Join a virtual conversation on what it means to maintain our local decision rights
Use this easy form to reach out to your town leaders. Engage them in this fight
STATEMENT FROM CT169STRONG ON THE PASSAGE OF SB 998
CT169 Strong is a non-partisan group dedicated to local zoning control to ensure thoughtful and appropriate development of our communities through prudent land use decision making. We are thankful to the many supporters and especially to the Democrat and Republican legislators who rejected the burdensome and poorly crafted “top down” zoning bills that were introduced to the House. We continue to fight for policies that work and make Connecticut better – and demand effective reforms that create true affordability, not just density.
Last night, the Senate voted to pass SB 998, which had been amended in a late night session of the House to add several provisions from the failed and rejected “Fair Share” bill. These provisions include empowering the Office Of Policy and Management (OPM) and an expanded Office of Responsible Growth to establish a methodology and to allocate “affordable” housing development quotas to the towns and cities of our State, at up to 20% of each municipality’s total housing stock. The bill also sets up several high level housing development advisory groups that exclude any environmental or climate change stakeholders or experts, and has only token zoning participation.
While the mandatory development portions of Fair Share were not added to SB 998, the bill language legitimizes the reckless and unworkable methodology proposed by the housing advocates of Open Communities Alliance (OCA). The very same bill language in SB998 failed to pass in the two prior legislative sessions when the extremely high fair share numbers for every municipality were disclosed. This session, the bill’s proponents did not disclose the actual Fair Share numbers of each municipality, but SB998 has set up the bureaucratic structure to impose extreme development mandates without regard to local capacities, constraints or needs, and without consideration of environmental issues, or open space and historic resource preservation.
We are hopeful that Governor Lamont, who supports local control over land use decisions, will reaffirm his commitment to municipalities throughout the state against this ill conceived scheme and veto SB 998 given that it sets up overburdened taxpayers to pay $20 billion in new taxes and it will be the largest unfunded mandate in our State’s history. Make no mistake, this one bill dwarfs any tax relief he has achieved thus far. For the average resident, more than 90 percent of their wealth is tied up in their homes.
Appropriate development, growth and positive change are best achieved through long standing beneficial zoning and regulatory practices. This ensures that changes in land use and our natural environment are done in a thoughtful, considered, fair and equitable manner that encourages public participation by all residents.
However, each year the same bills are introduced by well funded housing development groups, some backed by out of state development interests, which do little more than erode zoning for the benefit of developers and corporate real estate interests. These lobbying efforts have resulted in multiple bills proposed over the past several years intended to usurp the authority of local planning and zoning commissions, eliminate public hearings and silence public voices, degrade environmental protections, override local concerns and impose central planning by unaccountable State officials.
The bills seek to destroy local decision-making and replace it with top down “as of right” development, thereby shredding any notion of thoughtful land use planning in both large cities and small towns, and severely impairing the ability of towns and ultimately the State to ensure protection of its open space and natural resources.
There has been significant bipartisan opposition to most of these anti-zoning bills, including Fair Share and SB 988, in both the House and Senate, as well as by municipal officials and state residents, and for good reason: centralized planning does not work in land use decision making.
Residents from around the state, as well as local and state officials have recognized these legislative threats to the ability to plan and manage the orderly and optimal development of each of our 169 municipalities.
CT169Strong has received enormous positive feedback and tangible support, which far exceeded our expectations. It is clear that the residents of Connecticut want common sense, well founded solutions achieved through a process that emphasizes inclusion, transparency and a true diversity of stakeholders. We are thankful for this outpouring of support for our mission, and will continue to work towards development initiatives that are in the best long term interests of our State.
Legislators Want to End Single Family Zoning in Connecticut!
Connecticut is the second highest taxed state in the nation. CT’s residents scrimp, save and make great sacrifices when choosing to live in a specific neighborhood, and for most people, their homes represent their largest asset. Proposals that create over-densification with “as of right” 80-90% market value multifamily (mostly rentals) development are nothing but a gift to predatory developers and actually will diminish affordability and greatly impact local economic stability. These policies will cause more outmigration if CT’s underlying economic concerns and overall affordability is not addressed.
Multiple hive-minded housing advocacy groups like DesegregateCT, backed by developer funded Regional Planning Associates (RPA) have sprung onto the lobbying scene in Hartford with one orchestrated script, creating the illusion of many different voices but in reality are all inter-connected.Central planners are going to tell you how to live and where to live whether you are in a city, suburb or rural community. The intention of legislators and bureaucrats is to mandate towns to fund development themselves, or have court intervention to force dense “as of right” market value multifamily development everywhere and end single family zoning in CT forever. These bills were never about creating true affordability.
