The Planning & Zoning Commission is providing the Capitol Region Council on Governments a set

of comprehensive revisions to the zoning regulations for the City of Hartford. Such revisions
include: administrative and clerical changes; changes to procedures, application processes,
requirements, and commission review for certain types of projects and districts; and streamlining
and conformance of substantive sections in a variety of areas. This summary identifies and explains
most (if not all) of the revisions in detail. In general, the provisions were all adopted to promote
health, safety, and general welfare, to provide for a more orderly pattern of land development, and
to clarify incoherent or inconsistent language in the current regulations.

The proposed revisions primarily include administrative and clerical changes, such as:
! Reformatted the title page, table of contents, section titles, headers, and footers
! Identified and corrected incorrect or obsolete internal and external cross-references
! Made capitalized terms downstyle
! Ensured consistent and logical numbering
! Ensured consistent tabs, indentation, and outline structure
! Reorganized existing sections and language
! Removed duplicative language in various areas, such as application requirements and
requirements for parking lots, to streamline the regulations and ensure consistency
! Moved definitions from other sections into section 2 (the definitions section), and removing
definitions no longer used in the zoning ordinance
! Conformed and rendered accurate any references to the Connecticut general statutes

In addition, the amendments make the following changes, which may only be understood by reading
the current and modified language carefully:
! Explicitly stated that the commission serves as the inland wetlands agency. This change
clarified that the commission was appointed as such pursuant to the municipal code section
28-6. Section 1(e).
! Explicitly stated that the commission assumes all of the powers previously granted to the
design review board of the city, if any powers survived the dissolution of that board, which
became obsolete when the zoning authority reverted to the commission. This change
clarified the confusing (and dead-end) language in the municipal code in sections 2-296
through 2-299, which created the design review board but depend on cross-referenced
sections in the municipal code that no longer exist. Section 1(f). Related to the change in
Section 1(f), eliminated other references to the design review board. Various sections.
! Inserted definitions for the following words: applicant, automobile, automobile wash/self-
service, basic review set, bazaar, brew pub, building line, campus, carnival, child day care
center, day, director of the department of public works, district (several definitions),
driveway, eating places with drive-in or curb service, eating places without drive-in or curb
service, engineer/city, enhanced review set, festival, front yard, garage (several definitions),
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Summary of Proposed Revisions to Zoning Regulations
August 22, 2014
height of adjacent wall, impervious surface, inside storage, kennel, motor vehicle, outside
storage, package store, parking lot (several definitions), planning division, race, resubdivision,
roof sign/integral, section, stadium, tot lot, transportation management plan, used, and
utility. Such changes were required to ensure readability, clarify concepts, address new
concepts otherwise described herein, or otherwise advance the purposes of the zoning
regulations. Section 2.
! Modified definitions for: bakery, boardinghouse/rooming house/lodging house, club,
distance, district, drive-in establishment, floor area, grocery store, historic and monument
sites, lot area, lot coverage, motor vehicle wrecking yard, noise mitigation plan, rooming
house, rooming unit, security plan, zoning administrator, and zoning permit. Made other
minor modifications (e.g., adding an alternate term for the defined word itself, updated a
newly created or modified term, and/or changing style to downstyle) to various definitions.
Such changes were required to ensure readability, clarify concepts, address new concepts
otherwise described herein, or otherwise advance the purposes of the zoning regulations.
Section 2.
! Deleted definitions as shown, primarily because they were obsolete. (As noted above, some
words with definitions showing as new were actually just moved from other sections in
the zoning regulations.) Such changes were required to eliminate obsolete terms and
otherwise advance the purposes of the zoning regulations. Section 2.
! Presented regulatory construction rules stating that when provisions conflict internally, the
stricter shall govern; or when they conflict with the general statutes, the general statutes shall
govern. Such construction rules are needed to reduce confusion in enforcement in this
infrequently-updated document; for example, several state statutes had changed since the last
edits to these regulations, and it would be helpful to know that in such cases, the statute
would prevail. Section 3.
! Reduced references to one-digit and two-digit categories of the use table, such
categories being obsolete since there are no numbered categories in the use table. Section
6(b) and 6(c) and elsewhere.
! Inserted language to eliminate the amount of impervious surface in residential districts to
25%, absent a special permit, and placing criteria on the commissions review of such special
permit. This change aims to reduce the amount of impervious surface in residential districts,
which hinder adequate stormwater management, increase runoff, add to the heat island
effect, and are unsightly. Sections 9(c) and 182.
! Enshrined in these regulations a minimum width for porches of six feet. This change is
consistent with requirements imposed by other city commissions (such as the historic
properties commission) and is based on the commissions belief that six feet is the minimum
width for a usable porch. Section 12.
