Planning and Development Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-868
Title: AN ACT CONCERNING REGULATION OF COMMUNITY RESIDENCES.
Vote Date: 3/31/2021
Vote Action: JOINT FAVORABLE Substitute
PH Date: 2/19/2021
File No.: 532
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Planning and Development Committee
Sen. Tony Hwang
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill specifies that community residences (i.e., certain group homes for adults with
disabilities) do not include health care facilities that (1) are private and for-profit or (2) receive
no Department of Mental Health and Addition Services (DMHAS) funding. By law, zoning
regulations may not treat community residences differently than single family homes.
The bill defines health care facilities to include mental health, substance abuse treatment,
and other facilities that may require a Certificate of Need (CON), including their parent
companies and subsidiaries (see BACKGROUND). In doing so, the bill allows zoning
regulations to impose more restrictive requirements on these facilities than they impose on
community residences or single-family homes.
By law, any resident of a municipality in which a community or childcare residence is located
may petition, with the municipal legislative bodys approval, certain state agencies to revoke
the residences license (or funding, in the case of community residences) for not operating in
compliance with statutes or regulations.
The bill expands this authorization to cover entities that were initially established as a
community residence or child-care residential facility, provided the residents petition is based
on noncompliance with laws applicable at the time of the petition (e.g., entities established as
community residences that are health care facilities under the bill, but only if they are
noncompliant with relevant health care facility laws or regulations).
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
None from Agency or Administration
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Rep. Laura Devlin- Rep. Devlin argues that this legislation is necessary in order to combat a
growing number of for-profit companies that she argues are abusing loopholes in current
state statutes to apply for their residences in communities, all the while profiting from a type
of home that is temporary and not long term.
"What these large, for-profit companies are seeking to do is establish lavish and extremely
profitable residential living centers, under the guise of group homes. They are not homes
and they are not intended to provide long-term housing. In fact, the individuals privileged
enough to pay the $1,000+/day treatment at these facilities leave their homes, go to the
treatment facility for several weeks, and then return to their homes to hopefully go on to have
productive, substance free lives. To maintain their profits, these companies do not take
private insurance, will not be receiving any state funding through DMHAS, and will not accept
Medicaid patients. They do not cater to the needs of middle- or lower-class populations but
instead, anything above."
Collin Barron- A Fairfield resident, argues that medical and other for-profit and private
companies are coming into communities like Fairfield to apply as a community residence, but
then does not establish long-term residence. Mr. Barron says that the legislation clarifies
what a "community residence" is defined as in the state, and that DHMAS funding would lead
to needed oversight for these residences.
Linda Blackwell- Echoing the sentiments above, Ms. Blackwell adds that "Community
Residences are intended to house residents, which are individuals who intend to call the
location home. I feel strongly that there needs to be a designated period of time that is
considered a residency for good of all involved."
Richard & Kristine Boucher- "SB868 will clarify and reinforce that community residences
(group homes) are residential in purpose and not medical or commercial entities which is why
they are entitled to the protection of fair housing. The do not require a CON because that is
reserved only for facilities that are medical in nature"
Patrick Byrne- Says that commercial zones will disincentivize residents from wanting to
continue living in the neighborhood, and that people dont want to live near treatment centers
and commercials.
Arlene Carpenter & Gerard Pampalone- Argue that a loophole is being abused by private
companies, and that "These corporations misrepresent themselves to local municipalities (as
they have in Fairfield) and bypass zoning boards. These are not group homes at all. They are
medical treatment facilities with patients who have no vested interest in the community. There
is a need for such facilities just not in residential areas under the guise of Community
Residences."
Page 2 of 5 SB-868
Tracey Cirillo- Argues that "Clarification is imperative to prevent predatory developers and
corporations from using loopholes in vaguely defined state laws and zoning regulations to
establish for profit, short stay, high turnover, commercial medical facilities in residential
neighborhoods under the guise of group homes
Phyllis Collins- Regarding the medical companies in her community "It is most unlikely that
any of them would be considered residents of Fairfield. They would be transient."
Linda Cronin- Argues that this legislation is important in order to clarify misleading or not
properly written language regarding residential areas. "SB-868 requires a facility such as a
group HOME or community RESIDENCE to adhere to DHMAS funding regulations. It
would NOT require the group home or community residence to apply to the Office of
Health Strategy for a Certificate of Need, as they are residential in nature and NOT a medical
facility. However, the group home or community residence is required to offer Medicaid
which necessarily provides equal opportunity."
