smith, 118th Dist.- Democrat

Status: This bill was not approved by the committee.

This bill is now a committee bill. It would make significant changes to the inland wetlands and watercourses statutes by:

1. Increasing the burden of proof for wetland permit applicants if their activities in or near a wetland or watercourse may have a negative effect on such resources;
2. Changing the standard by which agencies may deny or condition applications for activities outside of a wetland or watercourse which may impact aquatic, plant or animal life in the wetland or watercourse;
3. Increase potential civil and criminal penalties for violating the inland wetlands and watercourses statutes;
4. Requiring all inland wetland agency members and staff to undergo comprehensive training from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; and
5. Requiring mandatory cease and desist orders for all violations rather than informal enforcement.

Burden of Proof for Inland Wetland Permits

The bill would make significant changes to the standard applied to inland wetland permits for applications to conduct regulated activities which may have an impact on the wetland. Currently, where a public hearing has been held pursuant to General Statutes § 22a-39 or the agency finds that the proposed activity may have a significant impact on wetlands or watercourses, a wetlands permit may not be issued unless a feasible and prudent alternative does not exist to the proposal that would cause no impact or less environmental impact to wetlands or watercourses. Courts have held that an agency need not consider feasible and prudent alternatives unless it first concludes that the proposal may have a significant negative affect on wetlands or watercourses or a public hearing has been held. The Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act, General Statutes § 22a-36, et seq., defines “feasible” as “able to be constructed or implemented consistent with sound engineering principles” and defines “prudent” as “economically and otherwise reasonable in light of the social benefits to be derived from the proposed regulated activity provided cost may be considered in deciding what is prudent and further provided a mere showing of expense will not necessarily mean an alternative is imprudent.”

This bill would require an agency to deny a wetlands permit if the proposed activities would have a measurable impact on wetlands or watercourses and a reasonable alternative exists. Consequently, applicants would have to demonstrate that their project will have no measurable impact on the wetlands or that there are no other reasonable alternatives to their proposal. This measurability threshold is significant (no pun intended). Currently, impacts on wetlands or watercourses that are not deemed significant may still be granted a permit. Under the bill, activities that have minimal measurable impacts would now have to prove that there are no reasonable alternatives to the proposal.

The proposed reasonable alternatives test is also consequential. The feasible and prudent alternatives test currently in place is more objective in that it provides defined standards with caselaw interpreting those terms. What is “reasonable” is usually left to the factfinder, here that would be the inland wetlands and watercourses agency. Arguably, an alternative would not be reasonable if it were not feasible and prudent. Nonetheless, the bill has substituted clearer objective language with a more subjective reasonableness test.

Although the bill would amend the standard for approval when a hearing is held on an application, the current language of the bill does not change when a hearing must held on an application before an inland wetland and watercourses agency. Such hearings are presently required when the agency concludes that a proposal is likely have a significant impact on the wetland or watercourse or when the agency receives a qualifying petition of 25 or more persons requesting such hearing.

Activities outside the wetland or watercourse effecting life inside the wetland or watercourse

Currently, an agency may not deny an application or condition an application for activities outside of a wetland or watercourse on the basis that it may impact aquatic, plant or animal life “unless such activity will likely impact or affect the physical characteristics of such wetlands or watercourses.” The bill would flip this and allow agencies to condition or deny applications where they may impact or affect aquatic, plant, or animal life or habitat. The language of the bill is unclear in whether an application could be denied or conditioned for impacts on aquatic, plant, or animal life or habitat outside of the wetland. Such agencies’ jurisdiction has generally been over effects to wetlands and watercourses and the language is likely meant to still be limited to impacts or affects on aquatic, plant, or animal life or habitat within the wetland or watercourse. Language that would be removed from the existing statute makes clear that it is life inside wetlands or watercourses that is being protected. This language would be removed, creating a possible point of confusion.

