You wanted to know how coastal municipalities protect scenic waterfront views. You specifically wanted to know if Connecticut's Coastal Area Management Act requires them to protect these views. You also asked us to compare similar laws in other states with respect to scenic preservation and recommend how Connecticut could strengthen its law. This report addresses the first question; we will address the second question in a separate report.

SUMMARY

Connecticut's 41 coastal municipalities have adopted land use regulations to preserve scenic waterfront views. Under the state's Coastal Area Management Act (CAM), municipalities must determine if (1) proposed projects in state-designated coastal zones will have any adverse effects on scenic viewpoints and other coastal resources and (2) decide if the adverse effects are acceptable. The law (1) defines adverse effects and the criteria for determining what effects are acceptable and (2) allows municipalities to modify or deny project site plans if their effects are unacceptable. Developers can appeal to Superior Court, but must prove why the effects are acceptable. The law also exempts certain minor activities from the coastal site plan review process.

Most of the 19 coastal municipalities we surveyed have imposed scenic preservation requirements on coastal site plans even though the law does not impose any (Table 1). Eight of these municipalities impose similar goals and requirements in waterfront development or waterfront design zoning districts. Nine impose scenic preservation requirements on all waterfront properties and five impose them on projects town wide.

Table 1: Scenic Preservation Land Use Requirements in Select Coastal Area Municipalities*

* Source: www. ordinance. com

Several towns we surveyed must also impose scenic preservation requirements on proposed projects along the Connecticut and Niantic rivers. They and the other towns along these rivers must do so under laws that designated riverfront zones and established regional organizations to set minimum regulatory standards for them. Another law imposes similar requirements on 16 towns along the upper Connecticut River.

COASTAL SITE PLAN REVIEW

Applicability

CAM requires 41 cities, towns, and boroughs to review site plans of proposed projects in state-designated coastal areas to determine if they will have any potentially adverse effects on water-dependent uses and coastal resources, including the visual quality of "natural vistas and view points" (see Attachment 1). The requirement applies to any projects requiring zoning, subdivision, and resubdivision approval, and municipal projects requiring the local planning commission's comments (CGS § 22a-105 (a)).

Plan Content

Developers proposing projects in the coastal areas must submit a site plan that:

1. shows the location of coastal resources on and adjacent to the site;

2. describes the project, including its location, design characteristics, completion schedule, and construction method;

3. assesses the extent to which the coastal resources can accommodate the proposed use;

4. assesses whether the project is suitable for the site;

5. evaluates its potential benefits and adverse effects; and

6. describes how these effects will be mitigated (CGS § 22a-105 (c)).

Decision

The municipality may approve, modify, condition, or deny the plan, depending on whether the project's potential adverse effects are acceptable. The law defines these effects but lets the towns decide if they are acceptable. The project has an adverse effect on coastal resources if it

1. degrades water quality, existing circulation patterns, natural erosion patterns, natural or existing drainage patterns, visual quality, essential wildlife, finfish or shellfish habitat, tidal wetlands, beaches, dunes, rocky shorefronts, bluff, and escarpments and

2. increases the coastal flood hazard (CGS § 22a-93(15)).

A project has an adverse impact on future water-dependent uses if it includes:

1. locating a non-water-dependent use on a site with, or that is appropriate for, a water-dependent use and

2. siting a non-water-dependant use that would substantially reduce or inhibit public access to the water.

The municipality determines if an impact is acceptable by

1. considering the site's characteristics, including the location and condition of the coastal bluffs and escarpments, rocky shorefronts, beaches and dunes, tidal wetlands, and other specified coastal resources;

2. considering the project's potential benefits and the adverse effects it has on these resources and future water-dependent uses; and

3. applying CAM's statutory policies and goals and identifying any conflicts between them and the proposed project.

The developer, not the municipality, must prove that the project is consistent with these policies and that its potential adverse effects are acceptable (CGS § 22a-106(c)).

LOCAL LAND USE REGULATIONS PRESERVING SCENIC VIEWS

Methodology

We reviewed the zoning regulations of the 19 coastal municipalities with fewer than 50,000 people and found that all have incorporated the statutory coastal site plan review process in those regulations. We reviewed these municipalities because we assumed that they would have more undeveloped scenic views than the more densely populated ones. We conducted the review using www. ordinance. com, an internet source for municipal planning and zoning regulations.

Municipalities Adopting Additional Criteria for Reviewing Coastal Site Plans

The law lays out general, overarching policies and specific policies for developing and conserving land in coastal areas (CGS § 22a-92). When considered as a whole, the policies discourage uses that do not require a shoreline location (e. g. , a department store, as opposed to a marina) and require any development to minimize its impact on the shoreline environment (Tondro, Connecticut Land Use Regulation, (1992)). But they do not specify how towns must minimize the impact.

At a minimum, the statutes require municipalities to identify and reduce the adverse effects a proposed project has on scenic views and other aspects of the coastal environment. Over half of the municipalities we surveyed modified this statutory process by adopting more stringent standards than the statutes. They require coastal site plans to meet objective or subjective scenic preservation criteria designed to preserve scenic views.

Branford, the City of Groton, and the Town of Stonington require coastal site plans to meet objective criteria. Branford and Stonington impose height limits on buildings in coastal areas. Groton requires proposed new or expanded buildings to be at least 25 feet from the water (i. e. , waterfront setback) in the coastal areas, unless they are part of a marina or other water-dependent use. This requirement does not apply in the city's waterfront development zone, where different criteria apply.

