Statement from First Selectman Vicki Tesoro about Governor Lamont’s veto on June 23, 2025 of CT HB 5002
We want to thank Governor Lamont for his veto of CT HB 5002. We know the Governor is serious about creating more affordable housing opportunities in Connecticut for families, seniors, and our workforce. We share his commitment to this important goal and have been working to advance housing diversity and affordability in Trumbull. We will continue to do so. In its current form, HB 5002 is problematic for cities and towns. We believe this policy should be revisited with local communities at the table. A one-size-fits-all, developer-driven approach is not good for our community. We prefer policy that creates incentives for cities and towns to create affordable and diverse housing opportunities that make sense locally. We look forward to working with Governor Lamont, legislators, and other stakeholders to craft policy that advances affordability and housing diversity in a balanced way. We thank the Governor again for his thoughtful approach to this legislation.
The statement below from First Selectman Vicki Tesoro was sent to Governor Ned Lamont on Wednesday, June 11, 2025:
Dear Governor Lamont,
On behalf of the Town of Trumbull I respectfully ask that you veto HB 5002.
Notwithstanding the need to address housing affordability, a top-down approach that puts developers in the driver’s seat has not worked over the past decades and will only create more divisiveness at the community level. In general, a local approach that provides incentives and requires towns to develop their own regulations seems a more fitting and productive pathway to achieve more affordable housing.
Some of my concerns relate to allowing middle housing as of right on commercial lots, easing of parking requirements, and establishing fair share affordable housing percentages per town. All these policies are aggressive and dismantle a level of local control over land use that will have negative consequences for neighborhoods and for economic development in the future.
The Bill requires communities to establish fair share housing percentages they need to meet based on certain criteria. It was difficult to understand how this works based on the Bill language. It is not clear what the ramifications will be if such percentages are not set or met. I am concerned with any such mandate, and further, in a 98% developed community determining land use priorities is a constant balancing act.
In closing, in its current form I would urge you to veto this Bill. While I understand and support the need to create more affordability and housing diversity, this should be locally led and incentivized, not mandated.
Thank you.
Vicki A. Tesoro, Trumbull First Selectman
The statement below from First Selectman Vicki Tesoro was sent to the following members of the Trumbull State Delegation on Tuesday, May 27, 2025:
Senator Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, Representative Sarah Keitt, Representative Ben McGorty, Representative Tony Scott, and Representative David Rutigliano
Reference to: H.B. No. 5002 Session Year 2025
https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/ct/2025/bills/CTB00029368/#actions
I have reviewed the HB 5002 as amended. The amended version appears to have addressed some issues. I remain concerned with the Bill language and implications. Notwithstanding the need to address housing affordability, a top-down approach that puts developers in the driver’s seat has not worked over the past decades and will only create more divisiveness at the community level. In general, a local approach that provides incentives and requires towns to develop their own regulations seems a more fitting and productive pathway to achieve more affordable housing.
Some of my concerns relate to allowing middle housing as of right on commercial lots, easing of parking requirements, and establishing fair share affordable housing percentages per town. All these policies are aggressive and dismantle a level of local control over land use that will have negative consequences for neighborhoods and for economic development in the future.
As for the middle housing as of right on commercial lots, the Bill has been amended to allow for site plan review in conformity with applicable zoning regulations, and review of public health and safety matters. This limited local control is not acceptable. This policy will open all commercial lots for middle housing consideration and will produce a potential onslaught of proposals that may not be desirable and may remove/repurpose viable commercial property needed for business and economic growth into the future. Instead, municipalities should be encouraged (or required) to establish their own middle housing regulations and incented to develop such housing in a way that is responsible in each town.
While the easing of parking requirements can help facilitate housing development, this can also create chaos, traffic jams, and take away parking our small businesses depend on for their customers. The regulation gives developers the charge of producing a parking needs assessment. The Planning and Zoning Commission can only require 10% above what that study recommends. The needs assessment can consider off site street parking in the area as a part of the parking inventory for the project. Instead, communities should be incented to ease parking requirements under certain circumstances. The needs assessment should be conducted by a third party the town identifies at the developer’s expense and any easing of the parking must not impact parking used for businesses in the area.
The Bill requires communities to establish fair share housing percentages they need to meet based on certain criteria. It was difficult to understand how this works based on the Bill language. It is not clear what the ramifications will be if such percentages are not set or met. I am concerned with any such mandate, and further, in a 98% developed community determining land use priorities is a constant balancing act.
In closing, in its current form I would urge you to vote against this Bill. While I understand the need to create more affordability and housing diversity, this should be locally led and incentivized, not mandated.
Thank you for your consideration.
Vicki A. Tesoro