Granny Pods: An Affordable Solution or Zoning Quandary?
Connecticut wants to make it easier for taxpayers to care for aging or impaired dependents at home by allowing small, freestanding structures (a.k.a. “granny…
October 19, 2017 at 03:29 PM
13 minute read
Connecticut wants to make it easier for taxpayers to care for aging or impaired dependents at home by allowing small, freestanding structures (a.k.a. “granny pods” or “MEDCottages”) on their properties; however, the new law grants municipalities the right to “opt-out” of this land use advancement, and many are doing just that.
Public Act 17-155
On July 6, 2017, the Connecticut legislature adopted Public Act 17-155: “An Act Concerning Temporary Healthcare Structures” (THS), which, as of October 1, 2017, authorizes a detached, accessory unit in a single-family zone as an as-of-right use. Unless a municipality formally opts-out of the law's requirements, qualifying structures cannot be denied by the municipality or prohibited by a zoning ordinance that otherwise regulates accessory structures and uses. Connecticut joins Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia in passing state legislation to permit THSs.
A THS is defined by the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research as “small, self-contained, prefabricated dwellings that are temporarily placed on residential property, allowing individuals living in the principal dwelling to care for the THS occupant.” THSs are used to help seniors and people with mental or physical disabilities delay or avoid entering long-term care facilities and cost significantly less.
According to the Connecticut Chapter of American Planning Association, “the statute was enacted to enable the introduction of a new type of housing unit which will be an important option for Connecticut's aging households seeking affordable, handicapped-accessible housing close to caretakers and/or family.” The CCAPA cites that Connecticut's fastest growing population over the next several decades will be 65 years old and greater and further opines that “most seniors want to stay in their homes…but face sudden and unexpected health problems” that require special care and attention.
The achievement of the new statute is that it provides an expedient process for permitting THSs on a property, thereby providing timely and cost-effective alternatives to nursing home care or in-home modifications, especially when that need is imminent. The statute embraces all dependents and extends this housing option to any mentally or physically impaired person, regardless of his/her need or age, creating a new opportunity for many families to keep their loved ones comfortable, close to home, and out of special-care institutions, for short or long-term periods.
Permitting a “Granny Pod” Pursuant to P.A. 17-155
The Qualifying Components:
A THS is allowed as an accessory use in any single-family residential zone on a property that is owned by a qualifying caregiver or by a qualifying occupant and is used as his or her residence. The structure itself must be of a non-permanent nature, meaning it is primarily assembled off-site, is 500 square feet or less, and has no permanent foundation. The location must comply with all setback requirements, coverage limitations, and maximum floor area ratio limitations that apply to accessory structures in the underlying zone as of October 1, 2017. It must further comply with the applicable State Building, Fire Safety, and Public Health Codes. Only one (1) THS is permitted per property and must be removed 120 days after the qualified occupant no longer occupies the structure or qualifies as impaired.
A qualifying occupant is defined as a mentally or physically impaired person requiring assistance with two or more daily living activities (i.e., eating/meal preparation, shopping, housekeeping, bill pay, bathing, dressing, grooming, bowel/bladder care, laundry, communication, self-administration of medication, ambulation, etc). The impairment must be documented in writing by a licensed Connecticut physician for review by the municipality.
A qualifying caregiver is an unpaid relative, legal guardian or health care agent responsible for the care of a mentally or physically impaired person. The statute does not require that the impaired person and caregiver are related by blood.
The Application and Approval Process:
Anyone seeking to install a THS must apply to the municipality for a permit. The applicant must give notice of the application by certified or registered mail to abutting property owners within three days of filing the application. No public hearing is required and the municipality must make a decision on the application within 15 days of submission. Most notably, if the structure complies with the requirements set forth in the statute, a municipality may not deny the application.
