Bolinsky and Foncello Stand up for Newtown Local Zoning, Oppose State Housing Mandates

Bolinsky and Foncello Stand up for Newtown Local Zoning, Oppose State Housing Mandates

HARTFORD- State Representatives Mitch Bolinsky (R-106) and Martin Foncello (R-107) voted against a massive housing proposal which seeks to forever change Connecticut’s housing laws, to cede local control of “affordable housing” zoning decisions away from towns like Newtown and tipping the decision-making scales to arbitrary state quotas, by mandate.  Passage of this law, if voted out of the Senate and signed by the Governor, will tip the scales away from our state’s long history of “Local Rule”, by wrestling control away from local control from towns, like Newtown.

The omnibus housing and zoning legislation, House Bill 5002, An Act Concerning Housing and The Needs Of Homeless Persons combined sixteen individual pieces of controversial legislation in a “strike-all amendment, followed by a second unseen amendment, both withheld from minority House Republican scrutiny until the time of introduction, despite Republican objections, leading to 12-hours of debate.

Some of the provisions incorporated into HB-5002 included subjecting towns to meet a 25% arbitrary “Fair Share” housing quota, despite infrastructure, land, or community concerns. The bill weakens local zoning authority by limiting towns’ ability to set minimum parking requirements, a potential problem in communities that lack on-street and public parking.  The bill also rewards developers with attorney fees if they successfully push through massive housing projects—even if communities like Newtown reject the project. The bill would also mandate formation of rent commissions in towns over 15,000 people, like Newtown, an unfunded state mandate.  This bill could force the construction of approximately 1,400 additional housing units in Newtown, under the state’s Municipal Fair Share Allocation.

One of the “affordability features” of this legislation will allow for a “direct rental assistance program” that will use taxpayer funds to subsidize or pay the rent for qualifying lower-income residents and, as a way to address the needs of homeless individuals, the state Department of Social Services will have the authority to create programs to offer transient portable showers and laundry services for people experiencing homelessness, although this taxpayer cost, estimated at $200,000 by the legislature’s non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis, is not in the 2026 budget proposals.

Rep. Bolinsky said, “Newtown is its own unique town, with small-town character and quiet neighborhoods.  Our residents have historically loved our vistas, parks, trails, and open spaces, so it’s easy to see why others might like to share, but we’ve never been particularly shy about defending our town’s unique style and feel.  I only hope these mandates don’t come down too hard or too soon, and there’s an appropriate period of adjustment to iron out any kinks.  I’m afraid this mandating of “one-size-fits-all” housing style, density, parking, and traffic volume, combined with less reliance of our own municipal land use and zoning regulations, could lead to a fair amount of local pushback, and feelings by some residents of being removed from the review process.  Newtowners care about local land conditions, open space, clean water, infrastructure limitations, traffic, and parking dynamics.  I prefer less heavy-handed regulatory imposition and hope the upcoming changes do not divide us but bring us together.  This bill strips away Newtown’s local control and continues to punish our communities.”

Rep. Foncello said, “The sewer and water capacity in the Brookfield and Newtown area won’t be able to meet these unrealistic expectations under the Fair Share portion of the bill. The methodology is flawed because it doesn’t take that into account, nor does it consider the push Connecticut has made to preserve open space.”

Both Bolinsky and Foncello and other House Republicans offered many amendments that would have added housing options, while helping to meet the threshold for affordable housing made necessary by the state mandate 8-30g. The majority rejected those proposals.

The bill now heads to the State Senate for further debate and a vote.