Regulation Review committee sends 2026 building and fire code packages back for revision after safety and housing concerns

The Regulation Review committee voted on April 28 to reject, without prejudice, the Department of Administrative Services’ resubmitted 2026 State Building Code, together with associated fire safety and fire prevention codes, after a lengthy hearing in which lawmakers questioned whether several changes could hinder housing projects and whether the state had adequately balanced uniform model standards with local constraints.

The committee’s vote followed hours of questioning from members including Senator Austin and Senator Summers about provisions that would apply the International Code Council’s model language for certain on-site fire apparatus access roads and require wider “aerial apparatus” widths in narrowly defined areas. Deputy Commissioner Darren Hobbs told the committee the package seeks to “bring it all in line with the ICC codes as they're known” and that aligning model provisions reduces conflicts in enforcement and design. He added that roughly “80–90% of code modifications are approved,” saying most applicants offset waived items with alternative safety measures.

Why it mattered: Several legislators said the proposed access-road and site-access requirements—such as additional 26-foot widths in some portions of a site—may be appropriate for larger urban projects but could make new multifamily construction infeasible on constrained rural or older road corridors. “We don't want to make the rules so heavy-handed that we can't do that housing,” Senator Austin said during the hearing. Representative McGordy, pressing for safety-first standards, told the committee: “Safety goes over profit.”

Pool rules and grandfathering: Senators also pressed the agency about changes to pool-barrier language. Agency staff said existing pools are governed by the code in effect when their permit was issued; new pool permits filed after adoption (the agency had sought an effective date of July 1) would fall under the new requirements. The agency clarified that a power safety cover can substitute for a fence only when it meets the code’s performance criteria; otherwise a self-closing, self-latching fence and door alarms are required. Staff warned that many automatic covers are not designed for winter loads and that insurance policies may still require fences even if the code permits certain covers.

Modification and appeal pathways: Agency witnesses told the committee that where a site cannot meet a numeric requirement because of topography or other constraints, developers and local officials may pursue a state code modification (a waiver) reviewed by the state building inspector and the fire marshal. Staff said the process is case-by-case, may be expedited when construction is held up, and ultimately can be appealed if parties disagree on the state decision.

Votes at a glance: - Department of Administrative Services — Proposed 2026 Connecticut State Building Code (LCO recommendation: approval, in whole, with technical corrections): initial motion to accept failed; motion to reject without prejudice carried 8–5. Outcome: rejected without prejudice; agency may revise and resubmit. - Resubmitted 2026 Connecticut State Fire Safety Code (LCO recommendation: approval, in whole, with technical corrections): acceptance motion failed; motion to reject without prejudice carried 8–5. Outcome: rejected without prejudice. - Resubmitted 2026 Connecticut State Fire Prevention Code (LCO recommendation: approval, in whole): acceptance motion failed; motion to reject without prejudice carried 8–5. Outcome: rejected without prejudice.

What comes next: Agency witnesses said a failure to adopt the packages now could push any final adoption date beyond the agency’s July 1 target; Deputy Commissioner Hobbs said a resubmission and additional public comment could make a January 1 effective date more realistic. Staff emphasized they will work with local officials, fire marshals and developers through the modification process and encouraged proponents of site-specific concerns to bring concrete proposals to the codes and standards committee.

The committee adjourned with members urging agencies to be present and prepared for detailed questioning when regulatory packages come before the panel.