Room at the Table: Increasing civic participation in local land use decision-making

Local decision-making has a long and cherished history in Connecticut. The quintessential American democratic concept of a “town hall” meeting comes from 17th century New England meeting halls, where local residents would debate consequential issues in the community. Today as it was back then, local participation can ensure that decisionmaking and policy is responsive to local desires and circumstances. 

The citizens who voluntarily serve on land use boards provide a valuable public service, weighing the benefits and impacts of land use proposals and shaping the immediate and long-term future of their towns and cities. Given this extremely consequential role, all local citizens should have a chance to serve on these bodies and contribute to local decision-making. Access to the local decision-making process is part of the democratic spirit and history of this practice.

Anecdotally, however, we know that it can be difficult for municipalities to fill seats on these all-volunteer boards, and broad citizen participation can be challenging for a number of reasons: the time commitment required of those who serve; evening meetings that conflict with childcare and work obligations; and general lack of awareness of how to get involved. A national survey of land-use decision makers published by the Urban Institute in 2023 noted that there is limited support for participation on land use boards, and that “the vast majority of positions are uncompensated, burdensome (requiring at least one day’s work per month to attend and prepare for meetings), and lack important supports such as child care.” Lydia Lo, Owen Nobel and Yonah Freemark, Who Makes Land Use Choices? How Women, People of Color, and Renters are Systematically Underrepresented on Land-Use Decisionmaking Bodies, Urban Institute, April 2023. Additionally, training is limited for board members, who may or may not have experience with land use and zoning regulations, policies, and best practices. Taken together, these challenges represent barriers to participation. They can lead to land use board memberships that skew towards people who face fewer of these barriers, resulting in land use decision making that does not necessarily reflect the full range of views and needs in local communities. 

Now, through the Centers for Housing Opportunity (CHO) in Fairfield County and Eastern Connecticut, the Housing Collective has gathered demographic data on the composition of land use boards in Fairfield County and New London County that confirms this. Findings reveal that 10% of land use decision-making seats in both counties are unfilled, 10% of land use decision makers are serving in expired terms, and decision makers as a whole are not demographically representative of the residents in their local communities or regions. CHO gathered this data through surveys in 2024. For more information on methodology, please see Appendix B.

In order to expand and better support broader civic participation in the land use decision-making process, local communities and organizations should consider how to make the process more accessible to a wider range of residents, starting by addressing some of the well-known challenges and barriers to entry noted above. 

How Are Land Use Decisions Made in Connecticut?

The state of Connecticut grants municipalities the authority to make land use decisions at the local level, via State Statute, §8-2. No municipality is obliged to establish a planning commission, and statutory authority granted to towns, cities and boroughs under this chapter for establishment of zoning commission is not conditioned on simultaneous exercise of powers granted under Chapter 126. 144 C. 117. Land use boards in municipalities across the state meet regularly, typically one or more times per month, to review and approve or deny applications related to how land can be used in a community. This includes Planning Commissions, Zoning Commissions, (combined) Planning & Zoning Commissions, and Zoning Boards of Appeals. Responsibilities of these boards include, but are not limited to:

• Planning Commissions: Planning Commissions are responsible for revising the town’s plan of conservation and development, and regulating the way individuals subdivide and develop land, which includes requirements for drainage; parks and open space; and streets, curbs and sidewalks. The planning function includes commenting on the location of proposed streets, parks, schools, public housing projects, and utilities.
• Zoning Commissions: Zoning Commissions are responsible for how people can use their land. The commissions establish categories of land uses (commercial, residential, or industrial uses, for example) and designate districts or zones where those uses are permitted. 
• Planning & Zoning Commissions: A combined Planning and Zoning Commission handles the responsibilities of both the planning and zoning commission, although it still enacts the functions of planning and zoning separately.  
• Zoning Boards of Appeals: Zoning Boards of Appeals are responsible for hearing and deciding appeals to the zoning code and special permits and exceptions from the zoning code. They are also responsible for granting variances (in other words, exceptions) from existing zoning regulations. 