! Added language regarding curb cuts: providing maximum widths for residential uses, dealing
with corner properties and side property lines, stating that there should be no more than two
curb cuts with frontage 100 or less, stating the maximum number of curb cuts for three or
fewer dwelling units, stating a minimum distance between curb cuts, and stating that curb
cuts for anything other than 3 or fewer dwelling units be reviewed and approved by the
department of public works. The commission determined that guidance on curb cuts was a
priority to control the problems of too many curb cuts located to closely together, overly
wide curb cuts, and curb cuts that were not approved or reviewed by the department of
public works (whose review the commission views is essential to life safety and public
welfare). Section 25(b).
! Modified language on stormwater management to prioritize low-impact development
practices and natural control systems. These changes aim to put Hartford in line with best
practices on stormwater management throughout the country. Section 28.
! Modified the nonconforming use requirements to indicate that a nonconforming principal
use does not allow a new nonconforming accessory use; to conform the language with
language approved by Connecticut courts; to require buildings damaged by more than 40%
of replacement value to conform with the provisions of the regulations (other than bulk); to
better identify abandonment and state circumstances that might suggest abandonment; to
prohibit the continuation of a nonconforming use after six months of cessation if the
nonconforming relates to a liquor permit, the public interest in phasing out such uses being
so great; to add a requirement for property owners of certain properties in residential
districts to file for a certificate of nonconformance, and stating that failure to file such a
certificate successfully shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to abandon; and to delete
language inconsistent with the other purposes of the zoning regulations. One of the central
functions of a planning and zoning commission is to provide a reasonable plan for
development; these changes assist with those efforts by clarifying the commissions criteria
for finding abandonment and providing a certificate process through which the commission
may identify nonconforming uses. Section 40.
! Added a provision stating that reformatting the zoning regulations may be done by the
commission or staff. Section 41(e).
! Clarified that the amendments shall be effective 15 days after adoption. This made the
effective date consistent with state statutes; the previous statement of 10 days after adoption
was inconsistent with state statutes. Section 45.
! Clarified the role of the department of development services and zoning administrator as the
administrator and enforcer of the zoning regulations; allowed the planning commission to
name another party at the city who shall serve in the stead of the zoning administrator and
other named parties if the positions of the named parties somehow ceased to exist. This
change updated the regulations to reflect current practice, upon advice of staff. Section 66.
! Clarified and consolidated from elsewhere in the zoning regulations the powers of the
zoning enforcement officer. This change updated the regulations to reflect current practice,
upon advice of staff. Section 67.
! Streamlined application requirements, which were sprinkled throughout the document, in
one section, calling a basic set of plans a basic review set and an enhanced set of plans for
more complex project an enhanced review set; allowed for the commission or staff (if
delegated) to waive particular requirements as inapplicable or unnecessary, where
appropriate; made other minor changes to clarify application requirements. Section 68.
! Added a section regarding when an application may be deemed complete, at which point
statutory triggers for approval periods may commence. There was no language on this how
an application might be deemed complete in the existing regulations. Section 71.
! Clarified how applicants may amend issued permits and other approvals and made certain
delegations to staff. Section 72.
! Made consistent with state law timelines within which completed work must be completed
and streamlined different sections addressing this issue. This section was meant to put all of
the timelines for completed work in one place and update them to be consistent with current
state law. Section 73.
! Provided a process by which the director of licenses & inspections can meet with an
applicant to determine construction and inspection schedules, with the determination as to
when a project is major to go to the director of development services. Section 74.
! Clarified the manner in which the commission may exercise any powers pursuant to section
8-29 of the general statutes to plan streets. Most of this language is taken word for word
from the relevant statutory section; the criteria language was developed with input from the
City Council to ensure that the commissions powers and the Councils powers do not
overlap. Section 76.
! Moved from another section and clarified language regarding deviations from permits and
approvals upon inspection. Section 91.
! Added to those individuals who could be penalized under the regulations those who use or
request use of land in the P district. Such language clarifies that private parties using the P
district pursuant to the regulations are considered by the commission to be akin to lessees
and tenants authorized to be fined by state law, since in the P district, in the case of public
land, it would be impossible to fine the city for violations of the zoning ordinances
committed by a user of the city land. Section 93.
! Substituted director of the department of public works for city traffic engineer or
traffic engineer wherever those terms occurred. This change reflects the unfortunate
reality that the city traffic engineer position is sometimes vacant, and that the head of public
works should be able to identify another person to take on this role, or play this role herself.
Section 123 and elsewhere.