A municipality does retain some discretion in the review process under the statute. It may require that the structure be accessible to emergency vehicles, and be connected to private water or septic systems or water, sewer, and electric utilities that serve the primary residence. A municipality may further charge fees of up to $250 for initial permits; $100 for annual-permit renewals; and may require permittees to post a bond of up to $50,000. After approval, a municipality may revoke the permit for violations and make physical inspections of the structure at times convenient to the caregiver to ensure continued compliance.
The “Opt-Out” Provision
The statute includes verbiage allowing a municipality to opt-out of the requirement and replace the state law with a local regulation by a vote of the legislative body and the zoning (or P&Z) commission. The zoning commission must hold a public hearing on the proposed opt-out, state its reasons to support it on the record, and publish its decision within 15 days of the vote, prior to the vote of the legislative body.
After the adoption of the statute in July, several Connecticut municipalities began studying the impact of the statute and initiating the opt-out. This process may slow or stall installation of “granny-pods” throughout the state, but are initiating important conversations about the statute, the future of alternative housing and zoning solutions for this unique and growing need.
At the time of writing, the Towns of Roxbury and Ledyard have legally opted-out of the statute, while dozens more have and continue to schedule meetings and public hearings to review the statute with the intention to opt-out. Based on review of meeting minutes, municipalities agree that the statute is well-intentioned but have concerns which support the opt-out. Several municipalities presently authorize accessory residential units which would encompass THSs and find the statute is less restrictive, and therefore, less safe, then existing regulations. Some find that statutory timing for review of the application by different municipal departments (wetlands, DPW, or the traditional 30-day period for building department review) is at odds with the mandated fast-track 15-day approval requirement. Enforcement concerns also top the list of concerns with regard to the need for ongoing inspections and removal process. In addition, some find that that the statute's caregiver status and requirement to prove an occupant's medical need to the town may be beyond the traditional jurisdiction of a zoning enforcement officer.
Until formal opt-outs are finalized, municipalities are bound to oblige to the new law, creating a window of opportunity for many in the interim. If you are unsure about how the statute applies your area, please consider checking with your local town hall or call our firm for consultation.
Connecticut wants to make it easier for taxpayers to care for aging or impaired dependents at home by allowing small, freestanding structures (a.k.a. “granny pods” or “MEDCottages”) on their properties; however, the new law grants municipalities the right to “opt-out” of this land use advancement, and many are doing just that.
Public Act 17-155
On July 6, 2017, the Connecticut legislature adopted Public Act 17-155: “An Act Concerning Temporary Healthcare Structures” (THS), which, as of October 1, 2017, authorizes a detached, accessory unit in a single-family zone as an as-of-right use. Unless a municipality formally opts-out of the law's requirements, qualifying structures cannot be denied by the municipality or prohibited by a zoning ordinance that otherwise regulates accessory structures and uses. Connecticut joins Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and
A THS is defined by the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research as “small, self-contained, prefabricated dwellings that are temporarily placed on residential property, allowing individuals living in the principal dwelling to care for the THS occupant.” THSs are used to help seniors and people with mental or physical disabilities delay or avoid entering long-term care facilities and cost significantly less.
According to the Connecticut Chapter of American Planning Association, “the statute was enacted to enable the introduction of a new type of housing unit which will be an important option for Connecticut's aging households seeking affordable, handicapped-accessible housing close to caretakers and/or family.” The CCAPA cites that Connecticut's fastest growing population over the next several decades will be 65 years old and greater and further opines that “most seniors want to stay in their homes…but face sudden and unexpected health problems” that require special care and attention.
The achievement of the new statute is that it provides an expedient process for permitting THSs on a property, thereby providing timely and cost-effective alternatives to nursing home care or in-home modifications, especially when that need is imminent. The statute embraces all dependents and extends this housing option to any mentally or physically impaired person, regardless of his/her need or age, creating a new opportunity for many families to keep their loved ones comfortable, close to home, and out of special-care institutions, for short or long-term periods.