Each of these boards are composed of community members who are elected or appointed to serve staggered terms of two to six years, with four-year terms the most common. For a list of elected and appointed boards in Fairfield and New London Counties, see Appendix A. For those who serve, the commitment is substantial. Board members attend one or more evening meetings a month that very often run late into the night, review technical application materials to prepare for these meetings, and often physically visit sites that are the subject of applications.

Who Makes Land Use Decisions in Fairfield and New London Counties?

Access to these land use boards is generally limited to community members who are engaged with or connected to the life of their local government and are able to make a substantial time commitment. This is not a new phenomenon. In 1937, Dr. Robert Walker surveyed 31 of the country's largest cities and found that 80% of land use board members “were drawn from what he called the ‘professional and technical’ class, including business owners, lawyers, architects, engineers and realtors.” Anderson, Brees & Reninger, A Study of American Zoning Board Composition and Public Attitudes Toward Zoning Issues, American Bar Association, 2008. While a broader group of residents may be engaged with schools, youth sports and other local activities, this produces a dynamic in which only a subset of a community’s population tends to serve on its land use boards. This bears out in the data, which reveals that in both Fairfield and New London Counties, land use board members are disproportionately male and are older and whiter than the populations of their local communities and their counties.

For example, according to the US Census’  2021 American Community Survey, the overall male population in Fairfield and New London Counties is 49% and 48%, respectively. But of those who serve on land use boards, 69% and 72% are men. Notable differences also exist with respect to race. In Fairfield and New London Counties, the overall population is 58% and 73% white, respectively. However, among those who serve on land use boards, the percentages are 92% and 97% white. The median age of those who serve on land use boards in Fairfield and New London Counties is 60 and 63 respectively, while the median age of residents in those counties is 40 and 41. 

Further, homeowners are overrepresented on these boards compared to the overall resident population. In Fairfield and New London Counties, 90% and 92% of those who serve on land use boards are homeowners, respectively, while homeowners represent 67% and 68% of the population in these counties. In other words, only 10% and 8% respectively of those community members who are in land use decision making positions are renters.

Source: Centers for Housing Opportunity survey; US Census - American Community Survey, 2021

These findings are consistent with the Urban Institute’s 2023 study, which found that in the Northeast region of the United States, 73% of land use board members were men and 91% of members were white.

Paths to Participation: Appointment and Election

Of the 52 boards surveyed in Fairfield County, 35 boards consist of elected members and 17 consist of appointed members. Of the 53 boards surveyed in New London County, 28 boards consist of elected members and 25 boards consist of appointed members. For a list of boards and commissions surveyed by town, see Appendix C. Together, these boards have 879 seats, including members and alternates. Alternate board members vote only when a seated member is absent. As previously noted, approximately 10% of seats on these boards in both Fairfield and New London Counties are currently vacant and an additional 10% of current members are serving on expired terms.

Source: Centers for Housing Opportunity survey

The process of joining local land use decision-making boards varies depending upon if boards are appointed or elected. In communities where boards are appointed, participation is typically solicited through posting of opportunities to serve on municipal websites, newsletters, or other public communications, and also by word of mouth. Generally, those who seek to be considered for an opening go through an application process and are considered for appointment and then appointed by the chief elected official or governing body (eg, city/town council, board of alders, representative town meeting, etc.). One consideration is the “minority representation rule,” which requires most municipalities in Connecticut to ensure that one political party does not have all seats on a board or commission.  As a result, at least one seat must be filled by a member of the opposing political party.

In communities where land use boards are elected, individuals are elected through the democratic process, whereby community members vote for these individuals in an open election. Connecting with local political party leadership and expressing interest is generally the first step in order to appear on the ballot. The candidate must be endorsed through a formal political party process to be included as a candidate on the election ballot for the next election. Unaffiliated candidates- those who do not affiliate with either major political party- may be able to fill a spot on a political party’s ballot if that party is willing to work with the candidate.

