Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RiverCOG committee reviews special‑session bills, flags housing and municipal impacts
Summary
RiverCOG staff reviewed a flurry of housing and municipal bills from the recent special legislative session — noting changes to ADU utility fees, municipal zoning enforcement, school bus electrification requirements and a number of housing proposals likely to return next year.
Susie Beckman, RiverCOG staff, summarized the special legislative session’s measures and told the Lower Connecticut River Valley Regional Planning Committee that several bills will have direct effects on town planning and municipal costs. "The key bills that passed during the legislative session were, public act 26‑68," Beckman said, adding it included budget adjustments and new income‑tax‑based credits tied to homestead exemptions.
Beckman said house bill 5288 (PA 26‑7) prevents municipalities or utilities from adding a separate, expensive new residential connection fee for accessory dwelling units, a change intended "to keep ADUs more affordable," she said. RiverCOG staff also highlighted a bill that strengthens municipal zoning enforcement (PA 26‑9), allowing towns to impose fines for repeated zoning noncompliance, and a larger bill (PA 26‑63) that includes DOT recommendations such as a 14‑day notice requirement before removing homeless encampments from DOT rights‑of‑way and school bus electrification timelines.
Sam Gold, RiverCOG staff, urged members to watch for measures that did not pass in the special session but are likely to return in the next long session, notably a proposal discussed by majority leaders that would have given housing growth plans priority over Plans of Conservation and Development (POCDs). "If there was a conflict, you would amend your POCD, or you would make the housing plan to be in conformity," Gold said, but he warned the rejected bill’s language could have reduced public review and the standard POCD process.
Committee members raised concerns about a proposed bill that would cap lot sizes and relax setbacks in certain circumstances. One member noted that blanket statewide lot‑size rules could be inappropriate for shoreline or lake communities that rely on larger lot standards for public‑safety and resource protection. "Lot sizes that are tiny, tiny, tiny, no setbacks, no this, no that — our towns would look very, very different if this should happen," the Chair said.
Beckman and staff also flagged bills that failed but are likely to be reintroduced, including measures related to accessory dwelling units, affordable housing on religious land, municipal legal‑notice publication changes and a statewide short‑term rental registry. Staff said RiverCOG will prepare materials to help local officials and residents contact legislators; Ray Fusco asked staff for a short “cheat sheet” members could use when reaching out to elected officials.
The committee did not take formal action on any of the state bills; the discussion focused on implications for local regulations, town budgets and recommended outreach to state legislators.