The Proposed Bad Zoning bills will: • Turn every suburban downtown into a small city, regardless of inadequate infrastructure, environment, historical areas, access to affordable mass public transportation and availability of jobs. • Make no consideration of what exponential overdevelopment of housing stock with high rise apartments in downtowns would do, potentially creating greater congestion, stormwater runoff and pollution.• Bureaucrats’ “carrots” require municipalities to implement zones with “as-of” right multifamily development that can neve be reversed.
• Limiting entirely or severely restricting off-street parking requirements would cause inadequate parking for both residents and small local businesses. • Coastal flooding and climate change resiliency and sustainability planning are largely ignored, as the bills would pack dense populations especially into coastal downtown areas that are most exposed to flooding. One size, top-down state mandates do not recognize the unique aspects of each of the 169 municipalities in CT. Responsible zoning decisions are best made by locally-elected officials, who are held accountable for establishing regulations that are faithful to the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development and who transparently apply those regulations without any favor or bias. Zoning is truly color blind.BAD BILLS WE ARE TRACKING AND FIGHTING
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
LINK TO TESTIFY: https://ct169strong.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=845e66a589deb5dbdbc314e23&id=447d1e2335&e=968b2f70c3
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/5/2024, 11AM Support or Oppose: OPPOSE
Bill Number: Click HB 5334 Biil Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/TOB/H/PDF/2024HB-05334-R00-HB.PDF?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_8_29_2023_10_58_COPY_03)
How to Submit: Choose Cut and Paste into space in box provided or upload a PDF Doc (preferred)or Word Doc
Support Majority Leaders' Roundtable’s efforts to increase affordable housing, but a study on residential mobility counseling does not address concerning issues with housing vouchers or improve housing availability in CT. The issues with housing vouchers was highlighted in the 12/2/2022 CT Insider Article by Jackie Rabe Thomas:
‘I want to give up’: Inside CT residents’ struggles to use affordable housing vouchers”
Revise housing voucher program: for very concerning issues with allocations, waitlists and portability.
- Move all housing authority voucher waitlists to one state-controlled waitlist
- Any NEW “people” voucher allocations should be managed through the state housing authority, not any municipal HA. Let the renter decide where they want to live from the start.
- Create a study to remove any existing people housing voucher allocations that have not been utilized by the local housing authority to the state housing authority.
- The Housing Committee should consider appointing a broad group of experts from various capacities and from municipalities large and small with local experience in affordable development and management of voucher programs as it currently exists. They should study the past state and federal allocation history and why vouchers are only at a 50% utilization rate. The expert group conducting the study group include UNBIASED members of the general public, along with legislators from each major party.
- Study more equitably distributing “project-based” vouchers statewide.
- Study on increasing the allocation numbers of vouchers and the values of vouchers in areas of the state where housing costs are higher and lowering the voucher values where they are lower,
- Values of vouchers should be based on area median income, not state income.
Improving affordability statewide is an important goal and fixing portability in the state’s housing voucher program must be addressed. With a study to identify the needed adjustments, the state can get what it wants - more residents living more affordably with greater utilization of vouchers in municipalities statewide. There is also a trickle-down positive effect by removing the burden on overcrowded homeless shelters. When shelter residents can access vouchers, they can move out of the shelters into units, and our state’s homeless could then move into the shelters. We need real, workable solutions and must stop the self-dealing insider handouts to the largest Housing Authorities and focus on the actually addressing needs of the residents in the state.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
LINK TO TESTIFY: https://ct169strong.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=845e66a589deb5dbdbc314e23&id=447d1e2335&e=968b2f70c3
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/5/2024, 11AM Support or Oppose: OPPOSE
Bill Number: Click HB 5335 Biil Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/TOB/H/PDF/2024HB-05335-R00-HB.PDF?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_8_29_2023_10_58_COPY_01)
To Submit: Choose Cut and Paste into box provided or upload a PDF Doc (preferred)or Word Doc
Section 2. State towns MAY adopt zoning regulations for “as of right” development of middle housing on any lot which is zoned for commercial, residential or mixed-use development where there is public sewer and water system. Those that adopt the zoning regulations will receive HUE points towards 8-30g based on what is built in the area. In addition, the HUE points were added to recognize middle housing development “as of right” :
- 8-30g units at 80% of median income are only rewarded 0.25 HUE point.
- Middle housing allowed as of right = 0.25 HUE point NEW
- Family units at 80% of median income = 1 HUE point owner, 1.5 HUE points rental
- Family units at 60% of median income = 1.5 HUE points owner, 2 HUE points rental
- Family units at 40% of median income = 2 HUE points owner, 2.5 HUE points rental
- Elderly at 80% of median income = 0.5 HUE point
- Mobile Home 80% of median income = 1.5 HUE points; Mobile Home at 60% of median income = 2 HUE points; and the remaining units are at 0.25 HUE points
SUPPORT providing HUE points for middle housing development is a great incentive towards addressing that exists for middle housing HUE points are meant to incentivize municipalities to develop housing and as a way to seek a moratorium from 8-30g.
