HB 5396 — AN ACT CONCERNING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN LAND OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.
Last action — FILE NO. 264
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed House
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill is in committee in the House. Introduced February 26, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee vote, then a floor vote in the House.
Odds of enactment
Low chanceBased on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.
Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.
A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.
Prognosis
-
In Committee
Current position in the legislative process.
-
17 sponsors
17 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (17 D).
Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
251 added · 58 removedPlain-language change summary
The recent changes to HB 5396 include a modification in a specific section where the phrase "if twenty percent" was replaced with "if less than twenty percent." This adjustment clarifies that the provisions will apply when the percentage is below twenty, rather than at exactly twenty percent. This change is significant because it broadens the criteria for whatever regulations or actions are outlined in that section, potentially allowing for more flexibility or assistance when the percentage falls below that threshold.
House of Representatives General Assembly RaisedFile Bill No.
5396264 February Session, 2026 LCOSubstitute House Bill No.
22315396 ReferredHouse toof Representatives, March 31, 2026 The Committee on PLANNINGPlanning ANDand DEVELOPMENTDevelopment Introducedreported by:through REP.
(PD)KAVROS ANDEGRAW ACTof CONCERNINGthe AFFORDABLE17th HOUSINGDist., DEVELOPMENTChairperson ONof CERTAINthe LANDCommittee OWNEDon BYthe Apart RELIGIOUSof ORGANIZATION.the House, that the substitute bill ought to pass.
AN ACT CONCERNING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN LAND OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.
(1) "Religious organization affordable housing development" means a development proposed by a religious institution or jointly proposed by a religious institution and any other developer that is located on real property owned by such religious organization where not less than thirtytwenty per cent of the proposed dwelling units are subject to aaffordable housing deed restrictionrestrictions; that requires, for not less than forty years after the initial occupation of the proposed development, that such units be sold or rented at, or below, a cost in rent or mortgage payments equivalent to not more than thirty per cent of the annual income of individuals and families earning sixty per cent of the median income of the state or the area median income as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, whichever is less;
LCO(3) No."Religious organization" has the same meaning as provided in section 49-31k of the general statutes;
2231sHB5396 1/ ofFile 3No. Raised Bill No.5396 (3) "Religious organization" has the same meaning as provided in section 49-31k of the general statutes;
and264 (4)1 "SummarysHB5396 review"File hasNo. the same meaning as provided in section 8-2r of the general statutes.
(b)264 Notwithstanding(4) "Affordable housing deed restriction" means a deed restriction contained in an instrument filed on the provisionsland records of anythe zoningmunicipality regulationsin adoptedwhich pursuantthe todevelopment section8-2ofthegeneralstatutesoris anylocated specialact,that exceptrequires, asfor providednot inless subsectionthan (c)forty years after the initial occupation of thisthe section,development, anythat proposedcertain religiousdwelling organizationunits housingin the development shall be allowedsold subjector onlyrented toat, summaryor review,below, provideda suchcost summaryin reviewrent processor shallmortgage payments equivalent to not considermore anythan zoningthirty regulationsper thatcent imposeof restrictionsthe onannual income of individuals and families earning sixty per cent of the densitymedian income of developmentthe state or the heightarea median income as determined by the United States Department of anyHousing structure.and Urban Development, whichever is less;
(c)and The(5) provisions"Summary ofreview" subsectionhas (b)the ofsame thismeaning sectionas shallprovided notin applysection to8-2r anyof realthe property:general statutes.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of any zoning regulations adopted pursuant to section8-2ofthegeneralstatutesor any specialact, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, any proposed religious organization housing development shall be allowed subject only to summary review.
(c) Any zoning regulations adopted pursuant to section 8-2 of the general statutes or any special act may require that a religious organization housing development have:
(1) A gross density of (A) thirty or fewer dwelling units per acre if less than twenty-five per cent ofthe dwelling units in such development are subject to an affordable housing deed restriction, or (B) fifty or fewer dwelling units per acre if twenty-five per cent or greater of the dwelling units in such development are subject to an affordable housing deed restriction;
(2) A height not greater than the maximum allowable height for a residential development in the municipality;
(3) Side and rear setbacks of not less than fifteen feet;
and (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8-3n of the general statutes, off-street motor vehicle parking if the development is greater sHB5396 / File No.
264 2 sHB5396 File No.
264 than one-half mile from any public transit station, provided such parking requirements shall not exceed one parking space per dwelling unit.
(d) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to any real property:
(d)(e) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to any development that would require the demolition of any property listed in the (1) National Register of Historic Places, or (2) State Register of Historic Places, provided such demolition may occur for property listed in said state register if such demolition has been approvedapproved, in writingwriting, by the State Historic Preservation Officer.
(e)(f) The summary review process specified in subsection (b) of this LCOsection No.shall require that a decision on any application be rendered not later than ninety days after receipt of such application by the planning commission, zoning commission or combined planning and zoning commission, except an applicant may consent to one or more extensions of not more than an additional ninety days or may withdraw such application.
