Subcommittee: Survey shows broad preference for Lumberyard site, split on need for more affordable housing

The Affordable Housing Committee's private-development subcommittee reviewed cleaned results of a May 19'June 23 public survey and reported that a majority of valid responses favored the downtown Lumberyard site for an affordable-housing project. The presenters said they received 452 total survey submissions, removed 142 incomplete records and analyzed 310 complete responses, with 58% of those selecting the Lumberyard as their preferred site.

Committee members described the survey as showing mixed views about the underlying need for more affordable housing in New Canaan: a question scored roughly 51.5 on a 0'to'100 scale, which the presenters interpreted as essentially split. By contrast, respondents expressed stronger support — roughly 75% — for continuing an affordable-housing strategy aimed at securing a moratorium, a planning tool discussed by the town.

Discussion of qualitative comments identified recurring themes. Multiple write'in respondents favored distributing housing among several smaller sites rather than concentrating units in a single large development. A common concern was building scale and "fitting" new housing into town character; traffic and parking were frequently raised. Several respondents expressed skepticism about the town's ability to manage the process and some called for different site types, including mixed use or workforce housing. Presenters also noted that about 20 respondents said the visual materials and renderings were inadequate, which may have limited respondents' ability to compare schemes.

Presenters walked the committee through specific survey questions. On trade-offs for the Lumberyard, roughly two-thirds of respondents favored moving forward either immediately (with phased construction) or after more planning; a smaller share preferred delaying action for extended long-term planning. For Locust and Richmond Hill, answers were more divided, with Locust drawing a notably larger fraction saying it was "not appropriate."

On the question of relocating public parking into a centralized garage or away from candidate sites, respondents were largely opposed: presenters reported about 61% said no to relocating parking from the sites. When shown alternative design schemes for each lot, respondents tended to be agnostic; the different master-plan schemes had closely clustered preference scores, and no single scheme dominated in most cases.

Demographics of survey respondents showed strong skew toward long-term homeowners: the presenters said 166 respondents reported living in town more than 20 years and 282 identified as owners, while only 16 were renters. Committee members cautioned that this concentration of long-term owners could bias the sample and recommended comparing respondent demographics to town population statistics before generalizing the results.

The committee agreed the survey provides helpful directional input but stressed the need to contextualize findings, correct for possible sample bias and incorporate more detailed traffic, cost and school-impact analyses before firm recommendations. Members also noted the difference between endorsing a moratorium strategy and endorsing the broader need for additional units.

The subcommittee plans to circulate written tables and narratives from each reviewer, merge findings into a draft report or FAQ for elected officials, and discuss next steps at the full committee meeting in mid-July.