OPPOSE requiring municipalities to first permit “as of right” development of middle housing as municipalities will be likely to change their zoning regs to take advantage of these HUE points towards development. It is a fallacy to presume that special permits prevent middle housing development since special permits must have clear standards. In order make this bill be more effective, we recommend passing this legislation without as of right development as there is no evidence that proves an “as of right” process leads to more affordable or middle housing development. SUPPORT increasing the HUE points for Senior Housing. One size policy does not fit all, and Senior housing development is discriminated against by continuing to only allow 0.5 HUE points per unit for Senior housing. There is a clear demand for senior housing and smaller units and reports show that older seniors are not downsizing and instead choosing to stay in their homes. Encouraging more middle housing development would potentially allow larger homes currently owned by seniots to be sold when they downsize to middle housing and thereby free up larger single family homes for families. It should be important to also prioritize senior affordable development. Senior citizens volunteer a great amount of time to serve in their local communities and the state should provide incentive to help keep them in CT. In addition, seniors have different needs over time and that is expensive to accommodate, so providing only one-half HUE point is not accounting for additional expenditures that may occur in order to meet senior accessibility needs. Please consider counting seniors as 1.0 HUE point as well. They deserve equal treatment just like families.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
LINK TO TESTIFY: https://ct169strong.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=845e66a589deb5dbdbc314e23&id=447d1e2335&e=968b2f70c3
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/5/2024, 11AM Support or Oppose: OPPOSE
Bill Number: Click HB 5336 Biil Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/TOB/H/PDF/2024HB-05336-R00-HB.PDF?ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_8_29_2023_10_58_COPY_01)
How to Submit: Choose Cut & Paste into space in box provided or upload a PDF Doc (preferred)or Word Doc
- SUPPORT state’s efforts to increase affordable housing in Connecticut, there are concerns in this bill that must be more clearly defined before any such bill can be passed: Lines 6-7, the bill is vague on what it means by “equalizing” the state housing assistance payments with the federal housing choice voucher payments.
- Consider a study on increasing the allocation number of vouchers and the values of vouchers in areas of the state where housing costs are higher and lowering the voucher values where they are lower.
- Use the area median income and area housing costs, not state median income or state average housing costs as is utilized by the Federal Government.
- JFS Language in Section 5 states: “ (Effective October 1, 2024) On or before August 1, 2025, the Commissioner of Housing, in coordination with the Housing Finance Authority, shall adopt a qualified allocation plan that based on the location of a proposed housing development with a Connecticut shall (1) replace any existing priority score or other point allocation priority score or other point allocation based upon the extent to which such development meets a need for units of affordable housing, as defined in section 8-39a of the general statutes, in the planning region, as defined in section 4-68ii of the general statutes, pursuant to the municipal fair share allocation established under section 4-68ii of the general statutes, and (2) replace any existing priority score or other point allocation based on the lowest credit per qualified unit of a proposed housing development with a priority score or other point allocation based upon whether the municipality in which such development is proposed has not previously received funding through the federal Low- Income Housing Tax Credit Program.” Lines 128-143 While we appreciate replacing any existing priority allocation or point score plan for Housing Voucher and/or LIHTC program funding, this bill is silent as to how the any priority or point scores would be decided for Affordable housing funding. In addition, in lines 138-143, funding should not be limited to only those that have NOT been funded for LIHTC programs.
We all agree on the goal, but we must find more innovative ways to provide more equitable allocations for grants, loans, vouchers to help fund affordable housing development statewide.
We recommend revising ALL voucher allocations, waitlists and portability as well:
- Move all housing authority voucher waitlists to one state-controlled waitlist
- Future “people” voucher allocations should be managed through State HA, not municipal HAs
- Create a study to remove any existing people housing voucher allocations that have not been utilized by the local housing authority to the state housing authority to allocate to needy residents.
- Appoint a broad group of experts from various capacities and from municipalities large and small with local experience in affordable development and management of voucher programs as it currently exists. They should study the past state and federal allocation history and why vouchers are only at a 50% utilization rate. The expert group conducting the study group include UNBIASED members of the general public, along with legislators from each party.
- Study more equitably distributing “project-based” vouchers statewide.
