Commission outlines pipeline of 8-30g applications and seeks moratorium strategy

3338756 · May 3, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commission staff said about 10 development applications filed under Connecticut’s 8-30g statute are pending, including mixed-use and residential options, and described a four-year moratorium in place with plans to pursue a second moratorium extension; staff urged using the pause to finalize housing and zoning plans.

On May 1 the Economic Development Commission reviewed a pipeline of housing projects proposed under Connecticut General Statutes Sec. 8-30g and discussed the town’s moratorium strategy and planning priorities.

Staff reported the town has about 10 applications in the pipeline that were filed before the moratorium. Examples discussed included a mixed-use proposal for the Circle Inn site at 441 Post Road and a 40-unit mixed-use project at 2179 Post Road; in several cases developers filed alternate plans—an 8-30g-compliant residential option alongside a mixed-use option—to preserve flexibility. Staff said some projects approved under 8-30g have not been built, and approvals can be used to re-sell sites or preserve options while the developer re-evaluates economics.

The presenter explained that the moratorium currently in effect is four years and described a goal of accumulating enough projects under construction or approved to qualify for a second moratorium extension (an additional five years) so the town could extend protections for zoning while updating plans. Staff said Planning & Zoning has been meeting frequently to handle backlog and hopes to use the moratorium window to refine the Plan of Conservation and Development and zoning regulation amendments.

Staff reiterated the statutory standard that 8-30g reviews must focus on public health or safety evidence and that commissioners have limited grounds to deny projects absent such a showing.