Killingly briefed on Public Act 251 and warned to adopt objective standards before July review changes take effect

A town presenter gave council members a detailed briefing on Public Act 251, the new state housing law that will change how Killingly regulates housing. The presenter said the law requires towns in the 15,000–25,000 population bracket to establish or join a fair‑rent commission, relaxes neighborhood petition protest rules, bars municipal caps on total units, and significantly curtails local discretion for certain residential approvals beginning July 1.

The presenter explained the law’s so‑called “middle housing” mandate: residential buildings of two to nine units must be permitted by summary review on any lot zoned commercial or mixed‑use, meaning approvals can be handled administratively if the application meets objective standards. “Because of this lack of discretionary review, it is highly recommended that we adopt specific objective design criteria … before July 1 to control development style and ensure these buildings fit into Killingly’s community character,” the presenter told the council.

Officials were also warned the statute will restrict municipalities’ ability to deny residential projects solely for lack of off‑street parking, unless a town can document an unmitigated threat to public health or safety. The presenter said the law does still allow parcel‑level controls — setbacks, lot coverage and other formulaic metrics — but removes broad numerical caps on dwelling units.

The town was told it must establish or join a fair‑rent commission; the presenter described the commission’s powers under state law as including receiving and investigating complaints, conducting hearings and potentially setting rents the commission deems fair. The presenter and councilors expressed concern about the broad authority a fair‑rent board could exercise and recommended counsel review on commission bylaws and statutory limits.

The presenter urged the council and planning and zoning commission to act quickly to adopt objective architectural and landscaping standards that can be enforced under summary review. He identified optional tools in the law — conservation or traffic‑mitigation overlay districts and voluntary priority housing development zones — that can be used selectively to protect downtown character while qualifying the town for state incentives, including potential school construction reimbursements and infrastructure grants.

Council members asked how the town should choose between joining a regional plan through the council of governments (COG) or preparing an in‑house plan. The presenter said opting into a regional plan would bring state‑funded technical support from the COG, while opting out would preserve maximum local control but create an unfunded mandate for town staff time.

The presenter framed the calendar: draft objective design standards should be prepared and adopted in the spring to meet the July 1 summary‑review change; a housing growth plan must be submitted to the state by June 1, 2028. The council directed staff to work with the planning commission, the town attorney and the COG to develop proposed objective standards and a recommended path for the housing growth plan.