- Study on increasing the allocation numbers of vouchers and the values of vouchers in areas of the state where housing costs are higher and lowering the voucher values where they are lower,
- Values of vouchers should be based on area median income, not state income.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
LINK TO TESTIFY: https://ct169strong.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=845e66a589deb5dbdbc314e23&id=447d1e2335&e=968b2f70c3
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/5/2024, 11AM Support or Oppose: SUPPORT
Bill Number: Click HB 5337 Biil Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/TOB/H/PDF/2024HB-05337-R00-HB.PDF
To Submit: Choose Cut and Paste into box provided or upload a PDF Doc (preferred)or Word DocSUPPORT 1) require a surety bond from any developer who submits an affordable housing application to a zoning commission, and 2) allow a municipality to award funds from a tax increment district master plan fund for improvements to certain affordable housing if pursuant to an agreement with the owner to renew the affordable deed covenants or restrictions concerning such affordable housing.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT: 1. Consider changing the period of affordable under 8-30g from 40 years to 99 years as is required in the city of Stamford. 2. In lines 38-42 Median income should be greater of the area median income and state median income, not the lesser of. These bills disadvantage housing in municipalities where land cost and salaries are higher than in the rest of the state. In order to better accommodate the residents in this area, the area median income should be utilized, not the state median income, as is done by the Federal Housing Program.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
LINK TO TESTIFY IN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=PD
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/6/2024, 10AM Support or Oppose: OPPOSE
Bill Number: Click HB 5390 Bill Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/TOB/H/PDF/2024HB-05391-R00-HB.PDF
To Submit: Choose Cut and Paste into box provided or upload a PDF Doc (preferred)or Word Doc
OPPOSE- yet another bill that creates a points system that once again favors larger municipalities that already receive most of the funding from the state and may already have such highly prescriptive zoning codes already in place.
- Defines different “tiers” for every municipality and provides funding through a points system based solely on whether a municipality complies with their bill’s mandated “one size fits all” zoning code standards. Does not consider that even within a municipality there may be need for different standards.
- Does not consider infrastructure constraints, sewer capacity and town water supply constraints, natural resource constraints, reservoir communities, environmentally sensitive coastal areas and other environmental concerns, watershed constraints or possible health and safety concerns unique to each municipality in CT.
- Does not consider a lack of transit or work opportunities and is solely focused on population growth. One-size policy never fits all. Connecticut is the third smallest state and the fourth most densely populated already.
- Any funding goes solely to “tier 4” and “tier 3” towns, which likely favors a handful of large cities and towns who already receive state funding of housing development through state and federal development grants and loans, tax credits and housing vouchers. Why does the state need another point system to funnel yet more funds to the exact same cities and towns?
- Why does "tier 4" need a bonus for adding population? The $1,000 bonus award for each new “resident” may have nothing at all to do with housing development in the municipality and seems a reckless distribution of state taxpayer funds.
- Any municipality labeled as “tier 1”, automatically defaults to draconian state mandated zoning with “as of right” multifamily with no density limits in areas on town sewer and water and 1 acre zoning maximum everywhere else.
Summary of bill concepts:
Tier 1 – < 5 housing density points; If you do not submit the information from the Zoning criteria below, automatically set as a Tier 1 municipality. If the bill passes, as of 10/1/26, all Tier 1 automatically default to state mandated zoning:
1) on town sewer & water as of right multifamily, with no density limitation
2) on septic and well, no minimum lot size > 1 acre
3) on town water and sewer no lot > 7,500 sq ft.
4) allow ADUs,
5) max 1 parking space for 1BR & Studio and max 2 spaces for 2+ BRs.
In effect until no longer in “Tier 1”
Tier 2 – 5-9 density points; Building permits 3-4 per 1K residents in 3 of 7 years; no funding of Tier 2
Tier 3 - 10-21 density points; Building permits 5-7 per 1K residents in 3 of 7 years; All Tier 3 get double HUE points and appropriations by OPM for community & economic development projects.
Tier 4 – 22+ density points; Building permits 8+ per 1K residents in 3 of 7 years; Exempt from the Affordable Housing Appeals procedure (8-30g) & all Tier 4 get appropriations by the CT Office of Personnel management for community & economic development projects and prioritized over Tier 3. Bonus for Tier 4 based solely on population increase: $1K per each new resident in Tier 4!
STATE “INCENTIVIZED” ZONING REGULATIONS:
Parking: only 1 space max for 1BR & Studio, 2 spaces max for 2+ BR = 1
Exempt any property from any minimum parking requirement = 3 points
Allow ADUs = 1point; Allow 3+ ADUs per lot = 3 points
Min Lot Size Requirement Town Sewer & Water: 7,500 = 1pt, 5K = 3pts, 2K = 4pts, 1K = 5pts 7,500
Lots on Septic and Well, max lot size is 1 acre = 2 points
Allow Duplex & Triplex “As of Right” & no standards not applicable to SF Homes:
In 50% of zone = 2 points; in 100% of the zone = 4 points
Allow 4 units + as of right in town water and sewer where SF is allowed:
In 50% of zone = 2 points; in 100 % of the zone = 4 Points
Allow multi family in commercial zones = 1 Point
Allow as of right development approved by the coordinator = 1 point
Allow 8-30g projects = 1 point
Allow no minimum building coverage or floor area ratio requirements = 2 points
Allow rental of rooms = 1 point
Allow consolidated project approval process = 1 point
Allow NO public hearing if zoning officer decided project conforms to all zoning regs = 1 point
Allow greater density residential development if a subdivisions restricts > 50% as open space, farm or forest = 1 point
Adopt a TOD = 3 points
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
2024 – SB207: An Act Concerning Housing Authority Jurisdiction
This bill allows for any Housing Authority (HA) to adopt an “expanded area of operation” outside of its own jurisdiction WITHOUT permission from the other municipality. An HA can go into ANY other municipality statewide, buy land (or use land from the State). New Haven Housing Authority, with mostly affordable redevelopment experience, not new development, wants to expand its operations and use their large voucher allocations from the state for funding.