New London, Old Saybrook, Westbrook, and Westport require developers to address scenic preservation without imposing setbacks or other objective standards. New London's design guidelines for projects in Waterfront Commercial and Industrial Zones include provisions governing the quality and extent of views from adjacent streets through the property to the water and how the proposed development would look when viewed from the water. Old Saybrook and Westbrook require site plans to show how the proposed development will preserve scenic views. Westport requires proposed water-dependent uses to provide scenic views or vista preservation easements, in addition to other amenities.

Guilford and Old Lyme apply building setback and height criteria. Guilford applies setbacks on buildings and height limits on fences, but also requires structures to be situated in such a way as to preserve public views of the water. Old Lyme requires structures to cover a specified portion of the land to be developed, but allows commissions to reduce the requirement if the result preserves scenic views.

Municipalities Imposing Scenic Preservation Requirements on Waterfront Development Zones or Districts

Six coastal municipalities have designated waterfront development districts or zones where proposed new developments must undergo statutory coastal site plan reviews and address the zone or district's scenic preservation requirements. The regulations governing these designated areas promote water-dependent uses while preserving scenic views.

Some of the municipalities impose objective scenic preservation criteria while others require commissions to consider a site plan's effect on scenic views. Waterford requires both. It limits building height and width and requires the planning and zoning commission to consider the quality and extent of scenic views from land and the water. East Lyme, New London, and Old Lyme impose maximum height, setback, and other objective criteria, but allow commissions to modify them if the result maintains or improves scenic views. East Lyme does not allow developers to subdivide property in a way that creates a lot behind the lot bordering the water.

The City of Groton and the Borough of Stonington emphasize scenic preservation in their development districts. Groton's district aims to enhance the Thames River's unique qualities by providing access to the waterfront and fostering and retaining water-dependent uses. It also seeks to preserve and create public views of the water from specified sites. The planning and zoning commission must evaluate site plans based on the extent to which they provide views of the water from adjacent public streets. Stonington's district seeks to preserve waterfront vistas while promoting water-dependent uses.

Municipalities Imposing Scenic Preservation Requirements in Waterfront Design Zones

The Borough of Stonington and the Town of Groton's design districts emphasize waterfront preservation. Stonington's district favors developments that protect, preserve, and enhance the borough's unique history and architecture. Groton's favors developments that protect and enhance the Mystic River's unique qualities while allowing different types of uses. Groton also aims to preserve and create public views of the water and maintain the riverbank's integrity.

Municipalities Imposing Scenic Preservation Type Requirements on Waterfront Properties

Seven towns impose setbacks, height limits, and other requirements on all proposed waterfront developments. East Lyme, the Town of Groton, and Stratford impose minimum setbacks from the water; Guilford imposes height limits on fences, walls, and hedges; and Old Lyme bans subdivisions that would reduce public access to the waterfront. Clinton's site plan review standards include maximizing scenic views to and from land.

The Borough of Stonington adopted regulations specifically to protect waterfront vistas. Besides imposing setback and landscaping requirements, it requires developers to provide or maintain view lanes. For example, developers must situate buildings in a way that maximizes views of the water from the nearest public street, and the end of east-west streets must provide a straight line uninterrupted view lane to the water (Attachment 2 is the borough's waterfront vista protection regulations. )

Municipalities Imposing Generic Scenic Preservation Requirements

Five towns require all site plans to address scenic preservation standards. Darien requires site plans to show how the project will preserve public views. East Haven requires plans to preserve natural attributes, including scenic views from the site and onto and over the site. Madison considers how site plans preserve scenic views. Old Lyme requires site plans to show how they will preserve the lot's natural assets and allows its planning and zoning commission to reduce certain zoning requirements in order to preserve those assets. Old Saybrook requires site plans to preserve environmentally sensitive land, scenic views, and historical and architecturally significant features.

RIVER CONSERVATION ZONES

Several towns we surveyed must also preserve scenic views in state designated riverfront zones along the lower Connecticut River and part of the Niantic River (Attachment 3). They must adopt land use regulations meeting minimum standards set by special regional commissions. Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, and six other non coastal towns belong to the Connecticut River Gateway Commission (CGS § 25-102d). East Lyme and Waterford belong to the Niantic River Gateway Commission (CGS § 25-109e).

Sixteen towns along the upper Connecticut River must also adopt regulations meeting minimum standards set by the Connecticut River Assembly and submit land use applications to it for review and comment (CGS § 25-102dd).

The commissions and the Assembly appear to have more influence over local land use decisions than the more common regional planning agencies and commissions. The Connecticut River Assembly's members must submit to the Assembly land use applications meeting specific statutory criteria for review and comment before they can hold public hearings on them or take final action if hearings are not required. Towns must read the commission's comments into the hearing or meeting record on an application. The commission acting on the application must approve it by a two-thirds vote if the Assembly's comments were negative (CGS § 25-102ff).

The Assembly and the gateway commissions must set minimum standards for regulating land uses within the zones. They must encourage towns to use setbacks, design criteria, and height limits, and regulate activities that could "detract from the natural or traditional riverway scene... . " Towns must revise their regulations and plans of conservation and development to meet the standards and submit them to the Assembly and commissions for approval (CGS §§ 25-102g, 25-u, 25-102gg, and 25-109g).

The Connecticut and Niantic River Assemblies (and the local conservation commissions of their respective towns) must also review applications for zoning variances, which allow developers to use land in a manner the zoning regulations explicitly prohibit or do not allow. Their towns' zoning boards of appeals (ZBAs) must submit the applications at least 10 days before holding the required hearing. They must also determine if the applications are consistent with river conservation zones' statutory purposes. They can appeal a ZBA's decision to Superior Court without having to prove that the decision aggrieved them (CGS §§ 25-102h and 25-109h).

JR: eh