Permitting a “Granny Pod” Pursuant to P.A. 17-155
The Qualifying Components:
A THS is allowed as an accessory use in any single-family residential zone on a property that is owned by a qualifying caregiver or by a qualifying occupant and is used as his or her residence. The structure itself must be of a non-permanent nature, meaning it is primarily assembled off-site, is 500 square feet or less, and has no permanent foundation. The location must comply with all setback requirements, coverage limitations, and maximum floor area ratio limitations that apply to accessory structures in the underlying zone as of October 1, 2017. It must further comply with the applicable State Building, Fire Safety, and Public Health Codes. Only one (1) THS is permitted per property and must be removed 120 days after the qualified occupant no longer occupies the structure or qualifies as impaired.
A qualifying occupant is defined as a mentally or physically impaired person requiring assistance with two or more daily living activities (i.e., eating/meal preparation, shopping, housekeeping, bill pay, bathing, dressing, grooming, bowel/bladder care, laundry, communication, self-administration of medication, ambulation, etc). The impairment must be documented in writing by a licensed Connecticut physician for review by the municipality.
A qualifying caregiver is an unpaid relative, legal guardian or health care agent responsible for the care of a mentally or physically impaired person. The statute does not require that the impaired person and caregiver are related by blood.
The Application and Approval Process:
Anyone seeking to install a THS must apply to the municipality for a permit. The applicant must give notice of the application by certified or registered mail to abutting property owners within three days of filing the application. No public hearing is required and the municipality must make a decision on the application within 15 days of submission. Most notably, if the structure complies with the requirements set forth in the statute, a municipality may not deny the application.
A municipality does retain some discretion in the review process under the statute. It may require that the structure be accessible to emergency vehicles, and be connected to private water or septic systems or water, sewer, and electric utilities that serve the primary residence. A municipality may further charge fees of up to $250 for initial permits; $100 for annual-permit renewals; and may require permittees to post a bond of up to $50,000. After approval, a municipality may revoke the permit for violations and make physical inspections of the structure at times convenient to the caregiver to ensure continued compliance.
The “Opt-Out” Provision
The statute includes verbiage allowing a municipality to opt-out of the requirement and replace the state law with a local regulation by a vote of the legislative body and the zoning (or P&Z) commission. The zoning commission must hold a public hearing on the proposed opt-out, state its reasons to support it on the record, and publish its decision within 15 days of the vote, prior to the vote of the legislative body.
After the adoption of the statute in July, several Connecticut municipalities began studying the impact of the statute and initiating the opt-out. This process may slow or stall installation of “granny-pods” throughout the state, but are initiating important conversations about the statute, the future of alternative housing and zoning solutions for this unique and growing need.
At the time of writing, the Towns of Roxbury and Ledyard have legally opted-out of the statute, while dozens more have and continue to schedule meetings and public hearings to review the statute with the intention to opt-out. Based on review of meeting minutes, municipalities agree that the statute is well-intentioned but have concerns which support the opt-out. Several municipalities presently authorize accessory residential units which would encompass THSs and find the statute is less restrictive, and therefore, less safe, then existing regulations. Some find that statutory timing for review of the application by different municipal departments (wetlands, DPW, or the traditional 30-day period for building department review) is at odds with the mandated fast-track 15-day approval requirement. Enforcement concerns also top the list of concerns with regard to the need for ongoing inspections and removal process. In addition, some find that that the statute's caregiver status and requirement to prove an occupant's medical need to the town may be beyond the traditional jurisdiction of a zoning enforcement officer.
Until formal opt-outs are finalized, municipalities are bound to oblige to the new law, creating a window of opportunity for many in the interim. If you are unsure about how the statute applies your area, please consider checking with your local town hall or call our firm for consultation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWho Owns a Social Media Marketing Account? It's Pretty Simple, Really
Consumer Arbitration Clause Concerns: How Can We Ensure a Fair Process?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250