- This bill would create adversarial relationships between municipalities. No two public HA entities using public funding sources should be competing against each other in the same community, a waste of taxpayer resources.
- Takes decision-making on where to build affordable away from local municipal leaders and puts it into the hands of an outside HA that is not accountable to the residents if permission is not required from towns.
- Outside HA can leverage 8-30g to build outsized, higher density projects that override local zoning codes on setback, height, density, coverage without regard to the targeted infrastructure capacity - the financial impacts on the municipality are not of economic or social concern to the outside HA.
- If an individual HA wishes to extend its territory, it should first demonstrate all its goals have been met in their own geographic area.
- HA’s develop and operate affordable housing projects and administer tenant-based Section 8 voucher programs within their own area of operation. HA should not be allowed to expand the use of housing vouchers in the development of affordable housing in outside municipalities, vouchers should be distributed more equitably to every municipality instead to build their own affordable projects and properly receive credit for them through the voucher program.
- Reform the voucher system first! Centralize the voucher waitlists and voucher distribution. It has been reported that housing vouchers are not being well managed, and that many vouchers go unused because the separate housing authorities put rules on them that prevent portability. The allocations are not equitable - New Haven HA has access to over 7,500 housing vouchers. If the state is attempting to free where HAs can build, they should first free the vouchers and let people decide where they want to live. Also, they need to allocate vouchers more widely statewide instead of concentrating them in Hartford and New Haven.
- A more productive partnership occurs if a municipality invites or approves an outside HA to operate in their municipality. Each HA is best suited to develop affordable housing in their own municipality or decide if they want to join with another municipality’s authority to develop affordable housing - substitute bill added permission required. 2024’s SB6 has revised and substituted language to state they must have permission.
- HAs are all evaluated by HUD, if properties are run down, they may need some services which an outside Housing Authority could provide. But if a town has a HA that is doing well and operating effectively with good reviews, it makes no sense for a local HA to bring in an outside HA.
- The state would have to provide funding to the outside HA to build in other municipalities or utilize their voucher allocation on the outside project. Encourage development of more affordable housing in the suburbs, by providing funding directly to that municipality to create 50-100% affordable units, that will NEVER EXPIRE.
- Outside HAs and their management companies could also not be well managed, with bad reviews from residents living in the properties. Municipalities must have the right to determine for themselves whether they would like an outside HA to develop within their community.
- Members of the Housing Committee suggested the HA of Operation should be limited - possibly no more than 5 Miles. Limiting the area of operation prevents any HA from becoming an absentee landlord when it is not near the outside community where it has decided to operate and HA’s are only held accountable by their own municipality. CT does not need poorly run HAs to become absentee landlords.
See the full language of SB207 here
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
PUBLIC HEARING ON HB5473 IS ON 3-13 at 10AM. TO TESTIFY IN PERSON OR VIA ZOOM,
On-line Testimony Registration Form LINK: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o4awk9mtRjamPEAF5fRRKQ#/registration
DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO SPEAK: Tues., 3/12, 2024 at 3:00 P.M.
SPEAKER ORDER: Announced Tues, 3/12, 6:00 PM under 3/12 Public Hearing Testimony LINK TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY IN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=PD
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/13/2024, 10AM Support or Oppose: OPPOSE
Bill Number: Click HB5473
Bill Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/TOB/H/PDF/2024HB-05473-R00-HB.PDF
To Submit: Choose Cut & Paste into the box provided or upload a PDF(preferred) or Word Doc
SUMMARY: The study shall include, but need not be limited to, (1) an analysis of current required design review processes and the impact of such processes on the cost and development time of affordable housing, as defined in section 8-39a of the general statutes, (2) the identification of barriers within such design review processes that may hinder the construction or renovation of such affordable housing, and (3) the examination of successful models from other jurisdictions that have streamlined or eliminated such design review processes for such affordable housing.
OPPOSE: Design standards should remain local and up to local zoning commissions to implement.
Currently builders can use 8-30g knock down historic buildings since 8-30g law overrides design review but it requires 30% affordable on those projects. This bill is solely a handout for builders looking to create high-density market-rate development without the requirement to provide 30% affordable units. This does not improve affordability, it only enriches developer’s profits.
