This is Part Two of a three-part series exploring elements of Connecticut’s recently adopted housing law, the “November Special Session Public Act 25-1,” commonly referred to as HB 8002. (Here is Part One.) Here we review the new Council on Housing Development; revised parking rules; conve rsion of commercial and mixed-use zones to middle housing; transit-oriented development; priority housing development zones; and the Connecticut Department of Housing’s new role as a developer as well as funder. Council on Housing Development Critics of the new Act have already started to bemoan a new housing bureaucracy created by the Act, and the new Council on Housing Development is one of the focal points (Section 14). The Council will have 18 members, starting with the Governor, the State’s Responsible Growth Coordinator (an Office of Policy Management employee), the OPM Secretary, the Department of Housing Commissioner, the Commissioners of Environmental Protection and Economic Development, the Connecticut Housing Finance Authority Director,  the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority Director, and legislative leaders.  The President of the Senate and Speaker of the House act as chairs.  The Council’s stated duty is to advise the Responsible Growth Coordinator about regulations and guidelines, funding decisions, and approving municipal and regional housing growth programs.  Other roles assigned by the Act include acting as a board of appeals if the OPM Secretary rejects a housing growth plan or regulations drafted to carry out other Act initiatives. Again, candidly, it is difficult to envision the members of this Council carrying out meaningful reviews of housing growth plans and proposed zoning regulations.  Moreover, if the Council evolves into an active, hands-on housing agency, the Act will be a far cry from “towns take the lead” in promoting affordable housing proclamation. Parking Excessive parking requirements are a well-known exclusionary zoning technique.  Parking spaces consume land and therefore restrict density.  The Act modifies the power of local land use commissions to require parking spaces and deny applications based on parking (Sections 18-21).  A confusing feature of the parking sections is that although they focus on required parking spaces in residential development, a traditional zoning topic, the Act toggles between “zoning commissions” and “municipality” as the implementer, for no apparent reason. First, the Act states that no commission shall reject any application for residential development “solely on the basis” that it fails to meet off-street parking requirements, unless the commission or its zoning officer finds that a lack of parking “will have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated through approval conditions. . . .” But then the Act retreats from this broad statement, providing that “a municipality” may require minimum parking for a residential development of more than sixteen dwelling units, but the developer must be allowed to submit a “parking needs assessment,” and the commission or zoning officer – another switchback from municipality– “shall condition the approval” on parking not exceeding one space for each studio and one bedroom units and two spaces for all larger units, or the number of spaces recommended by the needs assessment, “whichever results in the least required number” of off-street spaces. An implication is that a commission may not deny any development plan of less than 16 units based on inadequate parking. The Act then explains the required elements of a parking needs assessment: existing available spaces, public transit options, projected needs, and any other relevant studies. The Act allows a municipality to adopt one or two “traffic mitigation districts,” not more than four percent of the total land area, where minimum spaces can be specified for residential developments of fewer than 16 units, provided that the needs assessment process described above must be an administrative option.  The purpose of this provision is not clear. In addition, the Act extends General Statutes § 8-2c, which allows payments of a fee-in- lieu of parking requirements, to any residential or mixed-use development with 16 or more units “or any commercial development.” In one of its few direct mandates regarding zoning regulations, the Act repeals the 2021  provision allowing an opt-out from parking standards stated in the Zoning Enabling Act and thus establishes the parking rules outlined above as the required statewide system. Transit-oriented communities and developments Another program in the new Act establishes standards and incentives (Sections 11, 12) for “qualifying transit-oriented communities,” which are municipalities that are home to rapid transit facilities or regular bus service, or border such a municipality.  (We note that while train stations are essentially fixed for the long term, bus service is easily changeable.)  