2231(g) 2The provisions of 3this Raisedsection Billshall not be construed to make any portion of real property used for a religious organization affordable housing development exempt from taxation pursuant to section 12-81 of the general statutes unless such development meets the requirements sHB5396 / File No.
5396264 section3 shallsHB5396 requireFile thatNo. a decision on any application be rendered not later than ninety days after receipt of such application by the planning commission, zoning commission or combined planning and zoning commission, except an applicant may consent to one or more extensions of not more than an additional ninety days or may withdraw such application.
264 of said section.
Section 1 October 1, 2026 New section Statement of Purpose:Legislative Commissioners:
ToInSubdiv.(c)(1),"iftwentypercent"waschangedto"iflessthan allowtwenty- thefive constructionper ofcent", religiousfor organizationaccuracy. affordable housing developments subject to summary review.
thatPD whenJoint theFavorable entireSubst. text of a bill or resolution or a section of a bill or resolution is new, it is not underlined.] LCO No.
2231sHB5396 3/ ofFile 3No.
264 4 sHB5396 File No.
264 The following Fiscal Impact Statement and Bill Analysis are prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and do not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.
In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge.
Whenever applicable, agency data is consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any specific department.
OFA Fiscal Note State Impact:
None Municipal Impact:
Municipalities Effect FY 27 $ FY 28 $ All Municipalities Potential Minimal Minimal Revenue Loss All Municipalities Potential Minimal Minimal Savings Explanation The bill requires municipalities to consider certain proposed affordable housing developments under summary review process.
This results to a potential revenue loss to municipalities beginning in FY 27 to the extent fewer special permit fees are paid and a potential savings beginning in FY 27 to the extent fewer public hearings are held.
It is anticipated any impact will be minimal as this bill only applies to affordable housing developments that a religious organization wants to build.
The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future subject to the number of affordable housing developments that are built.
sHB5396 / File No.
Show all 96 changed lines (56 more)
264 5 sHB5396 File No.
264 OLR Bill Analysis sHB 5396 AN ACT CONCERNING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON CERTAIN LAND OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.
SUMMARY The bill requires all municipalities to consider proposed affordable housing developments that a religious organization wants to build on itsownlandunderasummaryreviewprocess.
Thisrequirementapplies regardless of conflicting zoning regulations.
The bill (1) defines qualified developments, (2) lists certain restrictions municipalities can put on them, and (3) excludes certain parcels from its requirements.
By law, under a “summary review” process, a project that complies with local zoning regulations is approvable without a public hearing, variance, special permit or exception, or other discretionary zoning action (other than a review of a site plan for regulatory compliance and a determination that public health and safety will not be substantially impacted).
The bill requires municipalities to make a decision on a religiousorganization’sapplicationwithin90daysofreceiving it,unless the organization agrees to one or more extensions totaling up to 90-days or withdraws the application.
The bill’s summary review process appears to align with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which prohibits land use regulations that substantially burden religious exercise, but by providing a process applicable only to religious organizations it is unclear whether it may violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (see BACKGROUND).
EFFECTIVE DATE:
October 1, 2026 QUALIFYING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS sHB5396 / File No.
264 6 sHB5396 File No.
264 Under the bill, qualifying affordable housing developments must be proposed by a religious organization, but they may do so jointly with any developer.
Religious organizations must be religious nonprofits under federal tax law.
Under the bill, at least 20% of the dwellings in a qualifying proposed development must be deed-restricted for at least 40 years to preserve them as affordable for people earning no more than 60% of the lesser of the federally determined state or area median income.
They may be rental or ownership units.
(Unless at least 30% of the units are preserved for low-income households, these developments will not qualify as set-aside developments for purposes of bringing suit under the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure (§ 8-30g).
But deed-restricted units in these developments generally would qualify for points toward a moratorium (see BACKGROUND).) Housing developed under the bill’s summary review process is subject to the property tax unless it otherwise qualifies for an exemption under existing law.
Eligible Parcels A qualifying development must be proposed on property that the institution has owned for at least three years and with access to adequate water and sewer infrastructure.
The development cannot require demolishing a property on the national or state registers of historicplaces,unlessthestatehistoricpreservationofficergiveswritten approval.
Also, the property to be developed cannot be:
1.
a cemetery;
2.
in a special flood hazard area (as shown on National Flood Insurance Program’s rate map);
or 3.
within 3,200 feet of a natural gas or oil refinery or extraction facility.
sHB5396 / File No.
264 7 sHB5396 File No.
264 SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED ZONING RESTRICTIONS Under the bill, municipal zoning authorities must generally allow qualified affordable housing developments on an organization’s property subject only to a summary review (which by law includes checking whether the proposal meets specified requirements, like those on lot size and building frontage).
The bill specifies certain restrictions on density, setbacks, building height, and parking that may be included in zoning regulations.
