Lawmakers hear wide-ranging testimony for and against ending municipal parking minimums (HB 7061)

Supporters and opponents of a bill to ban municipal parking minimums testified for hours before the Planning and Development Committee on Feb. 28, arguing over whether state law should prohibit local governments from requiring a set number of off‑street parking spaces for new development.

Proponents said the mandate is an outdated, costly relic that raises housing prices, wastes land and drives car dependence. Opponents said local conditions—narrow roads, limited transit and public‑safety needs—mean towns must retain the power to require parking in some cases.

Advocates framed the issue as a statewide policy fix. “Parking mandates tend to be irrational,” said Sarah Bronin, former chair of Hartford’s Planning and Zoning Commission and founder of Desegregate Connecticut, calling the rules arbitrary and harmful to housing and main‑street businesses. Daniel Harriges, policy director at the Parking Reform Network, told the committee the reform is “not some sort of radical or risky experiment” and cited a wave of municipal and state actions around the U.S. to reduce or end parking mandates.

Several witnesses described local experience after eliminating or reducing mandates. Kate Rosen, a Woodbridge resident, pointed to Hartford, which removed parking minimums in 2017, saying the city has seen “an increase in new housing, mixed‑use developments, and adaptive reuse projects” and that developers still provide parking where market demand requires it. “This bill does not eliminate parking,” Rosen said. “It simply removes the rigid government mandates and lets businesses, communities, and developers decide what works best.”

Supporters also cited climate and stormwater concerns. Jay Stange, an advocate from West Hartford, said expansive surface parking increases impervious area and stormwater costs. Zachary Oberholtzer, an urbanist who testified in favor, said excessive parking “induces driving” and makes transit and walkable development harder to sustain.

Municipal officials, municipal associations and some planning professionals urged caution. Zachary McKeown, advocacy manager for the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, said municipalities support targeted reforms for transit‑oriented areas but opposed a blanket statewide prohibition that would remove a tool towns use to respond to local public‑safety and infrastructure conditions. “If there are concerns about unnecessary parking requirements throughout the state, a blanketed policy like this is not the way to go,” McKeown said.

John Guskowski of the Connecticut chapter of the American Planning Association said planners generally accept that parking mandates often oversupply parking, but he recommended retaining the ability for municipalities to require applicants to demonstrate sufficient parking and to address public‑safety concerns. “Municipalities can still require developers to essentially ‘show their math,’ and demonstrate that their parking provision is sufficient to meet the projected demand,” Guskowski said.

Committee members and several witnesses raised repeated questions about small towns and narrow rural roads. Representative Dubitsky pressed witnesses for examples of rural failures, arguing that in places with narrow, unpaved roads “this would cause a very dangerous situation.” Supporters replied they had not found systematic evidence that ending minimums causes such safety failures and said developers and markets still supply parking where it is needed.

Other witnesses described local mapping and data efforts. CT Parking Reform and other groups presented inventories showing high percentages of land and downtown acreage devoted to surface parking in some municipalities, and several witnesses argued those acres represent missed opportunities for housing, businesses and public space.

No formal action or vote occurred at the hearing; members collected testimony and indicated the committee will review written submissions and possible amendments before any markup.

As the committee considers changes, several stakeholders urged compromise language that would allow towns specific flexibility—such as targeted exemptions in transit‑rich districts or explicit statutory language preserving municipal authority to address public‑safety, ADA access and stormwater management.

Votes at a glance: Public testimony only; no committee vote recorded.