To the Editor:

I totally agree with Matthew Schuster in his January 1 letter, “Do Not Revise Fairfield Hills Master Plan.” The ballot question was misleading, perhaps intentionally. Prior to the November election, I sent this letter to The Bee:

“To the Editor:

This is the question that appears on the Newtown ballot for the 2020 election November 3rd:

“Shall the town of Newtown consider commercial proposals at the Fairfield Hills campus that include a housing component, provided that a housing component would be limited to no more than two of the existing buildings, and that the renovation is consistent with the architectural vision for the property.”

I object to tying these two very separate proposals together into one question. I am in favor of future commercial proposals consistent with the concept and vision of the property, but I am not in favor of housing. This wording unfairly loads the question. If you do not favor housing then by default you are also voting against commercial proposals.

You should be able to select one without the other.”

I received this comment from someone identified as “debz”:

“Commercial use that does not include housing is already allowed, see “permitted uses” section in the Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse Zone (https://ecode360.com/34497481). Mixed use, i.e., like proposals described in the ballot question that include commercial with housing, are not allowed.”

The term “commercial with housing” seems rather nebulous, but in any case this distinction was not obvious on the ballot question.

I was surprised at the Yes vote outcome. It does not reflect the previously expressed sentiment of the town. Something was wrong. What was wrong was the ballot wording. Intentional or not, and as Matthew Schuster also points out, the phrase “…consider commercial proposals….” likely misled voters to believe basically they were voting for commercial development at Fairfield Hills.

Before the town continues with a change that will forever change the character of a jewel of the town, the question should be clarified and re-voted.

If voters understand the vote was and is on the housing question and nothing else, I suspect the outcome will be very different.

Jim Wright

Tamarack Road, Newtown January 15, 2021