Affordable housing committee finalizes outreach materials and survey ahead of public workshop

Members of the New Canaan Affordable Housing Committee on May 6 approved the previous meeting's minutes and finalized outreach materials for an upcoming public workshop, agreeing to post a frequently asked questions document and circulate a flyer and press release ahead of the event.

The committee reviewed presentation slides and a draft public survey designed to both educate residents and collect feedback about three downtown sites under consideration for affordable housing. The presenter told the group the FAQ is live on the committee's website and that the Sentinel will run the flyer and an accompanying press release in the Fridays before the meeting. Internal town channels (including the selectman's news and the town calendar) will carry the flyer once Tucker and Greg receive materials by the Monday deadline for the May 14 publication.

The discussion framed the outreach as part of a strategy to preserve local control under Connecticut law commonly referenced in the meeting as "830G." The presenter explained that, under the state program, towns that increase their counted affordable housing stock can earn a four-year moratorium that restores certain local zoning control; earning that moratorium requires accumulating the required number of points from new units and other measures. The committee noted the town currently maintains a moratorium through 2028 and that the presentations should avoid technical overload while still conveying the trade-offs involved.

Committee members debated how much technical detail to include in the public materials. They asked the presenter to simplify language that might confuse lay respondents (for example, replacing or explaining terms such as "massing" and the point system) and to supply clearer bottom-line facts on handouts: estimated acreage, parking counts and rough unit ranges for each scheme. The consultant Amenta Emma is expected to bring one large board per site for display and smaller printouts for table discussions; the committee emphasized these should show massing and key facts only, not architectural renderings.

On the survey, the presenter walked through a draft of roughly 30 graphically oriented questions that mix background context with preference and tradeoff queries. The draft asks whether New Canaan should proactively build affordable housing to maintain local control, collects basic demographics (including whether respondents live or work near sites), and asks respondents to prioritize criteria such as parking, traffic, and scale. Committee members suggested simplifying the survey by asking respondents to pick the top three to five criteria rather than force-ranking every item, and to run plain-language reviews (including by the town planner) to reduce accidental bias.

Members discussed site trade-offs that will be framed in the survey materials: for example, the presenter said a Lumberyard scheme could yield roughly 128—165 units depending on design and would likely require rehabbing a 500-plus-space public parking garage, while Richmond Hill would be smaller and may require relocating public parking to add units. Those figures were presented as estimates to be confirmed in handouts and verbal remarks at the public meeting.

Logistics were set for public engagement: the committee agreed on breakout-group facilitation plans (6—2 people per table, with a notetaker and reporter) to surface pros, cons and information needs while discouraging detailed design critiques. The group discussed recording a 30-minute presentation for online viewing so that an abbreviated survey could rely on a consistent presentation of background material; alternatively, the longer survey could include embedded explanatory materials. The committee planned to refine materials over the week, circulate edits by email, and reconvene ahead of the public meeting. The presenter and members identified May 19 as the date of the public workshop and discussed scheduling a follow-up debrief the week after.

Approval of the meeting minutes was the single formal action taken: the motion to approve the April 29, 2026 minutes was moved, seconded and approved unanimously.

"I think the survey is a terrific start," said Hillary, one committee member who reviewed the draft and suggested further shortening and wordsmithing. The committee asked staff and consultants to focus public materials on clear trade-offs, concise facts, and plain-language explanations of technical terms.

Next steps: the committee will deliver finalized materials to town staff for publication, ask Amenta Emma to prepare one board per site with clear facts for breakout tables, and circulate a revised survey for email comment before the next scheduled meeting.