Early negotiations on a new version of an omnibus housing bill have touched on more than many advocates expected and far beyond the controversial zoning and parking measures noted by Gov. Ned Lamont as concerns when he vetoed last session’s version earlier this summer, a legislative document obtained by The Connecticut Mirror shows.

After initially saying he’d sign House Bill 5002, Democratic lawmakers’ key housing bill, Lamont vetoed it under pressure from Republicans and town leaders who feared the bill weakened local control and imposed one-size-fits-all solutions on municipalities. After the veto, lawmakers and the governor’s office began negotiating a new bill for a special session in the fall.

In negotiations on major bills, there are often several drafts of legislation. The CT Mirror obtained a June 30 analysis from the Office of Legislative Research of one of those drafts. The document offers a rare look at conversations occurring in these closed-door negotiations.

Publicly, Lamont has cited as concerns a portion of the bill known as “fair share” that would have required towns to plan and zone for a set number of units and a measure to eliminate off-street parking requirements for smaller residential developments. 

But the document shows ideas for changes have ranged beyond those pieces to include changes to sections to encourage more housing development around train and bus stations, conversion of commercial buildings to residential and one of the state’s foremost housing laws, 8-30g.

Lawmakers said the conversation has evolved far past the June document, and that it doesn’t reflect more current drafts. House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, said he didn’t want to get into specifics of the current negotiations.

“It was part of conversations that were going on and ideas that were being thrown out there,” Rojas said of the document. “Some of it still might be kind of part of our conversation, some of it not.”

“This was a point-in-time document, and I don’t feel like it’s reflective of where we are,” Rojas said. “This is far more complicated than where we are right now in terms of the major items that we’re focused on, that we continue to exchange language on.”

Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said he and Rojas are “on the same page,” on policy.

“We’re at a high level right now, and we’re working through some issues, but I don’t want to go too far into what we’re talking about right now,” Duff said.

Lamont met earlier this week with policy leaders from the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities to discuss solutions to the state’s housing crisis, and his staff has seen the document.

The original bill aimed to address rising housing costs that have become unaffordable for much of the state’s population. Connecticut has not built enough housing over the past several years, which has resulted in a lack of supply amid high demand.

Housing experts have tied much of this lack of supply to restrictive local zoning that makes it hard to build multifamily housing on much of Connecticut’s land.

Where fair share and a policy to encourage transit-oriented development known as “Work, Live, Ride,” were once fairly separate, the June 30 document discusses tying them together through a new system of awarding municipalities points if they take steps to build more housing.

There would be one point each for five criteria, including transit-oriented development and adopting “priority housing development” zones. The idea, like others in the document, has been proposed in the past, Rojas said.

“People are taking ideas that have been considered in the past and seeing if they might work in this situation,” he said.

In H.B. 5002, Work, Live, Ride prioritized certain infrastructure funding for towns that prioritized transit-oriented development.

Rojas said the idea was to respond to criticism that there were too many options for towns in the bill.

“Is there a way to ensure that all the products, all the parts, can work together better than perhaps some other people otherwise think they will?” he said.

The proposal also includes changes to the fair share portion. Towns would be responsible to plan and zone for a quarter of their allotted number of units of housing in the first 10 years of planning. Previously, it had been every five years.

Towns could appeal their assignments, and the document says the draft would “substantially change” that process, although the details aren’t clear.

H.B. 5002 would have removed minimum parking requirements for residential developments of less than 24 units. Negotiations have included an idea to allow towns to impose parking requirements on a case-by-case basis in village districts, historic districts or rural conservation areas.

The bill that was vetoed also would have allowed the conversion of commercial properties into middle housing, or apartments with two to nine units, without a special hearing before the local zoning commission.

The June document suggests continuing that, but making the developments subject to a “summary review process” done by the town that can consider whether the property conforms with regulations around lot size, how much of the building’s side faces the public street and how far the building is set back from the road.

For each of these middle housing developments, and mixed-use developments, meaning buildings that incorporate both housing and places of business, towns would also have easier pathways to moratoriums under 8-30g.

That law offers developers court remedies if towns deny their affordable housing proposals and means the towns must prove in court that they turned down the housing because of a reason of health or safety. Towns are exempt if at least 10% of their housing is designated affordable, and can get moratoriums on the law if they show they are making progress toward that 10%.

The early draft also would allow the summary review process for turning nursing homes into housing, marking a change to an existing law. Democrats passed a bill in 2024 that required towns to allow developers to turn nursing homes into housing without needing a change to zoning law.

“We want to get something done and move housing policy forward,” Duff said.