A Neighbor’s Perspective on the Grace Church Property Development

With the election quickly approaching, it’s likely we’ll see a wave of messaging encouraging voters to support the $27+ million dollar referendum question on the November 4th ballot for a proposed community/senior facility at the Grace Church property. There may even be promotional videos aimed at showing how great this plan is.
But before that narrative takes hold, I want to share a perspective that hasn’t received nearly enough attention — the one from the neighbors living around the Grace Church property. And please remember, a VOTE NO isn’t a mandate for a NEVER vote but rather a mandate for a better more affordable solution.
From the beginning, the Community Facilities Building Committee and the project architect have made adjustments only after sustained pressure and input from concerned residents. Normally, oversight from a town Planning & Zoning board would help ensure thoughtful development — but because this is unique to Trumbull town-owned property, that regulatory process does not apply. As a result, there is no external review or requirement to consider the impact on neighboring homes. It’s been up to us — the neighbors — to ask the hard questions.
Here are just a few examples of what we’ve had to push for:

• A massive generator large enough to power a 32,000 square foot facility was initially planned to sit just feet from a neighboring home. It would have run weekly, causing serious concerns over noise and air quality. Only after neighbor pushback was it moved — unfortunately, to another side of the property near other homes in Long Hill Village. Again, neighbors had to speak up. Ultimately, it took three design revisions before the mechanicals were finally relocated to a sound-reducing rooftop well — a solution not proposed by the Town, but forced by neighbor advocacy.
• When we pointed out that wetlands existed on the property, the Town initially denied it. Only after months of insistence did they send a soil scientist — who confirmed what we had been saying all along: yes, there are wetlands. Without that, they might have been quietly destroyed.
• The dumpster was approved to be placed directly on a neighbor’s property line — without consideration for odors, pests, or visibility. Neighbors again had to intervene.
• Questions about overnight parking for senior center buses and minivans remain unanswered.
• We’ve asked three times, in writing, for the building boundaries, driveways, and parking lots to be marked out physically on-site — to show negative impacts of reduced setbacks from neighboring properties and better understand just how close this facility would be to our properties. No response.
• We’ve asked for visual renderings from our backyards — especially as it seems the two-story building’s outdoor patios will overlook our private spaces. Still no answers.
• For months, we asked about the known Ash Garden on the property — a known area of significance. Only after multiple requests did the Town provide documentation that it has been "moved" — raising even more questions.
• We requested a geological study and bore sampling before the project moved forward. The Town delayed this until August 2025. Results revealed ledge and underground water, requiring last-minute redesigns and shifting the building’s location — pushing it even closer to already tight property lines.
• We raised concerns about traffic flow, especially the proposed single roadway that would run directly behind homes, and the impact on Main Street traffic safety. A traffic study confirmed the state likely won’t allow any new curb cuts, making traffic congestion inevitable.
• When we asked for a crosswalk so pedestrians and cyclists could safely cross to the facility, we were told no — the State would only allow crossing at Main Street and Long Hill, which is well out of the way.
• We asked if there would be a sidewalk running along the same side of the street from Town Hall to the facility. Still no clear answer or cost included in the $27+ million dollar project cost
• We asked what the actual uses and operating hours of this building will be. The First Selectwoman publicly stated that she expects it to be open until 9 p.m. on weekdays and until 3 p.m. on weekends. This essentially turns our quiet backyards into the backdrop of a 7-day-a-week municipal hub.
• When asked about the budget for this project, we were told the approach was: design it first, then come up with the budget. That is not responsible fiscal planning.

These are not trivial issues. They represent a pattern — one where neighbors have had to act as the de facto oversight body because no one else is doing it. Every step forward has happened only because we pushed for it.
So, before anyone dismisses us as “NIMBYs,” I’d ask: Are we not right to ask whether this is the right location?Isn’t it fair to ask if this plan — in its current form — truly reflects community needs?
A VOTE NO does not mean NEVER We can and must do better with a more cost effective, representative community/senior center in the future.
However a yes vote will likely impact future town infrastructure, education budget and planning for school upgrade projects? And perhaps most importantly, are we really ready to spend this much taxpayer money, $27+ million dollars (with principal and interest closer to $40 million taxpayers dollars) and a unknown operating expenses with so many questions still unanswered?
The neighbors aren’t against a true senior center facility. We are simply asking for the right project, in the right place, done the right way — with transparency, accountability, and respect for the people who will live with its consequences every single day.
Please VOTE NO on November 4th.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.