Debate over 8‑30g, accessory dwelling units and workforce housing exposes split among Connecticut stakeholders

Connecticut’s long-running debate over how to encourage housing while preserving local control resurfaced at the Housing Committee hearing, with witnesses sharply divided on proposals to change how the state’s affordable-housing appeals process (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8‑30g) counts housing. Supporters — including Sen. Marilyn Moore’s office allies and municipal advocates such as Sen. James Fazio — advanced bills that would allow more housing types to count toward a town’s 8‑30g total, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and certain forms of workforce housing. They argued that many naturally occurring units are already affordable to lower-income households and that towns are disincentivized from allowing such development because non‑deed‑restricted units do not count under the current 10% threshold. John Guskowski, policy director at the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association, testified that accessory apartments are an important source of housing but warned they should be income‑restricted if they are to count for 8‑30g credit. He suggested any change include income or deed restrictions so the counted units produce lasting affordability. Opponents, including attorneys from Connecticut Legal Services and housing advocates, argued the 10% metric intentionally measures deed‑restricted or government‑subsidized housing rather than all lower‑cost housing. They warned that counting unrestricted ADUs or workforce units could let municipalities claim credit without creating long‑term affordable housing, undermining 8‑30g’s intent to incentivize deed‑restricted development. Sen. Fazio told the committee he favors a bipartisan, package approach to reform that offers towns more options while protecting long‑term affordability. Advocates for tenants and housing justice groups urged maintaining the statute’s emphasis on deed restrictions so subsidies and protections for low‑income households remain effective. Committee takeaway: Witnesses asked for careful drafting — including whether counting should be limited to income-restricted ADUs and workforce units, and how to avoid perverse incentives where towns gain moratorium credit without producing durable affordability.