The opt-out: who, how, and by when

Subsection (e) is the provision with the deadline. An association formed on or before January 1, 2026 may, not later than January 1, 2028, opt out of subsections (a) to (d) — the definition, the unenforceability rule, the approval process and the owner's agreement — “by an affirmative vote of not less than seventy-five per cent of the association's board of directors.”¹

Three details decide whether an opt-out is valid.

It is a board vote, not an owner vote. Seventy-five per cent of the board of directors — on a five-member board, four votes.

It must be recorded, and quickly. The association “shall record on the land records of any municipality in which the real property of such association is located a notice of such affirmative vote… not later than thirty days after such vote.” A vote taken and not recorded within thirty days is a vote that leaves no trace on the land records where a buyer's lawyer would look.

An association formed after January 1, 2026 cannot opt out at all. The subsection is available only to associations formed on or before that date.

Note what the opt-out does not reach: subsections (f) through (i) are not listed. The owner's continuing responsibilities, the association's own powers under (h), and the attorney's fee provision in (i) sit outside the opt-out on the face of the text.

What an approving association gets in return

If the board approves, or is deemed to have approved, the owner must sign a written agreement — recordable on the land records — that loads essentially every risk onto the owner. Under subsection (d) the owner must engage a contractor licensed under chapter 393 who within fourteen days provides a certificate of insurance showing liability cover of not less than one million dollars naming the association, its manager and the owner as insureds, evidence of workers' compensation, and a mechanic's lien waiver in favour of the association.

The owner must also pay “any cost associated with the installation… including, but not limited to, increased master policy premiums, attorney's fees incurred by the association, engineering fees, professional fees, permit fees”; indemnify the association, the other owners, the board, officers, directors and manager for damage or loss and for financial obligations; and — the heaviest term — “assume full responsibility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the roof over the unit owner's unit at the unit owner's sole expense.”¹

Subsection (f) carries those duties forward to “any successive owner of the unit that acquires title… and assumes the duties imposed by such agreement,” and requires the selling owner to disclose the system, the responsibilities, the agreement, and the fact that the buyer takes the system on unless it is removed before conveyance.

Subsection (h) preserves real powers for the association: it may install solar on common elements and make rules for it; it may require removal before a sale unless the buyer assumes the roof and indemnity obligations; and it may assess an owner for “any uninsured portion of a loss associated with a solar power generating system, whether resulting from a deductible or otherwise, regardless of whether the association submits an insurance claim.”

Subsection (i) then adds a fee-shifting rule that runs only one way in the text: “In any action by an association seeking to enforce compliance with this section, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees.”

The old protection was repealed on the way in

This is easy to miss and it matters. Section 11 repealed the former § 47-261b(g), which had barred a non-condominium, non-cooperative association from adopting or enforcing rules prohibiting a solar system on a roof “not shared with any other unit owner.”¹

So the new regime replaced an older, simpler one rather than layering on top of it — and unlike the repealed rule, the replacement can be opted out of.

How it passed, and why the citation is confusing

The solar language originally ran as its own bill. House Bill 7002, “An Act Concerning Solar Installations in Certain Common Interest Ownership Communities,” won a joint favourable report from Planning and Development on March 7, 2025 and reached the House calendar as File No. 272 on March 26 — where it sat for ten weeks and was never called.³

The substance survived by moving. It was enacted as Sections 9 to 11 of House Bill 6957, a municipal omnibus whose title begins “An Act Allowing a Town to Designate Itself a City” and which became Public Act 25-73.¹ That is why some coverage of the January 2026 change cites a bill number rather than a public act number: the operative citation is Public Act 25-73, §§ 10 and 11.

What to watch next

The first thing is how many associations actually opt out before January 1, 2028, and whether any do it without recording the notice inside thirty days. An unrecorded opt-out is the kind of defect that surfaces years later, at a closing.

The second is the meaning of “unreasonably restricts” for a unit that qualifies. The act supplies a process and a deemed approval but no standard for reasonableness, and no Connecticut appellate decision has construed it.

The third is the roof clause. An owner who takes “full responsibility for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the roof” in a community where the roof is a common element has stepped outside the ordinary allocation of common expense liability, and the interaction between that agreement and the declaration is untested.