! Delineated more clearly the commissions procedures and decision-making criteria for
zoning permit, site plan, and special permit review by placing these items in separate
sections, providing criteria for decision-making, outlining a review process, and identifying
projects required to be reviewed by the commission (or delegated to staff) for each type of
review. Such information was not provided previously in the zoning regulations, or was only
minimally provided, raising the possibility of uneven enforcement and unclear rationales for
decision-making. Sections 146-172.
! Added the date January 1, 2006 to fill in what was essentially a blank. The commission
chose this date because that the adoption of the zoning regulations had initially occurred in
2005. Section 181(c).
! Updated the summary schedule of district requirements to match the text of the ordinance;
ensured that numbers meant to be footnotes were shown in superscript; and reflected
changes made during this round of edits, for example impervious surface and open space
requirements for certain residential zones; and corrected the notes in the section to include
concepts of impervious surface and outside storage (newly defined). The corrections and
updates were intended to reflect the text elsewhere in the document and to ensure
consistency; previously, a lack of consistency between this section and the text meant that a
member of the public would not understand which requirement would prevail. Section 182.
! Updated permitted lot coverage sections throughout the regulations to incorporate the
concepts of outside storage and impervious surface (newly defined). Various changes were
meant to ensure clarity with respect to how these concepts would be incorporated, zone by
zone. Section 206 and elsewhere.
! Added a subsection to set forth an additional purpose to the downtown development district
(B-1) to enhance and further the downtown development plan. This important plan,
relatively recently considered by the city, should be on commissioners minds when
considering development in the B-1 zone. Section 292.
! Raised the minimum floor area ratio in the downtown development district (B-1) from two
to three. This change was intended to promote higher density development in the
downtown zones. Section 294(b).
! Clarified existing language on the applicability of a special permit for projects in the B-2
district. The language here was confusingly written; we hope we have clarified it with this
language. Section 333.
! Clarified that, as the existing regulations state, projects in the RO-1 district that increase the
square footage of a structure by more than 10% shall require a special permit before
proceeding. This was buried in another section and more appropriate here. Section 442(a).
! Changed open space requirements in the R-4 zone to 2,500 SF per lot, added an open space
requirement in the R-5, R-6, and R-7 zones of 2,500 SF per lot, and added an open space
requirement for the R-8 zone of 5,000 SF per lot. This change ensures that zoning lots in
these lower-density residential districts have a certain amount of open space that is not
determined by units per lot but by overall lot size, ensuring greater consistency from lot to
lot within an existing zone. Section 613, 648, 678, 708, and 743.
! Declared physical infrastructure in the parks and parkettes of our city to be fundamental and
thus requiring commission review; providing a means by which a schedule of approved park
furniture and other physical infrastructure might be approved; and requiring coordination
with the department of public works. This provision is meant to ensure that changes to our
parks and parkettes, many of which are historic, receive some level of design and
compatibility review to ensure health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics in our most
public shared resources. Section 766(a).
! Declared that for the purposes of section 8-24 review, the commission deems a substantial
improvement to include furniture and other physical items proposed to be used in the park;
providing a means by which a schedule of approved park furniture and other physical items
might be approved; and requiring coordination with the department of public works. This
provision is meant to ensure that changes to our parks and parkettes, many of which are
historic, receive some level of design and compatibility review to ensure health, safety,
general welfare, and aesthetics in our most public shared resources. Section 766(b).
! Incorporated the definitions of motor vehicle and automobile to better distinguish between
vehicular uses addressed in the ordinance. Various sections.
! Reworded provisions on the IROD zone to correct grammatical errors and clarify existing
provisions. Sections 831-833 & 842.
! Put the key to tables in alphabetical order and clarified certain provisions; added cemeteries
in the P district to uses for which E could be identified (thus allowing an E to appear in
Section 854 for cemeteries in P districts). Section 853.
! Completed a comprehensive review for consistency and clarity of all of the uses in the use
table, including among other things: adding races; clarifying that carnivals, races, and
circuses were conditional uses; making athletic club entries consistent with the text; making
playground and tot lot entries consistent with the text; collapsing a variety of categories into
one entry; renaming categories to be consistent with updated zoning regulations; adding
provisions such as renting of rooms and providing of board to 2 or fewer boarders
(mentioned as an accessory use but never adopted in Section 854); adding temporary outside
storage; adding semifinished product assembly; streamlining education section, clothing
retail, furniture retail, office uses, etc.; updating the parking garage and parking lot
requirements to match the text; adding an entry (not populated) for parking lots for motor
vehicles that are not automobiles; documenting that medical marijuana uses were adopted in
the I-2 zone; among other clarifications and modifications. Section 854.
