A bill recently passed by the Senate would clarify an existing law that allows municipalities to develop land designated for public parks or open space by replacing it with property of a similar size and value. Legal decisions have stopped the law from being implemented as written.
Currently, when municipalities take land designated as a public park or open space, such as for development, they have to replace that land with open space of a similar size or value. However, several state Superior Court rulings have narrowed the law, ruling that it only applies when it takes land owned by another person and not to land the municipality already owns or acquires.
The bill passed by the Senate on April 17 would clarify that the requirement to replace open space or park land also applies to land the municipality owns or acquires.
Though the bill passed by a vote of 31-5, it was met with numerous questions and concerns, including concerns that a municipality’s ability to “take” land touched on or expanded eminent domain powers.
Sen. Stephen Harding, R-Bethlehem, said that he opposed the bill in committee over concern that language in the bill relating to a municipality’s ability to “take” land referenced eminent domain powers. Harding asked for clarification for the record that was not the case.
Sen. Rick Lopes, D-New Britain, stated that this was not the case and the bill has nothing to do with eminent domain.
Harding said that, with that on the record, he supported the measure. He further asked if there are any current parameters in place relating to open space in municipalities.
Lopes said that while it is current law that municipalities are supposed to replace land, court challenges have removed it and municipalities currently don’t have to comply, even though it is current law.
Asked about what specifically in the bill fixes the current law, Lopes pointed to language that was improperly drafted. The law as it currently stands states municipalities must replace public park or open space land only when it is taken. The new bill would add language specifying this also applies to any land a municipality possesses and which it converts or repurposes.
The law also requires that, prior to converting land, a municipality hold a public hearing in which it describes the proposed use of the land, the reason it is being repurposed, and plans to replace the land.
Harding also asked if the bill had the support of municipal organizations.
Lopes noted that the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities had testified against the bill but that in conversations he’d since had they had not raised any objections.
Sens. Paul Cicarella, R-Durham, and Henri Martin, R-Bristol, also rose to ask questions about the bill. Cicarelli asked what a municipality would have to do if needed to repurpose space but didn’t have an adequate amount of space to substitute, or if it didn’t have the money to purchase space.
Lopes said that situation would be an “impediment” to a town’s ability to proceed with the project.
Martin asked several questions about the process by which a request would move forward, deed restrictions on land and whether municipalities would be required to reconstruct any facilities on park land that was being repurposed.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
