You asked if any Connecticut towns annually cap the proportion of land or the number of housing units that can be developed. You also asked for copies of articles and reports on development caps.

Few, if any, Connecticut towns impose annual caps on the percent of land or the number of housing units that can be developed. While Stonington’s zoning regulations put an annual cap on the number of building and zoning permits the town can issue, the town does not enforce it on the advice of its counsel, town planner Jason Vincent stated. Attachment 1 is Stonington’s regulation (§ 7. 8 Residential Use Growth Management).

The state law granting towns zoning powers does not explicitly authorize them to impose development caps. For this reason, Stonington’s counsel warned the town that imposing the cap could trigger lawsuits. Without state authorization, the town would have to prove that it needed the cap to achieve the law’s land use goals. In 2000, the Maine Supreme Court upheld a town’s ordinance imposing annual building permit caps, finding that the state’s planning law tacitly authorized them as a legitimate way to manage growth. Attachment 2 discusses the case (OLR Report 2004-R-0270).

Stonington was the only town that replied to our question about growth controls, which we posed to town planners through the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association’s list serve. Most planners probably believe that towns cannot impose caps because the law does not explicitly authorize them, opines planning consultant Glenn Chalder. The Homebuilder’s Association of Connecticut stated that it knows of no town that annually caps or limits new development.

Towns may control or restrict growth in other ways. Zoning regulations control growth by delineating the areas where developers can build homes, stores, factories, and other uses. They also control the degree to which developers can develop land for these uses. For example, the regulations may allow single-family homes on quarter-acre lots (a low density use) in some areas and apartment houses and condominiums (a higher density use) in others.

Some towns exercise tighter control over certain types of development without putting caps on them. For example, East Granby limits the number of multifamily units to no more than 33% of the town’s total housing stock, Chalder explained. This approach limits the growth of multifamily units by tying it to the growth of all units. Monroe ties the growth of condominiums, cluster housing, and elderly apartments to the growth of its grand list. Enfield limited the number of bedrooms in multifamily developments based on the extent to which the roads, schools, and other public infrastructure can support the growth.

Attachments 3-5 are articles discussing development caps and other growth controls.

JR: ro