! Extended existing conditions on bazaars, festivals, carnivals, and circuses in the I-2 and P
districts to races; required a bond for such activities in the P district; required commission
review of such uses as an appropriate review of land; delegated commission authority to the
parks superintendent, provided that such superintendent follow certain criteria and provided
that notice to the commission may result in commission review; required the park
superintendent to submit quarterly reports. These changes are intended to safeguard and
protect the citys public parks, our most precious shared resource, from improper usage and
overusage and to manage risk from usage, such authority to condition land uses being
squarely within the purview of the commission. Section 884.
! Streamlined to reduce duplication the special permit criteria for gas stations. Section 895.
! Clarified that religious quarters are group dwellings. Section 902.
! Collapsed several sections on schools, which were highly duplicative except for minimum lot
area. Section 903.
! Provided dispersion language for grocery stores and convenience stores stating that they may
not be located within 1,500 feet of any other such store; provided special permit criteria for
full-service grocery stores to locate within this minimum radius if the commission finds there
to be a need and other criteria. This provision was meant to address a problem in Hartford
of many convenience stores opening up very close together, which puts a strain on
economic activity and encourages, in some places, criminal activity. Dispersing these uses
can assist with ensuring a more rational plan for development. Section 912.
! Expanded special permit requirements from eating places with drive-in or curb service to all
drive-in establishments; expanded the commissions special permit review of such uses to
the I-2 and C-1 zones; added criteria for the drive-in establishment, relating to proximity to a
residential district or use or other uses for which a drive-in establishment would be
detrimental, a dispersion provision of 300 feet, and a requirement that every entrance and
exist be approved by the director of public works; added criteria for decision-making. These
changes aim to ensure greater compatibility of drive-in establishments with neighborhoods,
to ensure pedestrian amenities, and to provide for appropriate uses and configurations of
property. Section 913.
! Stated that residential structures containing three or more units, in certain zones must
receive a special permit; stated that in the B-1 zone, residential structures containing four or
more units must receive a special permit. The purpose of this language is to ensure careful
review by the commission of uses in certain zones, where by virtue of their size would cause
an impact worth triggering such review. Section 937.
! Pulled language from elsewhere in the parking provisions to ensure that such language
applies to all lots. This change aims to improve consistency in the regulations. Section
941(13)-(16).
! Clarified that inoperable motor vehicles should not occupy off-street parking required by the
regulations, such motor vehicles being undesirable. Section 944.
! Added requirements relating to development standards for parking lots, including lighting
and low-impact stormwater retention practices. Section 951.
! Provided maximum parking space provisions, taken from a best practices manual, based on
uses. The aim of this maximum is to reduce unnecessary parking lot spaces, reduce heat
island effect, and reduce undesirable aesthetic impact of parking lots. Section 954.
! Outlined how park land may be used for occasional parking and loading; restricted parking
from any dripline of a tree and within 50 of a playground; restricted loading to only the
extent minimally required; and required a parking plan. The purpose of this provision is to
reduce impact of event parking and loading on the parks and to limit the use of private
automobiles on parkland (other than paved streets and driveways). Section 958.
! Addressed parking for motor vehicles that are not automobiles. Such parking uses are not
currently outlined in the zoning regulations, so this section provides some basic guidelines,
likely for further review. Section 961.
! Slightly (but not substantively) tweaked the language regarding RO-1 campus signage.
Section 1014.
! Required that the planting area already required for parking areas abutting a right of way be
five feet in both directions; added requirements for internal planting in parking areas; adding
a requirement that at least 5% of the interior of any parking lot be landscaped; required that
landscape strips already required in tiered parking be four feet in both directions; requiring
certain plantings to reduce extensive unbroken paved areas. These provisions, addressing
larger parking lots, are meant to advance beauty and environmental values, provide shade,
improve stormwater retention, and reduce the negative visual impact of surface parking lots.
Section 1015(b).
! Deleted many existing provisions, such as the restrictions on brewpubs in the B-1 zone and
certain customary accessory uses from Section 982, to facilitate the coherence and
consistency of these regulations, and to otherwise advance an orderly plan of development.

Finally, please note: A few provisions appear to be a change in the Compared version, but have
not actually been changed. For example, Section 25, regarding private streets, Section 68(c),
regarding soil erosion and control plans, and Sections 461-462, regarding RO-2 district uses, appear
in the Redlined document as having been changed, but the Commission did not change that
language. Similarly, Sections 297 and 299 dealing with procedures for projects in the B-1 zone are
essentially the same, with the application language moved up to Section 68 and the language in
Sections 297 and 299 modified accordingly. In other places, such as Section 300(c), Section 881, and
Section 911, the language has not changed, but the language was moved from another section or
reformatted in such a way that it looks changed to the computer.

Please be sure to review the changes against the Master copy if any are not specifically noted here.
For further questions, the contact is Sara Bronin, Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission:
sara.bronin@gmail.com or 646-228-7336.