I appreciated the testimony that this bill will trample folks rights while directly providing folks with more rights.
My hope is that the committee can separate good faith arguments from bad faith arguments which @peteharrison860.bsky.social spoke about.
Almost all testimony opposed to SB-151 is because of "mandates being imposed on municipalities" and not based on whether or not it will create more starter homes...which is the purpose of the bill...
Me too 😉
Fair share moved from the state establishing numbers to regional council of governments and minimum parking requirements eliminated for 16 units or less instead of 24 units or less, essentially.
Sounds like something a king would say!
I liked the part when the first republican got up and said the bill removes too much red tape and then the second republican got up and said the bill added too much red tape.
The bravado to write an op-ed claiming to know what HB5002 would do and then be completely wrong is astounding.
ctmirror.org/2025/09/29/d...
How does Lamont support a huge part of his re-election campaign on being able to stand up against Trump when he can’t even stand up against a local NIMBY group?
Two recently approved developments coming to downtown Norwalk. Over 90 units of housing, 100,000sf of office, ground floor retail, and waterfront park and boardwalk!
www.thehour.com/news/article...
DTC endorsed candidate here in Stratford sending mailers on protecting against “overdevelopment,” whatever that means…
magically create more off-street parking. Anyone who says they are pro-business and advocates for minimum parking requirements is a hypocrite.
The single most convincing experience for why parking minimums are complete hogwash is standing face to face with a potential business owner that wants to open their retail store in a building with no off-street parking, formerly occupied by an office, and telling them they can’t unless they
Putting parking minimums in historic and village districts just encourages those buildings to be demolished. It completely contradicts the goal of preserving those buildings…
Agreed. The State eliminating parking minimums would go a long way!
a slog. Eliminating parking requirements via 5002 would certainly help move the area along.
and other properties being redeveloped. Zoning was redone in 2022 allowing for up to 53 units/acre, up to 13 units over-the-counter, up to 29 via site plan. Frontage buildout is 60% min not max, and 3.5 stories was a battle to get passed. A very vocal neighborhood association makes zoning changes
Unfortunately all of those gas stations have been there for decades but the use isn't allowed in the zone anymore. East Ave was also pretty decimated during the mass downzonings of the 70s. But it's getting better - 200 units at 230 East Ave (next to the train station), 77 units at 1 Cemetery St,
Everyone needs to trust the process and if something doesn’t comply with one of those codes, that the person responsible for administering that code will not approve the application, and presto, no building permit!
If an application that complies with absolutely zero building, fire or health codes, but complies with all zoning codes comes across my desk, it gets approved, because I am not a building official, fire marshal, or health inspector.
Using “protect health and safety” of the future tenants of the building as a reason for denial is absolutely wild and a good reminder for everyone to stay in their lane.
We have folks literally gaslighting others that the reason for tax increases is due to new multifamily developments, despite them being some of the only commercial properties that increased in value.
Agreed! It’s a state rule that each town has their own coastal resource map so it’ll vary but it’s pretty much a line that’s 1,000ft from the water.
I’d also be interested in why anyone would vote no…would they prefer more impervious surface near Long Island Sound?
Meaning that complaining about parking in this case is irrelevant to the application.
Coastal site plan reviews are required for any development that’s in the CAM zone (+/- 1000ft of a coastal resource) and that isn’t listed as “exempt” under CGS 22a-109. Hearings, however, are discretionary and any relevant testimony would have to be in relation to beneficial/adverse coastal impacts
8-30g is the antithesis of communism...
It’s also unfortunate that most policy responses to these types of informal housing has been to evict and cause homelessness rather than provide a path to legalization and safety.
In other words…gentrification!
All of our historic and quintessentially New England downtowns were built before zoning!
I’ve been working there for 7 years now, I’m pretty sure that lot was supposed to be redeveloped as part of the Head of the Harbor project just to the south but for whatever reason wasn’t…but definitely on the radar for the city!