Recommendations

Data from Fairfield and New London Counties demonstrates civic participation in local land use decision-making has room to grow. There is room for more people to serve, so land use boards can operate at full capacity. There is room for a greater diversity of people to serve, so land use boards can more closely resemble the communities they serve and benefit from the variety of opinion this would provide. And there is room for more education and training for land use board members who come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and who may not be deeply familiar with land use planning and zoning and/or related regulatory frameworks and technical skills.

Anecdotal evidence demonstrates that it can be difficult for communities to recruit new members, difficult for members to sustain their participation, and difficult to ensure that members receive the education and training they need. Communities can respond by making it easier to recruit new members, easier for members to participate on boards, and easier to access and participate in training. As a result, the local land use decision-making process can become more democratic in alignment with its stated purpose, and ensure local decisions are well-informed and responsive to the needs and desires of all residents. 

The following recommendations, if implemented, could help increase and support participation and well-informed decision making on local land use boards.

Increasing Participation 

Expand Awareness on How to Become a Board Member 

Municipalities and/or relevant government and non-government organizations should create a simple, clear pamphlet on ‘How to Join a Land Use Board,’ post it online for easy access, and distribute it to the general public as a first step in raising awareness. Even the most basic online resource can help shift public perception and help more residents understand they can play a role in decision making.

Municipalities can also take steps to encourage greater participation on land use boards by more residents by advertising open positions on websites and social media pages and having a system for regularly updating their list of available positions. Other opportunities to consider include partnering with libraries and/or community organizations to host information sessions on becoming involved.

Draft a “Role Description” 

Municipalities should consider drafting clear, simple, yet comprehensive descriptions of the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of land use board members, and make these descriptions broadly available. This “role description” would outline the position requirements - e.g., evening meeting frequency and duration, training requirements, availability of virtual meeting participation, etc. This will help to ensure that those who aspire to membership clearly understand the required responsibilities and commitment.

Outreach to Underrepresented Groups 

Municipalities should take steps to proactively engage people who are underrepresented on land use boards, especially renters. 

Supporting Participation

Ensure Effective Meetings

Municipalities should consider auditing their land use board meetings to identify opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Such an audit could include a review of meeting minutes and/or recordings to identify opportunities to improve facilitation and/or items/situations where administrative review could potentially be introduced. The intended result of such an audit would be recommendations for enhancing meeting facilitation, streamlining application review procedures and other related strategies, which would improve meeting efficiency and effectiveness for board members, applicants, and the general public.

Provide Childcare 

Providing childcare during meetings would make board membership more accessible to parents.

Expand Hybrid Meetings to Increase Accessibility

Providing the option to participate remotely would reduce barriers to participation, allowing board members to attend from any location and more easily manage other responsibilities that may conflict with meetings. Additionally, hybrid meetings and sharing recordings of meetings are also opportunities to provide greater public access to meetings, deliberations, and decision making. 

Consider Providing Stipends

Participation on a land use board often requires the time and expertise of a part-time job. For those who are working, those working more than one job, those who would have to pay for childcare, those who lack transportation options, and those facing other economic barriers to participation, a stipend could make the difference between participating or not. Offering a stipend can expand the universe of residents who can sit on land use boards.

Providing Education & Training

Land use education equips board members with the knowledge, skills and tools necessary to make well-informed decisions that align with community objectives and legal frameworks. With a clear understanding of board member roles and responsibilities, land use, zoning and housing laws, planning principles, environmental consequences, and public engagement methodologies, board members can more effectively assess development proposals, resolve conflicts, and promote sustainable growth. This also mitigates legal risks by ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and comprehensive plans. Ultimately, land use education empowers land use board members to serve more effectively, fostering transparent and well-informed governance within communities. Specifically, local communities should consider the following:

Complete Required Training in Year One

In Connecticut, land use board members are required to participate in four hours of training every four years. Communities should ensure that all newly elected or appointed land use board members complete the required four hours of training within their first year of service.

