Greenwich First Selectman Fred Camillo is urging state lawmakers to reject a proposal that would significantly expand and standardize accessory dwelling unit rules across Connecticut, arguing the measure would erode municipal authority over zoning and landuse decisions.
In testimony submitted to the Connecticut General Assembly’s Planning and Development Committee, Camillo voiced “strong opposition” to HB 5507, An Act Concerning Accessory Dwelling Units, describing it as another state mandate that overrides local governance.
The debate over ADUs reflects a broader conflict in Connecticut housing policy between state officials seeking to expand housing supply and municipal leaders defending local zoning authority.
In many communities, zoning decisions are considered one of the core powers of local government. Town officials frequently argue that local planning boards and zoning commissions are best positioned to balance development with infrastructure capacity, environmental conditions and neighborhood concerns.
Housing advocates and some lawmakers counter that local zoning rules have contributed to housing shortages and rising costs across the state, making statewide standards necessary.
“This is yet another usurpation of local autonomy by state legislators with no regard for local control, local expertise, local capacity, and local preference,” Camillo wrote to committee leaders and members. He added that municipalities are “made up of taxpayers who fund state government” but are “once again being treated badly by legislators who are protected by their district lines and without having to face the consequences for bad mandates.”
HB 5507 is part of a broader push in Hartford to increase housing supply by requiring municipalities to allow accessory dwelling units, commonly known as ADUs, on residential properties. ADUs are small secondary housing units located on the same lot as a single-family home, often created by converting basements, garages, or backyard structures.
Supporters of statewide ADU policies argue the units can provide additional housing opportunities for seniors, young workers and extended families while increasing the overall housing supply without large-scale development.
Camillo, however, told lawmakers the proposal ignores the fact that many towns already permit such units through their own zoning rules.
“In Greenwich, we already allow ADUs, and have since 1987,” he wrote.
His testimony argues that HB 5507 would override local regulations that municipalities consider essential to managing density, infrastructure capacity and neighborhood character.
Among his concerns, Camillo said the bill would prevent towns from requiring a property owner to live on the property where an accessory unit is located.
“What is both baffling and concerning about this legislative proposal is that it does not allow a municipality to require that the property owner actually live on the property (in the dwelling),” he wrote.
Local officials often view owner-occupancy rules as a way to maintain oversight of properties that contain multiple dwelling units.
Camillo also raised public safety concerns, noting the proposal would prohibit municipalities from requiring sprinkler systems in accessory units.
He further objected to provisions that would invalidate the municipal opt-out established under Public Act 2129, a 2021 state housing law that required towns to allow ADUs unless their legislative bodies voted by a supermajority to opt out.
HB 5507 would remove that option.
“What’s more, it invalidates the opt out from PA21-29 and also does not allow a municipality to require a sewer connection,” Camillo wrote.
The bill would also establish statewide standards governing the allowable size of accessory dwelling units, another provision Camillo criticized as inappropriate for a state with widely varying communities and infrastructure systems.
“It also sets the same size parameters for the whole state,” he noted.
Camillo’s testimony frames the bill as part of what he describes as a continuing pattern of state intervention in local land-use policy.
“Please oppose this bill, which is a continuation of the assault on the autonomy of our local communities,” he wrote.
The Planning and Development Committee will review testimony from municipal leaders, housing advocates and residents before deciding whether the bill advances to the full House and Senate for consideration later in the legislative session.