Local design guidelines provide a method of assuring governments that key characteristics of buildings reflect community standards (which may vary from town to town) that have been established at a policy level, and not negotiated on a case-by-case basis with a particular developer or property owner. Historic districts routinely have specific standards attached to them as do housing and condo associations.
This bill is anti-preservation and anti-history. Municipalities only have design authority in Historical Districts and such design review has kept town centers and historical areas from being bulldozed. Getting rid of design review would result in Connecticut turning into Texas or Louisiana, where old buildings are knocked down and gone forever. Tourists come to CT’s 169 unique town centers because of the beautiful historic areas, which are regulated as to style, architecture, façade materials, which is why historic districts remain intact. Cities like Stamford did not protect its historic buildings and has lost almost all of its beautiful historic downtown.
Instead, conduct an open-ended study design review with the possibility of strengthening or weakening the current policy – not a study with a foregone conclusion to take away local decision-making as the language in this bill currently is written. Look at how can we accommodate new development while protecting our history. Look at opportunities to integrate social, economic, and environmental goals in design review while protecting our history.
If passed, this bill would allow developers to create designs that do not align with a town’s character or its historical heritage. It will not create adequate affordable, as they are looking to expand their control over design in projects that require less than 30% affordable. CT has a rich history and many beautiful historic buildings throughout our 169 cities, suburbs, and rural communities. This bill is just a gift to developers as 8-30g already allows developers to override the design standards and now this bill attempts to remove the design standards in favor of high-density market value developments.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
PUBLIC HEARING ON HB5474 IS ON 3-13 at 10AM. TO TESTIFY IN PERSON OR VIA ZOOM, On-line Testimony Registration Form LINK: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o4awk9mtRjamPEAF5fRRKQ#/registration
DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO SPEAK: Tues., 3/12, 2024 at 3:00 P.M.
SPEAKER ORDER: Announced Tues, 3/12, 6:00 PM under 3/12 Public Hearing Testimony LINK TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY IN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=PD
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/13/2024, 10AM Support or Oppose: OPPOSE
Bill Number: Click HB5474
Bill Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB05474&which_year=2024
To Submit: Choose Cut & Paste into box provided or upload a PDF(preferred) or Word Doc
BILL SUMMARY: Each report shall include: the number of dwelling units proposed to be constructed or renovated in such applications, the number of such applications approved by the municipality, the number of dwelling units proposed to be constructed or renovated in such applications that were approved by the municipality, the number of such applications denied by the municipality, the number of dwelling units proposed to be constructed or renovated in such applications that were denied by the municipality, and any other information concerning residential permit applications prescribed by the coordinator.
If passed, this bill would require municipalities annually to submit a report to the “State Responsible Growth Coordinator” on applications submitted to any building official of the municipality or reviewed by any planning commission, zoning commission or combined planning and zoning commission of the municipality.
OPPOSE: This bill adds more mandating reporting to a bureaucrat in Hartford. Decisions made by local zoning and planning boards are inherently local and our commissions are accountable to its residents, not State bureaucrats.
Without knowing the reasons for the denial, the data does not provide meaningful information. Further, builders may decide to pull permits but may not complete a project. Just pulling the data without an explanation is not helpful in these circumstances. Further unscrupulous builders could try to skew the reported data points by submitting proposals to the municipality’s building department with inherently unworkable projects. We recommend if the bill moves forward to also include information on the reasons for denials or reasons why any adjustments made to proposed projects.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
PUBLIC HEARING ON SB416 IS ON 3-13 at 10AM. TO TESTIFY IN PERSON OR VIA ZOOM, On-line Testimony Registration Form LINK: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o4awk9mtRjamPEAF5fRRKQ#/registration
DEADLINE TO REGISTER TO SPEAK: Tues., 3/12, 2024 at 3:00 P.M.
SPEAKER ORDER: Announced Tues, 3/12, 6:00 PM under 3/12 Public Hearing Testimony LINK TO SUBMIT TESTIMONY IN PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=PD
Public Hearing Date: Click 3/13/2024, 10AM Support or Oppose: OPPOSE
Bill Number: Click SB416
Bill Language: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2024/TOB/S/PDF/2024SB-00416-R00-SB.PDF
To Submit: Choose Cut & Paste into the box provided or upload a PDF(preferred) or Word Doc
A commercial building such as warehouses, factories, storage facilities, and buildings used for other industrial activity can be converted into a residential building development “as of right.”
OPPOSE:
Warehouses and factories are typically situated in industrial zones, not commercial zones but one size policy does not fit all circumstances statewide and such a differing change of use should not need to be provided “as of right” as a special permit can also achieve the same result and not delay development. In addition, certain areas of factories and industrial use are often more car-centric, which may not be the best place for residential development.
