Connecticut Senate Bill SB00859

Connecticut 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/11
• Refer: 1/31/11
• Report Pass: 3/7/11
• Refer: 3/17/11
• Report Pass: 3/23/11
• Engrossed: 4/13/11
• Report Pass: 4/15/11
• Chaptered: 5/2/11
• Enrolled: 5/3/11
• Passed: 5/9/11

Caption

An Act Extending The Time Of Expiration Of Certain Land Use Permits.

Impact

The proposed changes in SB00859 reflect a significant adjustment in the state's regulatory framework regarding land development projects. By extending the validity of land use permits, the bill facilitates developers and firms in completing projects without losing their approvals prematurely. This amendment supports long-term planning and project execution amid changing economic conditions and uncertainties in funding. Moreover, local planning commissions are enabled to allow for multiple extensions when required, which is intended to mitigate the risks associated with developmental delays.

Summary

Senate Bill No. 859, known as An Act Extending The Time Of Expiration Of Certain Land Use Permits, seeks to modify the existing regulations regarding the duration of approvals for land use permits specifically aimed at site plans and subdivisions. The bill proposes extending the time limit for land use permits that had already been granted prior to July 1, 2011, essentially allowing for a more extended duration before the permits would expire. The new provisions state that such permits should now remain valid for a maximum of fourteen years, compared to the previous requirements concerning expiration periods that could have been shorter.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB00859 is favorable among real estate developers and construction firms, as they perceive the extended timelines as beneficial for project success. These stakeholders argue that the extensions provide needed flexibility in a often unpredictable regulatory and economic landscape. On the other hand, there may be concerns from local governance or community groups who might fear that prolonging the duration of permits could lead to projects being stalled for longer than necessary, potentially impacting local infrastructure and community needs.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding SB00859 may arise from discussions about local governance versus state control. While supporters are focused on the economic benefits and developmental ease, critics could argue that such extensions may dilute the authority of local regulatory bodies and diminish timely oversight on land use and environmental impacts. As projects might span over longer timelines, the legislative balance between economic development and community welfare must be carefully considered to ensure local needs and regulations are not overlooked.