You asked us to (1) analyze the law requiring towns to replace parkland they take and convert to other purposes, (2) provide its legislative history, and (3) describe the types of issues and problems that generally arise when towns have to comply with it.

SUMMARY

Enacted in 1975, CGS § 7-131n requires towns to replace parks, open spaces, and lands used for recreation when they take them for other purposes. It requires towns to hold a public hearing before taking any such land. A 1977 provision requires towns to describe the replacement land at the public hearing. The statute's legislative history gives few clues about why the legislature believed that the state needed the law.

Most of the environmental organizations and municipal agencies we contacted reported that they had little or no experience with the statute. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) periodically receives calls about it, but officials can remember no examples of towns that had to replace lands under the statute. They have advised many towns about the procedure for converting land acquired with federal funds. Federal law specifies the process towns must follow if they want to convert parkland acquired with federal funds.

New Haven's Parks Commission is awaiting a response from the city's attorney about the degree to which replacement land has to be comparable to the taken land. The issue arose because the Board of Education needs a site containing tennis courts to relocate a road serving a new facility. The commission wants to know if the city's recent acquisition of a 10-acre parcel for passive recreation would satisfy the statute. The city acquired the parcel before the board proposed taking the parkland.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

PA 75-534

Summary. This act established the replacement requirement. It specifically required towns to replace any parcel that was purchased or dedicated for park, recreation, or open space if they take it for highways or other unspecified purposes. The requirement also applies to parcels towns intended to acquire for parks, recreation, or open space if they issued bonds to finance acquisition. Towns must replace parcels they take with ones of at least equal value and per unit area size.

The act required towns to hold a public hearing before taking the parcels. They must do so between 15 and 30 days after any other hearing the law requires them to hold on the taking. They must publish at least two notices about the hearing's time and place in a local newspaper—the first notice 10 to 15 days before the hearing and the second at least two days before the hearing. Each notice must describe the parcel the town intends to take, the intended use, and the reasons for taking this specific parcel.

Environment Committee Public Hearing. One person testified on the bill at the Environment Committee public hearing. Paula Elterick, a member of Governor Dempsey's Environmental Policy Committee, discussed problems regarding parklands in Trumbull, but did not explain how the bill would address them. She supported the bill, but recommended that it require an environmental impact study (Environment Committee Public Hearing, March 17, 1975, pp. 292-295).

House Debate. The House adopted the bill without amending it. The debate was brief, but touched on the bill's purpose. After Representative Serrani summarized the bill, Representative Villano described how the state and the City of New Haven took parkland and converted it to different uses:

Senate Debate. The Senate also adopted the bill after a brief debate. Senator Hansen summarized it, stating that its replacement requirement applied to state takings. Senator Amenta opposed the bill, arguing that the state should not force towns to replace land. “I think that we've got to allows the municipalities to make their own determination as to whether they want to replace it exactly as it was taken or whether they want something else” (Senate Proc., June 4, 1975, p. 3609).

PA 77-172

Summary. This act required towns to describe the land that will replace the land to be converted from parks, recreation, or open space to different uses. Towns must describe the replacement land in the public hearing notice and at the hearing.

Environment Committee Public Hearing. Representative Belden, the only person who testified on the bill, explained that it would “require that at the time of the public hearing that the proponents of taking of the land, which would be the municipality, or the state, whatever it may be, would have to designate what land was going to be used to replace the land that was taken from recreational or park use” (Environment Committee Public Hearing, February 22, 1977, p. 443).

House and Senate Action. Both chambers adopted the bill on consent (House Proc., April 22, 1977, p. 1939 and Senate Proc., May 4, 1977, p. 1604, respectively).

IMPLEMENTATION

Most of the environment and municipal organizations we contacted know about the law but had little or no information about the issues and problems towns face when they have to comply with it. DEP periodically gets calls from towns about the law's requirements, but these towns do not appear to follow through with taking the parkland and converting it to other uses. The replacement requirement may cause towns to find other types of land for conversion, DEP official Charles Reed speculated.

Reed noted that the law's replacement requirement mirrors a federal one that applies to open space land towns had acquired with federal funds. Most of the conversions DEP knows about involve this type of land.

New Haven's Parks Commission recently asked that city's attorney for an opinion about the extent to which the replacement land has to be comparable to the taken land. The commission requested the opinion because the Board of Education wants to take a site containing a tennis court to relocate a road to serve a new fieldhouse for Hillhouse High School.

The commission asked the city attorney if the site of a former quarry the city recently acquired would satisfy the replacement requirement. The city plans to use the site for passive recreational uses. It acquired the site before the board presented its proposal. The commission wants to know if the replacement parcel must be near the taken parcel and the degree to which the new use (i.e., passive recreation) must be comparable to the existing use (i.e., tennis courts).

The board's first inclination is to take parkland when it needs space for new schools, explained New Haven Parks commissioner Robert Schmalz. This may be due to the fact that the city has over 2,000 acres in park and open space land, which costs less to acquire and develop than developed land. Planning officials in Bridgeport and Hartford could recall no examples of having to replace parkland under the law.

JR:ro