Industrial zones do not currently permit 8-30g development and this bill, if passed, would permit significant development in these zones. There is a significant need for warehouse space in Connecticut thanks in part due to the continued rise of the e-commerce space, light manufacturing, etc. and we should be preserving these areas for commercial use to bolster our economy.
In addition, commercial and industrial uses provide needed revenues and income to municipalities, which helps keep mill rates lower. Removing business income to be replaced by residential housing development only will place a greater burden on property taxpayers to cover the annual operating budget of the municipality. As a result, greater volatility in the real estate markets could cause significant financial burdens on homeowners and renters during market downturns. This bill says nothing about mixed-use development which could provide better opportunities.
GOOD BILLS WE SUPPORTED BUT WHICH DIED IN COMMITTEES
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/TOB/H/PDF/2023HB-06777-R00-HB.PDF
Sign up to testify at the Hearing this Tuesday! Deadline to register: Monday 2/27 at 3PM.
https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vc6dYw6ASxSGKdoNJPEdgw
Submit written testimony TODAY using the On-line Testimony Submission form: https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=HSG Select from menu options: Housing Committee Public Hearing: Feb 28th, Support, HB6777:
HB6777 Would require municipalities to adopt ordinances to abate the property tax on single-family homes, where
- the owner is 65+,
- earns no more than the regional median income
- and places an affordable housing deed restriction on the property such that
- the property may only be sold at a price affordable to households making no more than 80% of the regional median income.
- Such homes would count toward the 10% threshold under §8-30g, as well as 2 points each towards a moratorium;
- the abatement would continue for as long as the restriction is in effect.
- The restriction may be revoked only with significant penalty to the municipality;
- such penalties shall be used to build or improve affordable housing owned by the municipality.
- The ordinance may be suspended during when a moratorium is granted on the 10% threshold is met.
Comments on why this bill should pass:
- This bill is a win/win, helping elderly that are financially challenged, frees up existing affordable housing for other needy residents and helps towns get to 10% relief from 8-30g and moratoriums
- Incentivizes elderly to stay put in CT when they are the largest demographic leaving our state.
- The tax abatements would help those the elderly that financially struggle to remain in CT due to the lack of overall affordability and high taxes in our state.
- This bill would expand what counts towards 8-30g as “Affordable Housing” helping municipalities to get to their 10% to have relief from predatory developers overriding local zoning code with 8-30g. This would be helpful since most towns cannot use the 4 criteria to get to 10% per 8-30g standards.
- Helps towns get to a moratorium. Only 4 towns currently have a moratorium and since 1990 enactment of 8-30g, only 13 municipalities have ever been able to achieve a moratorium because the cost of development of affordable housing is very high – approximately $250K -$500K per unit and as just stated, many of the 4 categories which count towards 8-30g are not available to all municipalities.
Why the current 8-30g 10% calculation is RIGGED should be REFORMED:
Due to diverse real estate markets statewide, many of the 4 categories are not available to most towns to reach the 10% threshold and get relief from 8-30g. State and Federal subsidies are provided to the largest cities, and that is why they have 10% under 8-30g. Meanwhile other municipalities are vilified for not developing more affordable housing on their own while they are not provided the same vouchers and grants that cities receive and have very different market conditions.
- The 10% threshold onerous and hard to reach for most municipalities: only 31 of 169 municipalities have reached 10%, and of those only 13 of 169 have Government assisted housing (Column 1) over 10%.
- The state uses taxpayer dollars to fund AH development (Column 1) but most of that only goes to the largest cities, helping them hit their 10% under 8-30g. This public policy has concentrated poverty in the cities. Why not provide greater funding to other municipalities to develop affordable as well if you would like to see affordable development elsewhere?
- Housing vouchers – Tenant Rental Assistance (RAP) (Column 2) are mostly distributed by the state to the largest housing authorities in the cities and they impose rules that keep residents unable to move to other parts of the state by limiting the voucher portability. It’s time to centralize and reform the voucher program and waitlists so residents can live where they want.
- Residents of many towns cannot quality for CHFA (income and property value caps) & USDA (farmland) loans (Column 3) and deed restriction of properties (Column 4) is limited because deed restricted property values do not increase at the same rate as market value.
*H.B. No. 5326 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPEALS PROCESS AND REMOVING THE MUNICIPAL OPT-OUT DEADLINE FOR ACCESSORY APARTMENTS.
Please support our efforts to exempt municipalities in which more than 70% of the land is within a watershed protection area from 8-30g affordable housing appeals process.
Sign up to testify at the Hearing this Tuesday! Deadline to register: Monday 2/27 at 3PM. https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vc6dYw6ASxSGKdoNJPEdgw
Submit written testimony TODAY using the On-line Testimony Submission form: https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=HSG Select from menu options: Housing Committee Public Hearing: Feb 28th, Support, HB5326
HB 5326, An Act Concerning the Affordable Housing Appeals Process And Removing The Municipal Opt-Out Deadline For Accessory Apartments.
