By: Nicholas Lanese, Research Intern
According to the CT Mirror, Connecticut saw an average annual increase of about 7% in home prices from 2022 to 2025, or about 21% over that period. Coupled with higher interest rates, this means fewer, especially younger, Connecticut-born residents can purchase homes independently and could be put in a position to relocate from the state they have called home since childhood.
Against this broader housing affordability backdrop, this study focused on gauging how Connecticut residents directly engage with planning and zoning commissions regarding affordable housing in their municipalities. This included analyzing who attended planning and zoning commission meetings in their local towns or cities, as well as discourse at these meetings over a 5-month period. In addition to analyzing recorded meetings, the study also examined the meeting agendas, minutes, and transcripts.
This project focused on meetings in the neighboring Fairfield County municipalities of Brookfield and Danbury. Danbury, with a population of approximately 86,000, has surpassed the 10% affordable housing threshold required to be exempt from the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure (8-30g). On the other hand, Brookfield, with a population of approximately 20,000, has not reached the threshold, with about 5 percent of its housing stock classified as affordable.i
A quarter of households in Brookfield pay over 30% of their income on housing costs, and the town has recently begun updating its affordable housing plan to address this. Some in the community have met the need for more affordable housing with considerable skepticism and criticism, as highlighted in one observed meeting. Reflecting on the town’s projected number of housing units for 2027 in relation to the 8-30g exemption threshold, one board member stated, “They’re saying 8,867 housing units by then. We’d have to double that to even get close to 10%, and that’s impossible.”ii This perspective is particularly noteworthy, as Brookfield currently has only 5.21% affordable housing and has an active moratorium that exempts it from the 8-30g procedure. The meeting focused on Brookfield’s proposed 2025 Affordable Housing Plan, which was still under development at the time. The Planning and Zoning Commission and two technical experts who helped the town draft the plan presented during the meeting.
In contrast, Danbury is exempt from the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure (8-30g), with affordable homes accounting for 10.59% of its housing stock. During the period observed, only one of the planning commission’s meetings addressed affordable housing; none of the zoning commission’s public hearings during the period of observation did. During the Danbury Planning Commission meeting, technical experts reviewed the deconstruction of an avenue and the construction of new, affordable single-family housing units. There weren’t any comments from residents and no opposition.
Both municipalities are located within Fairfield County, which has some of the least available affordable housing in the state. Affordable housing in Connecticut is in short supply, and despite the 8-30g statute, there is no statewide mandate for affordable housing. However, 8-30g provides a pathway for affordable housing developers to challenge decisions of municipal planning and zoning commissions. If a municipality’s affordable housing stock, as defined by the 8-30g statute, comprises more than 10% of its housing stock, it is exempt from this provision. 8-30g makes it easier for planning and zoning commissions in communities below the 10% threshold to have their decisions reversed than for those above it. As a result, developers may be able to build affordable housing even when commissions initially denied a proposal to permit it.
The remedy provided through 8-30g does not mean that developers can build whatever they want, wherever they want. Proposed developments must still comply with applicable health, safety, environmental, and other regulatory requirements that are expected of all developments. The state also places significant responsibility on municipalities to plan for affordable housing needs in their communities, which helps explain Brookfield’s efforts to work with developers as part of its affordable housing planning process.
In examining these two towns, it is important to acknowledge major differences between them in size and the number of permits issued. Danbury is over twice Brookfield’s size and has five times Brookfield’s population. Since 1990, Brookfield’s highest annual building permit total was 127 in 2022, the same as in 2007, and its lowest was 5 in 2008. In Danbury, the highest number of annual building permits was 926 in 1998, while the fewest were issued in 2022, at 59.iii Expanding affordable housing in this region is particularly important because high housing costs can limit where residents can live, work, and establish long-term roots. This issue is especially relevant as younger Connecticut residents find themselves unable to afford to live and work in the communities they have called home.iv
A major observation was that the vast majority of speakers in the meetings examined were either technical experts hired by towns and cities or by the companies seeking to build affordable housing, with very little representation from town residents. This contrasts with what is observed in more contentious affordable housing meetings where specific projects were on the agenda.
Throughout the meetings, only one Brookfield resident appeared to raise a specific concern about the form that affordable housing development should take, stating, “I don’t know if density has to be a four-story apartment building.”v This sentiment was common on the Brookfield side of the meetings, where both board members and residents seemed reluctant to allow the construction of multi-unit complexes, fearing they might detract from the town’s identity. The point being that, based on reactions in these meetings, most of the people present did not appear very supportive of any affordable housing initiatives.
These observations also suggest that community engagement in the meetings was relatively low. Although a few cases involved affordable housing development, very few residents showed up to discuss them. Perhaps due to the nature of the projects and programs discussed, there was also a disproportionate representation of technical experts, often hired by the town, city, or development company. While these experts may provide valuable guidance, their perspectives may not always reflect the interests and experience of the average resident seeking affordable housing.
Low community engagement can result from system atrophy, in which community members may feel their voices do not create meaningful change or have a minimal effect. There is also the possibility that community members do not feel adequately informed to attend one of these meetings and ask questions. Third, the timing of some meetings may not be conducive to younger families, who may need to arrange childcare to participate.
To address this, town and city halls should aim to improve their community outreach when looking to make decisions regarding affordable housing development. Brookfield took a step in the right direction by hosting an affordable housing information session to inform its constituents about its plans and to encourage them to learn more. However, turnout was still low, highlighting the need for additional strategies to increase resident engagement.
One opportunity for improvement is the timing and accessibility of public meetings. For many residents, work, school, and other commitments prevent them from attending in-person events. For example, a meeting held at 7:00 p.m. on a Thursday will have less engagement than one held at 12:00 p.m. on a Saturday. According to the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, municipalities should “Open all town hall meetings to the public and media and stream the event live if possible. At a minimum, make a video recording of each meeting and put it on the policymaker’s website to allow constituents who are unable to attend to view the entire event.”vi This recommendation addresses a major accessibility issue, and like many Connecticut towns, Brookfield and Danbury have expanded online access to these meetings.
However, greater access does not necessarily translate into meaningful participation. Viewing the event is different from participating in it. Without meaningful opportunities for residents to engage, low turnout may persist and, in turn, contribute to further atrophy of the local governance system.
Overall, this research highlights the reality that resident engagement in the observed planning and zoning commission meetings appears relatively limited. While this may partly reflect the relatively low salience of the developments under discussion, it may also indicate that residents have limited opportunities to participate actively in local decision-making despite existing efforts to encourage attendance. As a result, community perspectives may be underrepresented in discussions about affordable housing, particularly in Fairfield County, where housing affordability remains a pressing concern. Towns can begin addressing this gap by making meetings more accessible, promoting opportunities for participation more effectively, and engaging residents more intentionally. These efforts can help ensure that local housing decisions better reflect the needs and priorities of the people who live in these communities.