On March 12, Connecticut’s legislative Real Estate and Insurance Committee advanced a proposed bill that would allow towns to deny 8-30g affordable housing proposals that they use “nonstandard, prefabricated or proprietary construction assemblies” if they “fail to provide a preliminary life safety report.”
The bill was co-sponsored by Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan (D-Bethel), who has been a vocal opponent of a five-story, 75-unit project that was proposed in the town of Bethel last fall. The project was proposed by Vessel Technologies, a New York-based developer that constructs its apartments using primarily prefabricated parts. While Vessel has asserted that its novel construction practices allow for lower costs, faster turnaround times and greater modularity, Allie-Brennan argued that it also brings novel safety concerns.
“This is not about stopping housing development,” said Allie-Brennan in a statement released earlier this week. “It’s about making sure that when new construction methods are used, municipalities and first responders have the information necessary to verify safety before projects move forward.”
Per the proposed bill, life safety reports would be prepared by licensed professionals or fire-safety engineers, and would “certify that the proposed design, including means of egress and fire-rated separations, is capable of compliance with the State Building Code and State Fire Safety Code without requiring a modification to the proposed design.” The bill was ultimately passed out of committee with a vote of 11-2, with only Senators Matt Lesser (D-Cromwell) and Martha Marx (D-Bozrah) voting against it.
Allie-Brennan raised the bill after receiving documents from the state’s Department of Administrative Services (DAS) following a FOIA request filed by his office. The documents contain code clarifications requested by building officials in Cheshire, Rocky Hill, Avon and Simsbury, and the responses provided to them by DAS officials. Common questions asked were whether various elements of Vessel’s designs complied with fire-safety regulations, whether open space between units were considered atriums or open-ended corridors, and issues regarding the units’ egress plans.
“After reviewing these documents, it became clear that our current process can allow serious life-safety questions to surface too late in the development timeline,” said Allie-Brennan. “Housing and safety should never be competing values. This bill ensures that when developers rely on unconventional construction systems, those systems are verified to meet our safety codes before approvals are granted.”
As all of Vessel’s Connecticut projects have been 8-30g compliant, meaning that 30% of the projects’ housing units have been deed-restricted as affordable, the proposed projects were able to side-step traditional zoning regulations. Per 8-30g, towns must approve these developments so long as they don’t pose a substantial risk to public health or safety. 8-30g’s stipulations did not stop some towns from trying, however; the zoning commissions of Bethel, Rocky Hill, Simsbury and Glastonbury all initially denied Vessel’s proposals, and all of which were sued in response. Rocky Hill negotiated a deal before trial, and Vessel and Simsbury reached a court-approved settlement. The courts ruled in favor of Vessel against Bethel and Glastonbury, allowing those projects to proceed as well.
Despite winning approvals for their proposals, the construction of several projects have since been stalled due to building and fire code compliance issues. Last week, it was reported that Cheshire has stopped construction on a five-story, 70-unit Vessel project due to code issues, and Vessel’s project in Simsbury was stopped two weeks ago for similar issues.
“The FOIA documents made it clear that when novel construction systems are proposed, safety questions can surface too late in the process,” said Kerry Wood (D-Rocky Hill), Co-Chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee. “This legislation helps ensure those issues are addressed earlier so communities like Rocky Hill aren’t left guessing.”
Testimony submitted for the bill showed differing levels of support among the state’s building and fire code officials. Both the state’s Fire Marshal Association (CFMA) and Building Officials Association (CBOA) testified in support, with the caveat that the bill more clearly defines what preliminary life safety reports are. CFMA said the reports should contain analyses that provide details such as construction type, load calculations, egress designs, fire-resistance ratings, and explanations regarding emergency responder access and firefighter water supplies.
“By requiring this level of documentation at the application stage, municipalities can ensure that innovative construction methods do not inadvertently create compliance gaps or delay projects later in the approval process,” wrote the CBOA. “We have observed, in a current ongoing vessel-based housing project, that initial plans prepared by an engineer required subsequent architectural review to address life safety compliance gaps. A clearly defined preliminary Life Safety Report requirement would help prevent similar situations by ensuring that code compliance is demonstrated at the outset.”
The Building Officials Association, however, questioned the feasibility of the proposal.
“At the zoning approval stage of a project, designs are developed for size, visual aesthetics and site configuration but designs related to life safety are not very detailed at this point,” wrote Randy Heckman, President of CBOA. “We are not sure how an applicant will be able to provide a robust life safety plan at this point in the development of a project.”
Despite this concern, Heckman said the CBOA, “would be happy to continue discussions to further refine this concept.”
Josh Levy, Vessel’s Executive Vice President, said the bill is “based on a flawed premise.”
“Prefabrication does not limit a building’s ability to be fully designed, engineered, and brought into compliance with current codes through the standard review process,” said Levy. “This proposal inserts an ambiguous and redundant step into an already well-established system. It is unclear who would conduct the analysis, what standards would govern it, or how developed a project would need to be to produce a meaningful report.”
Levy said it “would delay projects by months while duplicating work that is already performed during permitting, without improving safety outcomes.”
“This is an unnecessary process, not added protection,” said Levy.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