Richard Cummings- Argues that current language does not meet the original intent of the
statute 8-3E, which is that "group homes were meant to :
1) subject homes were staffed, operated and owned by local, community based, qualified not
for profit organizations,
2) for the service of, and benefit to, qualified mentally and physically disabled, and
3) for the purpose of providing permanent/ long term community housing."
Frances Cunningham- Argues that "The laws need to be clarified in many aspects of their
healthcare including but not limited to; monetary gains, misleading promises, misdiagnoses,
and over diagnosis."
Numerous Fairfield County residents sent in and signed a letter to the Planning and
Development committee that echoed the sentiments above, and emphasized the need for the
clarity that the legislation should bring to the term "community residences" in the state of
Connecticut:
Lance Delaney
Bridget diBonaventura
Elizabeth Garbutt
Michael Gentile
Anthony F Izzo
Gail Keegan
Sam Kingston
Cynthia S. Kinney
Thomas J Lanese
Pat Leschin
Dawn Llewellyn
Anita Marzell
Barbara Mayer
Katie Montgomery
Robert F. Moriarty
Page 3 of 5 SB-868
Daniel & Jodie Ortega
Theresa Paniccia
Jason Paul
Alissa, Anthony, Carl and Presley Pavano
Jennifer Schaefer
Lynn Spencer
Bob Tackman
Greg Taylor
Matt and Meghan Tetro
Debra and Carl Thane
Brian Farnen- Former Rep. Farnen argues " If we allow large for-profit corporations to exploit
the ambiguity in the statute, we weaken the law and put Group Homes at risk that rightfully
deserve these special protections."
Laetita Patino- Representing the Greenfield Hill Village Improvement Society Board, says
that allowing business facilities in residential neighborhoods "goes directly against preserving
the rural character of Greenfield Hill."
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Ben Shaiken- CT Community Non-Profit Alliance- Is concerned about certain sections of
the bill, arguing that "the bill as drafted would create the potential for local zoning boards to
broaden their restrictions on non-DMHAS-funded facilities. The language proposed by S.B.
868 would exclude any facility that receives no funding from the Department of Mental
Health and Addiction Services. We are concerned that, if passed as drafted, this language
creates a conflict with the current law, summarized above. A local zoning board could
interpret that change to allow for the regulation of all non-DMHAS-funded facilities, even
though those facilities are covered in subdivisions 1, 2 and 4 of Sec. a of Section 8-3e, and
that a court may misinterpret the proponents intention in the limited revision proposed by
S.B. 868 and rule such further exclusion lawful"
Also sharing a concern about the Certificate of Need process, stating " Second, we are
concerned about S.B. 868s reliance on the existing nonprofit exemption from the Certificate
of Need (CON) process. The bill proposes to exclude any facility required to obtain a CON,
regardless of whether or not one is granted by the Office of Health Strategy. Behavioral
health facilities are required to obtain a CON, but nonprofits that contract with the State to
deliver behavioral health services are exempt from the requirement. However, that exemption
is not guaranteed. In fact, as recently as 2016, a Governor-established taskforce evaluating
reforming the Certificate of Need process recommended eliminating the nonprofit exemption.
Such a change would exclude nonprofit facilities from the protections of Section 8-3e if S.B.
868 passes as drafted."
He also shares his last concern, that such legislation may be unconstitutional, stating " Third
and finally, we appreciate the intention of the proponents to protect creation of residential
facilities operated by nonprofits, as Sections 8-3e and 8-3f both also include various
restrictions on the number of Community Residences that a zoning board may not restrict.
However, we believe those siting restrictions and quotas are in violation of Article XXI of the
Page 4 of 5 SB-868
Connecticut State Constitution and the Federal Fair Housing Act. The legislature could
address these concerns by repealing the quotas in 8-3e and 8-3f, bringing state statutes into
compliance with state and federal law."
Reported by: Camilo Lemos Date: 4/22/2021
Page 5 of 5 SB-868


Statutes affected:
Raised Bill: 8-3e
PD Joint Favorable Substitute: 8-3e
File No. 532: 8-3e