(Presumably, local regulations cannot conflict with the restrictions the bill permits.) The bill specifically allows zoning regulations to:
1.
limit a development’s gross density to (a) 30 units per acre when fewer than 25% of them are deed-restricted affordable units or (b) units per acre when at least 25% are deed-restricted affordable units;
2.
set side and rear setbacks of up to 15 feet;
3.
set a maximum height for buildings, if it is no lower than the maximum for other residential developments in the municipality;
and 4.
regardless of the law on setting off-street parking requirements, require one off-street parking space per dwelling unit if the development is over 1/2 mile from a public transit station (the bill does not define “public transit station”).
BACKGROUND Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure (CGS § 8-30g) The procedure generally requires municipal land use commissions to defend their decisions to reject affordable housing development applications or approve them with restrictions that would have a substantial adverse impact on the project’s viability or the affordability ofincome-restricted units.(Intraditionallanduse appeals,theappellant sHB5396 / File No.
264 8 sHB5396 File No.
264 (for example, a developer) must convince the court that the commission acted illegally or arbitrarily or abused its discretion.) Generally, a prospective developer can use the appeals procedure to contest a commission’s decision on an application if (1) fewer than 10% of the municipality’s housing units are affordable, based on certain statutory criteria, and (2) the municipality has not qualified for a moratorium.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) Broadly, this federal law prohibits the government from implementing a land use regulation that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of any person, including a religious organization, unless it furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of doing so.
RLUIPA may also be violated when a land use regulation treats a religious use less favorably than secular uses (42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc et seq.).
U.S.
Constitution’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion:
the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
Broadly, the Establishment Clause limits the government from becoming intertwined with religion by establishing, sponsoring, or supporting it.
The Free Exercise Clause limits government interference with religious beliefs.
Courts have taken different approaches to evaluating Establishment Clause claims, including looking to historical practices and understandings and considering whether governmental actions benefiting a religious group serve a secular purpose and avoid entanglement.
Related Bills sHB 5502, favorably reported by the Planning and Development Committee, extends the law on approving certain middle housing and mixed-use developments under a summary review process to proposed developments on (1) lots that were previously zoned for residential use sHB5396 / File No.
264 9 sHB5396 File No.
264 and (2) certain lots zoned for industrial use.
COMMITTEE ACTION Planning and Development Committee Joint Favorable Substitute Yea 13 Nay 8 (03/13/2026) sHB5396 / File No.
264 10
Show all 96 changed rows (56 more)
View plain text versions (3)
- File No. 264 View text pdf
- Raised Bill View text Current pdf
- Substitute PD Joint Favorable Substitute pdf
Action History
-
FILE NO. 264
-
HOUSE CALENDAR NUMBER 220
-
FAV. RPT., TABLED FOR HOUSE CALENDAR
-
RPTD. OUT OF LCO
-
REFERRED TO Office of Legislative Research AND Office of Fiscal Analysis 03/30/26
-
FILED WITH LCO
-
Joint Favorable Substitute
-
PUBLIC HEARING 0304
-
REF. TO JOINT COMM. ON Planning and Development
Sponsors
- Derek Slap · Primary
- Farley Santos · Primary
- Michael "MJ" Shannon · Primary
- Joshua M. Hall · Primary
- Laurie Sweet · Primary
- Gary A. Turco · Primary
- Saud Anwar · Primary
- Travis Simms · Primary
- Anne M. Hughes · Primary
- Kaitlyn Shake · Primary
- Martha Marx · Primary
- Antonio Felipe · Primary
- Sarah Keitt · Primary
- Josh Elliott · Primary
- MD Rahman · Primary
- Steven Winter · Primary
- Cristin McCarthy Vahey · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →17 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 170 not signed on
Sponsors (17)
- Derek Slap Democratic
- Farley Santos Democratic
- Michael "MJ" Shannon Democratic
- Joshua M. Hall Democratic
- Laurie Sweet Democratic
- Gary A. Turco Democratic
- Saud Anwar Democratic
- Travis Simms Democratic
- Anne M. Hughes Democratic
- Kaitlyn Shake Democratic
- Martha Marx Democratic
- Antonio Felipe Democratic
- Sarah Keitt Democratic
- Josh Elliott Democratic
- MD Rahman Democratic
- Steven Winter Democratic
- Cristin McCarthy Vahey Democratic
Co-sponsors (0)
None.
Not signed on (170)
170 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 170 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- Who sponsors HB 5396?
- HB 5396 is sponsored by Derek Slap (Democratic), Farley Santos (Democratic), Michael "MJ" Shannon (Democratic), Joshua M. Hall (Democratic), Laurie Sweet (Democratic), Gary A. Turco (Democratic), Saud Anwar (Democratic), Travis Simms (Democratic), Anne M. Hughes (Democratic), Kaitlyn Shake (Democratic), Martha Marx (Democratic), Antonio Felipe (Democratic), Sarah Keitt (Democratic), Josh Elliott (Democratic), MD Rahman (Democratic), Steven Winter (Democratic), and Cristin McCarthy Vahey (Democratic).
- What is the current status of HB 5396?
- This bill is in committee in the House. Introduced February 26, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track HB 5396?
- Track HB 5396 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on HB 5396
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of HB 5396
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →