I am constantly asked that question regarding recent, large, multi-family, residential and mixed-use developments appearing in Town. The answer is “Chapter 126a, section 8-30g of the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut,” hereinafter referred to as 8-30g, adopted in 1990. This statute regulates appeals from “affordable housing development” application denials.
[An affordable housing development is defined as one in which: a) certain financial assistance is provided, or b) no less than 30% of the developed units will be restricted for sale or rent for 40 years.]
Generally, when a land use application denial is appealed, the burden of proof (a showing that the denial is unwarranted) is upon the developer/applicant. The statue, shifts the burden of proof from the applicant to the municipality, and sets a high bar for denial justification. There must be a sufficient record of the decision outlining that the denial is substantially in the public interest, and that the interest significantly outweighs the need for affordable housing. The courts have been very strict in applying this standard. Existing zoning, traffic problems (unless historically documented), or aesthetics are not valid denial considerations. For example: a property zoned to permit a one family house on a half-acre could be developed under 8-30g with a ten-story apartment building with 40 dwelling units.
In 1926, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty, establishing zoning regulations as valid if they serve a clear public purpose. While case law regarding land use is vast, the basic tenet that the police powers afford municipalities the right to regulate land use remains well rooted. Ridgefield adopted its first zoning regulations in 1946. As three centuries of land development preceded this adoption, the regulations served to codify the Town’s existing growth patterns. Zoning regulations and district mapping are carefully developed founded upon well-documented planning principles and history idiosyncratic to each municipality. The 8-30g statute serves as a least common denominator, broad stroke resolution undermining that foundation.
This paper has recently reported the debate of whether or not Ridgefield is affordable. This debate is healthy; the need for affordable housing opportunities is generally accepted. However, as long as 8-30g remains the law, these arguments are moot. The law sets strict measuring standards. While well intentioned, 8-30g undermines the basic principal of home rule. Modification of the law itself is required. The focus of the debate should not be local. Repeal of, or revision to the existing law can only be made at the State house.
Recently, the Town submitted an application for a three-year moratorium for relief from 8-30g. While a moratorium, if approved, may provide a respite from aggressive development beyond that permitted by Town zoning regulations, the specter of overdevelopment remains.
Tim Dunphy is a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Ridgefield Democratic Town Committee, which supplies this column.