CCAPA Bill Testimony:

6937– AN ACT REGULATING SHORT TERM RENTALS

6749– AN ACT ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR FAIR AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH ZONING REGULATIONS

6562– AN ACT REQUIRING MUNICIPAL PLANS OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PROVISIONS

766 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXPIRATION OF CERTAIN LAND USE PERMITS  

CCAPA opposes this proposed bill, which would force municipalities to hold all zoning, subdivision, and environmental permits active on a property until all such permits have expired.

550– AN ACT CONCERNING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS

CCAPA supports this Proposed Bill. It is our understanding, based on Senator Needleman’s testimony, that the intent of this Bill is to move the State into a leadership position in unifying the scattered and disconnected Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data into a common format and database. This intent reflects core goal of the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association’s (CCAPA) “Start With Planning” initiative for moving Connecticut forward over the next decade.

7209 – AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE CONNECTICUT MUNICIPAL REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

CCAPA opposes this Raised Bill as currently drafted, and urges the Committee to amend the Bill. As currently drafted, municipalities with populations of more than 70,000 may opt in to the proposed Redevelopment Authority. Smaller municipalities are apparently automatically subject to the Authority upon applying for Tier III or Tier IV status, which are finance designations that are not directly connected
to the function or purpose of this Authority. We believe that municipalities of all sizes should have the option of joining the Authority and should not be required to join or be automatically made members by statute.

522AN ACT CONCERNING ALTERNATE MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS

CCAPA supports this Proposed Bill, as narrowly defined. CGS §8-19a refers to municipal planning commissions, and currently prohibits alternate members to be drawn from the membership of the municipal zoning commissions or zoning board of appeals. Opening up alternate membership, as this Bill proposes, to members of the local zoning board of appeals should not create much opportunity for conflict or predisposition on applications, as the jurisdiction of a zoning board of appeals and a planning commission are quite distinct. In communities where the potential volunteer commissioner/board member pool is small, this may help facilitate having a full roster of commissions.

5273 – AN ACT CONCERNING AS OF RIGHT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ZONES 

CCAPA supports the intention behind HB 5273 to expand the availability of housing near transit but asks for a more effective process to meet those goals.

5229AN ACT DEFINING ADVERTISING SIGN FOR THE PURPOSES OF MUNICIPAL ZONING REGULATIONS

CCAPA opposes this Proposed Bill. While we support revisions to CGS §8-2 to provide clarity to municipalities in the establishment of Zoning Regulations, the addition of a definition of “advertising signs” is not the right change.

6756 – AN ACT CONCERNING OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION IN CLUSTER 

CCAPA opposes this Proposed Bill. Title 8 of the Connecticut General Statutes provides broad latitude to municipalities in defining, determining, and prioritizing land set aside for “recreational, conservation, and agricultural purposes,” as well as for “open space, parks, and playgrounds” when land is subdivided within those communities. Just as the function of conservation or park lands may vary widely from town to city, the local need or priority for this land – as expressed in the municipal Plan of Conservation & Development – may also be quite wide-ranging. The Proposed Bill seeks to eliminate a municipality’s flexibility when it comes to how it calculates and incentivizes proposed open space in cluster developments (as defined in CGS §8-18).

5123 – AN ACT PROHIBITING THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES

CCAPA opposes this proposed legislation because it is unnecessary and would needlessly restrict the use of eminent domain even when such use would meet the valid “public use” test. Case law supports broad interpretation of “public use” to include development that serves the public benefit (including economic development).

Return to Top ▲Return to Top ▲