A qualifying municipality may establish, with OPM approval (based on a lengthy list of considerations), a “transit-oriented district,” which must allow as-of-right: Transit community “middle housing” development, defined as nine or fewer units; Developments of ten or more units that meet § 8-30g set-aside (30 percent) affordable standards; and Developments on land owned by the municipality or its public housing authority, “any not-for-profit entity” or any “religious organization” as defined in General Statutes § 49-31k. All units in these developments must remain affordable for at least 40 years at rents or prices equivalent to not more than 30 percent of the annual income of households earning 60 percent or less of the statewide or area median income, whichever is less.  It should be noted that this income qualification standard is close but not identical to § 8-30g, creating another point of confusion. A qualifying transit-oriented community must also allow as-of-right the conversion of any residential or commercial development into any of the three types of developments listed above.  “As-of-right” means approvable based on objective regulatory standards rather than a discretionary permit, and without a public hearing. A notable feature of this section is that it directs the transit-oriented regulations to allow  § 8-30g set-aside developments of ten or more units to be approved as-of-right, which presumably means without the zoning commission evaluating whether the development will create a substantial public health or safety concern that clearly outweighs affordable housing need. Developments of ten or more dwelling units may allow “ground level commercial uses,” excepting developments by religious organizations (we assume because religious organizations cannot claim commercial use as part of their mission). Developments of more than ten units that are not allowed as-of-right must still meet affordable percentage requirements stated in the “Connecticut Housing Finance Authority’s Housing Needs Assessment.”  This introduces yet another unclear metric. We believe there is a significant typographical error in the Act’s § 11(i) on page 48, which appears to say that a qualifying transit-oriented community will be eligible for additional OPM funding if it adopts “zoning criteria” whose affordability rules exceed the CHFA Needs Assessment, develop public land or public housing, or encourage homeownership.  Section (i) and (j)(2) refers back to subsection (h), which should be subsection (g). Following a pattern in the Act that, in over view, undermines the enforceability of proposals, the transit-oriented provision ends with a statement that communities seeking OPM approval of transit-oriented districts may seek exemptions or may opt out of the program entirely. Middle housing and mixed-use development Separate from transit-oriented districts, the Act (Section 16) amends General Statutes § 8-2s by requiring each municipality’s zoning regulations to allow, by a “summary review” process, transit community middle housing development or “mixed-use development” on “any lot that is zoned for commercial or mixed-use development.”  In addition, the “TOD” regulation “may allow” transit community middle housing “on any lot that allows for residential use subject only to summary review.”  In other words, the Act, in another confusing twist, allows transit-oriented middle housing as a development type on any lot zoned commercial or mixed-use, even if not located within a transit-oriented district. “Summary review” means that a zoning application is approvable based on standards in the regulations such as setbacks, lot size, and building frontage without a public hearing and without “discretionary zoning action” such as a variance, special permit, or special exception.  However, the commission or zoning officer must make “a determination that a site plan conforms to the regulations” and “public health and safety will not be substantially impacted….”  Two pertinent questions about this provision will be whether the requirement of conformance to the zoning regulations could essentially nullify the goal of a non-discretionary approval, and whether a public health and safety determination can be made without a public hearing. While the more streamlined approval process is enticing, a transit community middle housing development is limited to two to nine units –which in our experience is well below what most developers would consider economically viable.  Also, the phrases “zoned for commercial use” or for “mixed-use development” are unclear at best.  “Commercial” is a term of art.  If a zone allows some uses that could be considered commercial but the zone has some other name, is it a “commercial zone?”  And “mixed-use” is not defined.  Moreover, does the final sentence about “a residential use subject only to summary review” refer to the middle housing/commercial/mixed use or the residential use?  This is another example of unclear drafting that vetting could have resolved. Priority housing development zones The Act contains a voluntary program, to be administered by the Department of Housing, for “priority housing development zones” (Sections 8-10).  