Increased Penalties for Violating the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Statutes

The proposed bill would increase the civil penalty levied by DEEP and local agencies for violations of the inland wetlands and watercourses statutes from up to $1,000 to up to $5,000 for each offense—the continued violation being deemed a separate offense for each day the violation continues. It would also increase the fine for knowing violations from up to $1,000 to up to $10,000 each day a violation continues and possible imprisonment from up to six months to up to a year. Fines for subsequent violations would increase from up to $2,000 to up to $15,000 and possible imprisonment would increase from up to one to up to two years.

Mandatory Enforcement Requirements

The bill would require a wetland agency to issue a cease and desist order for every violation of state wetlands law and thereby institute formal proceedings in every case. This would require wetlands agencies to abandon informal enforcement (telephone call to alleged violator, request alleged violator’s presence at next meeting, issuance of a notice of violation).

Agency Member and Staff Training

The bill would require the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to update the comprehensive training program for inland wetland agency members and staff with all statutory changes applicable to inland wetland agencies and any judge-made common law developments applicable to the considerations and authority of such agencies. Currently, the Commissioner is charged with developing a comprehensive training program for inland wetland agency members. Inland wetland agencies would have to report that each member of the agency has completed the training required under this bill.

Presently, at least one member of an inland wetlands agency or staff must have completed the comprehensive training program developed by the commissioner. Failure to comply with the current training requirement does not affect the validity of agency actions. This bill would require each agency member and staff to complete such training at least every other year. It would repeal the provision stating that failure to comply with the training requirement does not affect the validity of agency actions. However, it does not affirmatively state that failure to comply with the training program would affect the validity of agency actions.

• H.B. No. 5326 THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPEALS PROCESS AND REMOVING THE MUNICIPAL OPT-OUT DEADLINE FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENTS. Committee Bill- Housing Committee

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Section 8-30g provides an appeals procedure and approval process for affordable housing projects before planning and zoning bodies. Under subsection k of 8-30g, municipalities are exempt from 8-30g when they have 10 percent of their dwelling units constituting specific types of affordable housing. This committee bill would amend section 8-30g to include non-deed restricted properties toward that 10 percent threshold. The non-deed restricted properties would have to be affordable to a family earning 80 percent of the median income who could own the property with a mortgage payment of no more than 30 percent of such income. The 80 percent median income amount differs by family size. The bill’s language is ambiguous as to the size family being used in calculating what non-deed restricted properties would count toward the 10 percent threshold.

Public Act 21-29 provided for the allowance of accessory apartments or dwelling units on all lots containing single-family homes as of right as long as certain conditions were met. “As of right” meant that a municipality could not require that a public hearing be held, a variance, special permit or special exception be granted or some other discretionary zoning action be taken, other than a determination that a site plan is in conformance with applicable zoning regulations. Municipalities either had to amend their regulations to conform to the Act or the provisions of the Act would apply unless the municipality followed a procedure to opt out of the provisions of the Act by January 1, 2023. This committee bill would remove the opt out deadline. Without a deadline, a municipality could opt out at any time.

Proposed Bills by Individual Legislators

• Proposed H.B. No. 5059 AN ACT EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CERTIFICATION. Sponsor- Rep. Greg S. Howard, 43rd Dist.-Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Public Act 21-29 required zoning enforcement officers to be certified by the Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials beginning January 1, 2023. This proposal would extend the effective date to January 1, 2024. This bill does not have the support of the Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials.

• Proposed SB No. 514 AN ACT CLARIFYING THE ROLE OF ZONING BOARDS OF APPEALS IN THE LICENSING OF MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS AND REPAIR SHOPS. Sponsor- Sen. John A. Kissel, 7th Dist.- Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Section 14-54 of the Motor Vehicle code requires a certificate of approval for the location for motor vehicle dealers or repair shops. There are separate statutes that have the same procedure for filling stations (14-321) and motor vehicle recyclers (14-67i). These approvals are usually made by the zoning board of appeals. These are not zoning decisions, which can confuse boards as to the standards being applied. Towns sometimes also don’t have clear applications or processes for obtaining these approvals. Add to the confusion, in 2003 the legislature repealed the hearing and suitability analysis standards for zoning boards to apply in hearing such applications. Our courts have held that it is up to zoning boards to determine what standards to apply in determining the suitability of a given certificate of approval. There is also a practical consideration as to where the location approval falls in conjunction with obtaining necessary land use approvals. As zoning boards are acting as agents of the state, really the Department of Motor Vehicles, and these are not zoning decisions, it is the state who should set the standards to be applied. The proposed bill provides three alternatives (1) remove the zoning board of appeals from the certificate of approval process, (2) provide criteria for making such determinations, or (3) provide that the certificate shall be issued by the planning and zoning commission before seeking final approval from the zoning board of appeals. The first or second options seems to be a solution. Additionally, if the legislature is working on a fix to the certificate of location approval process, it should apply to all such approvals and not piecemeal.

