CT historic preservation reforms appear to ease development concerns, but test may still lie ahead
CT historic preservation reforms appear to ease development concerns, but test may still lie ahead # CT historic preservation reforms appear to ease development concerns, but test may still lie ahead State Rep.
hartfordbusiness.com · David Krechevsky · September 8, 2026
CT historic preservation reforms appear to ease development concerns, but test may still lie ahead
# CT historic preservation reforms appear to ease development concerns, but test may still lie ahead
State Rep. Stephen Meskers co-chaired a working group tasked with recommending changes to the State Historic Preservation Office’s historic property redevelopment review process. PHOTO CONTRIBUTED
By David Krechevsky
September 8, 2026
Almost two years after Connecticut lawmakers imposed new deadlines and other reforms on a historic-preservation review process that developers and municipal officials complained could delay projects and drive up costs, early results suggest the revamped system is operating with few disputes.
The State Historic Preservation Office reviews certain projects involving state funding, permits or other state actions to determine whether they could harm historic buildings, archaeological sites or other cultural resources. Developers had argued that uncertainty surrounding those reviews could hold up financing, approvals and construction.
In response to those concerns, lawmakers in 2024 amended the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, which requires state agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of certain state-funded or state-approved projects. The changes gave SHPO 30 days to make an initial determination about whether a project could significantly affect historic resources and established procedures for developing mitigation plans and resolving disputes.
SHPO has completed all initial reviews subject to the revised process within the required 30-day window, averaging 14.8 days, according to a state Department of Economic and Community Development report submitted to lawmakers earlier this year.
From Oct. 1, 2024, when the new requirements took effect, through the report’s completion, SHPO reviewed 3,570 projects. Of those, 324 underwent review under the revised CEPA process.
Ten of the 324 projects, or about 3%, initially received an adverse-effect determination or included elements that could adversely affect historic properties.
Six were subsequently revised so they no longer posed an adverse effect, while the remaining four were resolved through mitigation measures such as documenting historic properties or providing interpretive materials, according to the report.
No applicants formally objected to the mitigation measures or sought further review.
Jonathan Kinney, the state’s historic preservation officer, said no applicant has invoked the law’s provision allowing disputes over mitigation to be elevated to the DECD commissioner.
The reforms grew out of a legislative working group formed in 2023 after an earlier proposal would have created an appeals process for SHPO decisions. The group ultimately recommended changes intended to provide greater clarity and predictability while preserving SHPO’s role in protecting historic resources.
Kinney said one of the law’s biggest benefits was putting a process that previously wasn’t spelled out in state statute into writing, giving applicants greater predictability about what to expect.
“I think primarily the issue, as I saw it, was that our process was an unknown,” Kinney said. “It was sort of a gray area for applicants.”
## Turnaround times
Municipal officials also appear satisfied with the changes.
Randy Collins, public policy and advocacy associate director for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said CCM hasn’t heard complaints from its members about SHPO since the reforms took effect.
“I would say not hearing is the best,” Collins said, noting that mayors and first selectmen tend to contact CCM when problems arise. “When we don’t hear, that kind of is the indication of, ‘OK, it’s working.’”
The 14.8-day average, however, doesn’t necessarily mean the legislation has shortened review times.
Kinney said SHPO doesn’t have comparable historical data and has no reason to believe the current average is significantly different from before the reforms. Even before the law established a formal deadline, SHPO generally sought to respond within 30 days, he said.
SHPO also launched an online environmental-review submission system in July 2024, shortly before the law took effect. Kinney said the system had been under development for about a year and replaced an ad hoc digital process created during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The new system allows SHPO to formally track turnaround times and other metrics that weren’t previously readily available. It has also streamlined the process for applicants and SHPO staff, Kinney said.
While the initial numbers are encouraging, state Rep. Stephen Meskers (D-Greenwich), co-chair of the legislature’s Commerce Committee and a participant in the earlier reform effort, said it may be too soon to determine how the process will perform over the long term.
“I don’t think we’ve run sufficient water through the hose, as it were,” Meskers said.
Meskers said increased state investment in brownfield remediation, along with demand for housing and other redevelopment, could result in more complicated projects involving historic properties. The majority of projects appear to be moving through the system successfully, he said, but he believes continued oversight is warranted.
Kinney said he isn’t particularly concerned about SHPO’s ability to handle more complex proposals because the same review process applies regardless of a project’s size.
“Our intent is never to stop a project,” Kinney said. “It’s only to ensure that historic resources are taken into consideration.”
SHPO currently has 11 employees, including Kinney, and hasn’t added review staff since the legislation took effect. The office’s staff is capable of handling large workloads, although additional resources are always useful, he said.
Meskers said future projects could also test how preservation requirements are balanced against modern needs, including energy-efficient windows, solar installations and accessibility improvements.
Kinney said he doesn’t see an inherent conflict. Historic-preservation standards allow buildings to be adapted, he said, and SHPO seeks to preserve historically important features while allowing structures to remain viable for modern uses.
“We understand that buildings are best served and best preserved when they can be adapted to become vibrant, active parts of the community,” Kinney said.