Such zones must: Be located within an existing “residential or commercial district” that is “suitable” for the type of development the PHDZ program allows; Be consistent with the state plan of conservation and development; and Encompass no less than ten percent of the “developable land” within the municipality. The zone’s regulations must: Be consistent with the municipal or regional housing growth plan; Be “likely to increase production of new dwelling units” (note “affordable” not specified); As required by General Statutes §§ 8-2 (b)(4-6), provide housing opportunities including multi-family for all residents of the municipality and the region;” promote housing choice and economic diversity; and “expressly allow the development of housing” identified in the state’s “consolidated” housing plan and the State Plan of Conservation and Development;” Permit multi-family housing “as of right;” Allow single-family houses at a minimum of four units per acre, townhouses and duplexes at six per acre, and multi-family at ten per acre; and Require only a site plan or subdivision approval, no special permit or special exceptions. However, a zoning commission may “modify, waive, or eliminate dimensional standards” such as building height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking ratios, and road standards to support the minimum densities. PHDZ regulations may allow a mix of business, commercial, and non-residential uses if such uses are “consistent” with the as-of-right residential uses and required densities. A PHDZ may overlay an historic district unless the historic district’s requirements render the PHDZ “out of compliance” with what PHDZs require.  The Act does not state how this relates to the historic district “certificate of appropriateness” requirement. A PHDZ must be approved by the Commissioner of Housing, who may, one year later, rescind the approval based on a “lack of building permits or other indications of progress toward construction of dwelling units. . . .” The PHDZ rules are borrowed in part from the Incentive Housing Zone program adopted in 2007 and still on the books at General Statutes §§ 8-13m to 8-13x.  That program largely fizzled in the 2008-2011 recession when the General Assembly declined to appropriate financial incentives that were a quid pro quo for amending regulations.  As will be discussed in Part Three of this series, under Housing Growth Plans, the requirement that PHDZ regulations must be “consistent” with municipal or regional growth plans is problematic because the Act does not contemplate the adoption of housing growth plans until 2028 and 2029.  In addition, the ability of zoning commissions to modify or eliminate enacted regulations, and of the Commissioner of Housing to rescind a PHZD approval after one year based on lack of progress, will have a chilling effect on use of this program.   Respectfully, it is difficult to envision a municipality utilizing this program. Department of Housing powers The Act (Section 48) grants the Department of Housing a package of new powers by which the DOH may not only fund development but act as developer and manager, akin to what public housing authorities may do.  DOH must report its activities under this new program to the new Council on Housing Development.  It is not clear if this section replaces the existing statutes regarding the Connecticut Housing Authority, General Statutes §§8-119ZZ to 8-122. Tweaks to § 8-30g moratorium rules The Act slightly modifies the point system by which municipalities subject to § 8-30g may achieve a four-year moratorium (Sections 16, 41).    It awards an additional one-quarter (0.25) point for units in a transit community middle-housing development.  If a municipality has adopted a priority housing development zone and received DOH approval of that zone, its moratorium points threshold is reduced from the greater of two percent/75 points to the greater of 1.75 percent or 65 points.  In the case of a municipality that has adopted a municipal or regional housing growth plan, has more than 20,000 dwelling units, and has previously obtained a moratorium, its required points for a next moratorium are reduced to 1.5 percent of its total housing units, with no alternative minimum.  Units constructed by or in conjunction with a housing authority achieve an additional 0.25 points per unit. Tim Hollister and Andrea Gomes are land use attorneys at the Hartford office of Hinckley Allen.  They both work regularly on affordable housing development.  In 2022-23, Hollister co-chaired a statewide working group tasked by the legislature with reviewing all of the affordable housing plans (so-called “§ 8-30j plans”) prepared by nearly all municipalities and providing recommendations on how such plans could be improved.  In September 2024, he published here a five-part series about affordable housing reform and in July 2025, a two-part series explaining House Bill 5002, the one vetoed by the governor in June 2025, and what could be done to fix it. Gomes regularly represents clients before local and state agencies and in state court. She has assisted with obtaining municipal approvals and litigating affordable housing matters and property disputes such as quiet title actions, easement disputes, nuisance actions, and adverse possession cases. Attorney Raphael Podolsky also contributed to this series. Disclaimer: This article is not legal advice, but a summary of public information.  The Act contains many important details not summarized here. ...read more read less