• Proposed H.B. No. 6292 AN ACT CONCERNING THE REVIEW OF MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP AND REPAIR LICENSE APPLICATIONS. Sponsors- Sen. John A. Kissel, 7th Dist.- Republican and Rep. Carol Hall, 59th Dist.- Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

It appears that this proposed bill is meant to address some of the same issues as Proposed S.B. No. 514. It would “require planning and zoning commissions to review and approve applications for dealing in or repairing motor vehicles pursuant to current zoning regulations, prior to the approval of such licenses by zoning boards of appeals.”

The proposed bill seems to misunderstand the current scheme and would create new issues. Certificate of location approvals which are governed by 14-54 for motor vehicle dealers and repairers. These are not zoning determinations. Zoning boards currently review certificate of location approvals as agents of the state, specifically the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. They do not approve licenses. The certificate of location approval must be granted by the local zoning board before the Department of Motor Vehicles will issue a license. Issues have arisen in understanding the capacity in which the zoning board is acting, the process for such approvals, and, as stated for Proposed S.B. No. 514, in the repeal of the standards to be applied for such determinations by the zoning board.

The certificate of location approval scheme would benefit from revision. If S.B. 514 and S.B. 6292 become committee bills, they should address some of these issues and hopefully they will include all certificate of location approvals.

• Proposed H.B. No. 5616 AN ACT IMPROVING STANDARDS FOR INLAND WETLAND COMMISSION AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP AND ENFORCEMENT. Sponsor- Rep. Frank Smith, 118th Dist.- Democrat

Status: Made a Committee Bill. See H.B. No. 5616 above.

• Proposed S.B. No. 860 AN ACT CONCERNING GROUP CHILD CARE HOMES. Sponsor- Sen. Gary A. Winfield, 10th Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Purpose of bill seems to be addressed by Raised Bill No. 6590. Stated purpose: “To increase the supply of group child care homes to address the shortage of child care facilities.” This proposal would amend the zoning statutes eliminate any special permit or “special zoning” requirements for the operation of a group child care home.

• Proposed S.B. No. 518 AN ACT CONCERNING ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS. Sponsor- Sen. Catherine A. Osten, 19th Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To permit members of municipal zoning commissions and municipal boards of appeals to serve as alternate members of municipal planning commissions.”

• Proposed H.B. 5135 AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF MUNICIPALITY. Sponsor- Rep. Greg S. Howard, 43rd Dist.- Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To amend subsection (a) of section 8-30g of the general statutes to redefine ‘municipality’ to include any village.” General Statutes § 8-30 provides alternative standards for hearing and appealing affordable housing project from land use bodies.

• Proposed H.B. 5189– AN ACT EXEMPTING CERTAIN VACANT LOTS FROM CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS. Sponsor-Rep. Joe Polletta, 68th Dist.- Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To specify that construction on certain vacant lots shall not be required to conform with changes in zoning regulations adopted after the approval of a subdivision or resubdivision plan.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 5879 AN ACT CONCERNING ZONING REGULATIONS ADOPTED TO PROMOTE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY. Sponsors- Rep. Stephen R Meskers, 150th Dist.- Democrat, Rep. Hector Arzeno, 151st Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To allow local energy efficiency and renewable energy zoning regulations to override or supplement the State Building Code.”