Promote Continued Land Use Education

The required training should be considered a minimum, not a maximum, and communities should encourage and incentivize land use board members to not only participate in training to meet the stated requirement, but to approach education and training as an integral part of their participation on their local land use board.

Monitor for Additional Training Opportunities 

Communities should consider monitoring for and informing their land use board members of relevant available training opportunities.

Pay for Additional Training & Incidentals

Communities should consider paying for the cost of training and related incidentals (such as childcare and parking), and potentially providing compensation for the time commitment required to participate in trainings.

Provide Meeting Facilitation Training for Land Use Board Chairs

Communities should consider providing facilitation training to land use board chairs to ensure meetings are effective.

Conclusion

The democratic process is the foundation of American civic life. Making sure that, to the greatest extent possible, all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate is essential to our democracy.

To ensure that more residents have the opportunity to participate on their local land use boards, relevant stakeholders should work to address existing challenges to participation. This includes increasing public awareness about land use boards and vacancies, clarifying election and appointment processes, and proactively expanding access to more residents. 

Additionally, municipalities should provide support and resources, like efficiency audits, role outlines, childcare, hybrid meeting options, and training opportunities on land use and zoning issues to those who volunteer their time serving on these boards to ensure that the land use boards are representative of the communities and regions they serve and that members have the information they need to make well informed decisions.

Appendices

Appendix A: Elected and Appointed Land Use Boards

Appendix B: Data Collection Methodology

This report includes an analysis of the demographic composition of Planning Commissions, Zoning Commissions, Planning & Zoning Commissions, and Zoning Boards of Appeal in Fairfield County and New London County, collectively referred to herein as “land use boards.”

How we identified the demographic composition of land use boards

Our approach was to send a survey to every municipality in Fairfield and New London Counties, requesting the following information for each board (Planning & Zoning Commission, or Planning Commission and Zoning Commission; and Zoning Board of Appeals) and each member member and alternate member serving on the land use boards-

Fairfield County

Board information requested-

• Elected or appointed
• Seats filled
• Seats vacant

Board member information requested-

• First/last name of the commissioner
• Commissioner’s position on board
• Commissioner’s gender
• Commissioner’s age/age range
• Commissioner’s race/ethnicity (multiple choice)
• Commissioner’s profession
• When commissioner’s current term began
• When commissioner’s current term will end
• Has the commissioner's term expired but they continue to serve? (multiple choice)
• Does the commissioner own or rent their home? (multiple choice)

New London County

Member Self Survey-

• First/Last Name
• Town or Village serving
• Year began serving
• Race and Gender
• Ethnicity
• Whether Own or Rent
• Profession
• Email

Direct Outreach to Town Clerks-

• Confirm number of seats
• Confirm vacancies
• Confirm, where possible, members serving on expired terms

In Fairfield County, surveys were sent to all municipalities via email with Housing Collective staff reaching out directly to staff in each municipality to encourage participation. Follow up emails were sent out three weeks after the initial survey distribution to encourage participation.  43% of municipalities in Fairfield County completed the survey. 

In New London County, surveys were sent to decision makers and to town planners for distribution to and self reporting by commissioners. 55 respondents in New London County self reported demographic information.  Follow up telephone calls and emails were sent during a two month period to gather additional information.  

Housing Collective staff filled in survey data gaps in both counties through public database research. Resources utilized included municipal webpages and town charters, CT Secretary of State website, voterrecords.com, municipal property records, LinkedIn, Facebook, board and commission meeting recordings, and name searches. Telephone conversations with municipal staff were also conducted to confirm survey data. 

Appendix C: Land Use Boards Surveryed