By Elizabeth Barhydt
In a special session called shortly after the elections were over, HB 8002 passed the House 90–56 after nearly seven hours of debate, prompting immediate concern from local officials who examined the final language after the vote.
The 104-page bill was expected to clear the Connecticut Senate late Thursday, positioning the wide-ranging housing bill for the governor’s signature and setting in motion a series of changes that take effect Jan. 1. Opponents reviewing the legislation said the new framework is more far-reaching than the earlier version the governor vetoed.
Representatives Stephen Meskers and Tina Courpas voted against the bill. State Senator Ryan Fazio, a vocal opponent, was expected to argue against the bill and vote against it in the Senate.
Rep. Tina Courpas provided a detailed statement after the vote in the House, noting the scope of the package and her opposition. “The debate went on for over 6 hours, and I opposed the Bill in the strongest possible terms and voted no. But, unfortunately it passed largely along party lines. The Bill purported to be revised and improved, but it was not. It contained a version of Fair Share, Work Live Ride, prohibition on parking requirements, conversion of commercial to residential real estate, and significant unfunded mandates on our towns and cities. It purported to be bipartisan but it was not. It is an assault on local control, and the Governor is likely to sign it. But, we must keep the pressure on and ask the Governor to veto.”
HB 8002 establishes a new statewide system of municipal and regional housing growth plans overseen by the Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Municipalities must either opt into a regional plan or submit their own plan for OPM approval. If OPM does not act within 120 days, the plan is automatically forwarded to a newly formed Council on Housing Development for review.
Who the members of this Council will be is not yet public.
During Wednesday’s post-vote discussion, municipal advocates questioned how OPM will determine the statewide housing number and how discrepancies between state allocations and locally prepared build-out analyses will be addressed. There were no answers.
Several provisions take effect Jan. 1. With few exceptions, municipalities may no longer require onsite parking for new projects of 16 units or less. For developments over 16 units, permitted parking is the lesser of one space for studio/one-bedroom units and two spaces for two-bedroom and larger units, or the number set through a developer-funded study.
The bill also authorizes as-of-right conversion of commercially zoned property into residential developments of up to nine units under “summary review,” eliminating public hearings and other discretionary approvals.
A major consequence for municipalities is the link between compliance and eligibility for future 8-30g moratoria. Towns without an approved housing growth plan will be ineligible for a moratorium.
Municipalities now face limited time to prepare for the first statutory changes, with an effective date for many provisions starting Jan. 1, 2026. The state-determined housing need and regional allocations of affordable fair shares will not be due until Dec. 1, 2026, after the next gubernatorial elections. Expanded coverage will appear in next week’s Sentinel.