• Proposed House Joint Resolution No. 9– RESOLUTION PROPOSING A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ZONING. Sponsor- Rep. Doug Dubitsky, 47th Dist.-Republican

Status- This resolution was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To permit municipalities to enact and enforce zoning restrictions without regional or state interference.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 6293 AN ACT CONCERNING SOLAR FARMS. Sponsor- Rep. Carol Hall, 59th Dist.- Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To require solar farms to comply with local planning and zoning laws.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 6529 AN ACT AUTHORIZING MUNICIPAL OPEN CONTAINER DISTRICTS. Sponsor- Rep. Julio A. Concepcion, 4th Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To authorize municipalities to establish‘open container’ districts” with regulations to be established by planning and zoning commissions.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 5783 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A MUNICIPAL RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL FOR AFFORDABLE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS. Sponsor- Rep. Tom O’Dea, 125th Dist.-Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To grant a right of first refusal to municipalities for set-aside developments and to require that any municipalities exercising such right complete such developments within eight years.”

• Proposed S.B. No. 157– AN ACT CONCERNING TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. Sponsor- Sen. Martin M. Looney, 11th Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To create greater access to mass transportation.” The bill would amend the zoning statutes to require that zoning regulations permit a greater housing density than otherwise allowed within half a mile of any public transit station.”

• Proposed S.B. No. 527 AN ACT REVISING THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF A GROUP HOME. Sponsor- Sen. Tony Hwang, 28th Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. The proposed bill would redefine “community residence under General Statutes § 8-3e to exclude any private for-profit medical facility or any facility that does not receive funding from the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services.

• Proposed H.B. No. 5470 AN ACT CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL AND MUNICIPAL OUTDOOR LIGHTING. Sponsors- Rep. Christine Conley, 40th Dist.-Democrat and Rep. Aundre Bumgardner, 41st Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To specify that residential and municipal outdoor lighting shall be limited in terms of voltage and direction.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 5860 AN ACT GRANTING MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION OF SCENIC VIEWS. Sponsor- Rep. Kathleen M. McCarty, 38th Dist.- Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To allow municipalities to prohibit the construction of fences or the planting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation that would interfere with a property owner’s ability to maintain an unobstructed view of a body of water or shoreline.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 5875 AN ACT CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS. Sponsor- Rep. Tom O’Dea, 125th Dist.-Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To permit municipalities to waive requirements concerning the construction of certain sidewalks and pedestrian crosswalks.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 6138 EXTENDING THE MUNICIPAL OPT OUT OPTION FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENTS. Sponsor- Rep. Laura Dancho, 120th Dist.-Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To allow any municipality to opt out of the as-of-right allowance of accessory apartments beyond the current deadline of January 1, 2023.”

• Proposed H.B. No. 6294 AN ACT PROHIBITING THE REQUIREMENT OF A DONATION OF LAND AS A CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. Sponsor- Rep. Doug Dubitsky, 47th Dist.- Republican

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To prohibit municipalities from requiring a donation of land from an applicant for subdivision of land as a condition of subdivision approval.”

Proposed S.B. No. 221 AN ACT CONCERNING DEMOLITION OF CERTAIN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. Sponsors: Sen. Bob Duff, 25th Dist.- Democrat, Rep. Lucy Dathan, 142nd Dist.-Democrat, Rep. Dominique Johnson, 143rd Dist.- Democrat, Rep. Kadeem Roberts, 137th Dist.-Democrat, Rep. Travis Simms, 140th Dist.-Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To remove ambiguity from state law that in order to demolish a home a demolition permit is required.”

Proposed S.B. No. 517 AN ACT CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES. Sponsor- Sen. Catherine A. Osten, 19th Dist.

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To permit municipalities to hire consultants to license and regulate short-term rental properties.”

Proposed S.B. No. 199 AN ACT AUTHORIZING A MUNICIPAL OCCUPANCY FEE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS. Sponsor: Sen. Norman Needleman, 33rd Dist.- Democrat

Status- This bill was not approved by the committee.

Analysis to come if it is made a committee bill. Stated purpose: “To provide municipalities with an additional revenue stream.”