Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 22a — ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION · Chapter 444 — Coastal Management
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-106 (2025)

Criteria and process for action on coastal site plans

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In addition to determining that the activity proposed in a coastal site plan satisfies other lawful criteria and conditions, a municipal board or commission reviewing a coastal site plan shall determine whether or not the potential adverse impacts of the proposed activity on both coastal resources and future water-dependent development activities are acceptable.

(b) In determining the acceptability of potential adverse impacts of the proposed activity described in the coastal site plan on both coastal resources and future water-dependent development opportunities a municipal board or commission shall: (1) Consider the characteristics of the site, including the location and condition of any of the coastal resources defined in section 22a-93; (2) consider the potential effects, both beneficial and adverse, of the proposed activity on coastal resources and future water-dependent development opportunities; and (3) follow all applicable goals and policies stated in section 22a-92 and identify conflicts between the proposed activity and any goal or policy.

(c) Any persons submitting a coastal site plan as defined in subsection (b) of section 22a-105 shall demonstrate that the adverse impacts of the proposed activity are acceptable and shall demonstrate that such activity is consistent with the goals and policies in section 22a-92.

(d) A municipal board or commission approving, modifying, conditioning or denying a coastal site plan on the basis of the criteria listed in subsection (b) of this section shall state in writing the findings and reasons for its action.

(e) In approving any activity proposed in a coastal site plan, the municipal board or commission shall make a written finding that the proposed activity with any conditions or modifications imposed by the board: (1) Is consistent with all applicable goals and policies in section 22a-92; (2) incorporates as conditions or modifications all reasonable measures which would mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed activity on both coastal resources and future water-dependent development activities.

(P.A. 79-535, S. 12, 25.)

Cited. 192 C. 353; 228 C. 187.

Subsec. (e):

Municipal board or commission is required to make written findings in approving coastal site plan but board's failure to state its reasons in writing is not fatal to board's decision because reviewing court must search the record for sufficiency of evidence supporting board's decision. 112 CA 239.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1994–2009 · leading case: DeBeradinis v. Zoning Comm'n, 635 A.2d 1220 (Conn. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DeBeradinis v. Zoning Comm'n, 635 A.2d 1220 (Conn. 1994). · cites it 10× “The commissioner argued that a remand was necessary as a result of the commission’s failure to make written findings as required by General Statutes § 22a-106.* * 3 The trial court retained jurisdiction over the matter, but ordered a remand “for the *191 limited purpose of…”
Hescock v. Zon. Bd. of App. of Town of Stonington, 962 A.2d 177 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 22a-106 (e) provides in relevant part that “[i]n approving any activity proposed in a coastal site plan, the municipal board or commission shall make a written finding that the proposed activity .”
Bishop v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 886 A.2d 470 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 4× “6 The corut reviewed the record and the *607 applicable Guilford zoning regulations, and determined that substantial evidence existed to support the commission’s decision to grant the application. Its determination included a thorough review of the defendant’s claims in light of…”
Dean v. Zoning Comm'n, 901 A.2d 681 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “4 The trial court then considered the merits of the commission’s finding that the plaintiffs’ applications should be denied because of their noncompliance with General Statutes § 22a-106 5 of the Coastal Management *565 Act.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.