- Allows all municipalities, including those that missed the January 1, 2023 deadline to opt out of accessory apartment provisions under PA 21-29 (and thus set their standards). Note that the parking cap standards under PA 21-29 did not include an opt-out deadline. During the passage in 2021 of HB6107, municipalities were given the opportunity to opt out of the rule allowing accessory dwelling units everywhere
In WestCOG, all cities, suburbs and rural communities OPTED OUT of the one size fits all rule on ADUs. This shows that ALL municipalities felt that local decision making was best when considering ADU zoning policy. One size policy does not allow flexibility for future changes in municipalities. Please remove the deadline to allow those municipalities that did not opt out by the deadline to decide what is best for their local communities.
- Counts naturally-occurring (i.e., not deed-restricted) affordable housing towards the 10% threshold under CGS §8-30g.
- Naturally occurring affordable housing exists everywhere in CT, but it is not considered in the 10% calculation under 8-30g. Allowing naturally affordable gives credit to towns for residents that are also living affordably in their communities but not accounted for by the 4 columns.
- Recognizing existing affordable housing acknowledges that residents statewide do access affordable rentals in the existing housing markets even without deed restrictions or the development of affordable housing, which is very expensive to produce. Towns provide services to all residents, including those living in naturally affordable housing and thus should be recognized and included in the 8-30g calculation.
- Deed restrictions on owner-occupied affordable housing limit the natural increase in property values, so owners are not able to recognize the full appreciation in equity of the property., limiting creation of generational wealth.
Why the current 8-30g 10% calculation is RIGGED should be REFORMED:
Due to diverse real estate markets statewide, many of the 4 categories are not available to most towns to reach the 10% threshold and get relief from 8-30g. State and Federal subsidies are provided to the largest cities, and that is why they have 10% under 8-30g. Meanwhile other municipalities are vilified for not developing more affordable housing on their own while they are not provided the same vouchers and grants that cities receive and have very different market conditions.
- The 10% threshold onerous and hard to reach for most municipalities: only 31 of 169 municipalities have reached 10%, and of those only 13 of 169 have Government assisted housing (Column 1) over 10%.
- The state uses taxpayer dollars to fund AH development (Column 1) but most of that only goes to the largest cities, helping them hit their 10% under 8-30g. This public policy has concentrated poverty in the cities. Why not provide greater funding to other municipalities to develop affordable as well if you would like to see affordable development elsewhere?
- Housing vouchers – Tenant Rental Assistance (RAP) (Column 2) are mostly distributed by the state to the largest housing authorities in the cities and they impose rules that keep residents unable to move to other parts of the state by limiting the voucher portability. It’s time to centralize and reform the voucher program and waitlists so residents can live where they want.
- Residents of many towns cannot quality for CHFA (income and property value caps) & USDA (farmland) loans (Column 3) and deed restriction of properties (Column 4) is limited because deed restricted property values do not increase at the same rate as market value.
SUBMIT TESTIMONY
Please submit written testimony using the On-line Testimony Submission Form.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/aspx/CGATestimonySub/CGAtestimonysubmission.aspx?comm_code=PD Select from menu options: P&D Committee Public Hearing: 3/3/23, Support, HB 6394
Grant any municipal project intended to increase the density of housing within one-half mile of any transit station the same benefits as a distressed municipality regarding any funding or cost-sharing programs.
This increases the financial viability of municipal transit-oriented development projects by allowing equal access to funding and is truly collaborative between the municipalities and the state.
Many non-distressed municipalities receive little to no funding from the state, so providing funds directly to municipalities will ensure that more transit projects are developed.
CT169Strong IN THE NEWS
Regarding Joint Favorable Reports
— Alexis Harrison, Maria Weingarten, Tara Restieri, 4.22.2023 The “Joint Favorable Report” (JF) is a critical legislative document that is ideally a dispassionate, unbiased summary account of the oral and[…]
Read moreThe Lisa Wexler Show
Environmentalist Dan Lent Uncovers Alarming CT Sewage Legislation Season 2023, Ep. 4.12 Environmentalist Dan Lent goes over historical infrastructure issues already affecting CT’s water quality and the current proposed CT[…]
Read moreLetter To The Editor: ‘Work Live Ride’ Bill = ‘Build Big & Lease’
“The stated goal under the bill is to develop a ‘transit oriented community’ with a minimum housing density of 20 units per acre.” Alfred Branch, Patch Staff Dear Editor- Sitting[…]
Read moreAt the Crux of DesegregateCT’s Bill, A Zoning Czar
By Kimberly Fiorello Finally getting to the crux of the matter, at the core of DesegregateCT’s third try to pass a state law that would significantly impact how local voices[…]
Read more