First Selectman Responds To Persistent ‘Misinformation’ About Fairfield Hills

By John Voket

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal learned a long time ago that if he wanted to remain successful in the public eye, he would have to weather criticisms from constituents who disagreed with his ideas and rejected his politics. But when it comes to what he calls “blatant misinformation” and “misstatements of fact,” Mr Rosenthal said he could only stand by for so long before he was compelled to set the record straight.

The first selectman takes issue with two recent letters in The Newtown Bee from individuals who are involved with Friends of Fairfield Hills, a grassroots organization committed to preserving open space on the sprawling campus. In letters submitted January 10 by Newtown resident Linda Dunn, and January 11 by resident Ruby Johnson, Mr Rosenthal noted numerous “misstatements of fact.”

“Anybody has a right to agree or disagree with the things I say and do, but a lot of [the statements] are being used as scare tactics to mislead the public,” he said.

The January 11 letter from Ms Johnson first stated: “…selectmen requested the Planning and Zoning Commission to change the zoning at Fairfield Hills to allow the selectmen to sell or rent the eight single-family homes located in the West Meadow, as ‘affordable’ housing.’”

But Mr Rosenthal asserted that neither he, nor Selectmen William Brimmer or Joseph Bojnowski made such a request.

“We never requested the P&Z to change the zoning,” Mr Rosenthal said. “The P&Z commissioners felt there should be certain modifications to allow for the possibility of affordable housing.”

Mr Rosenthal said that it was not the position of the selectmen to request changes to the zoning regulations. “Any changes to the regulations that were presented at the [January 6] public hearing, were changes the P&Z [members] were proposing,” he said.

Ms Johnson’s letter goes on to state that the selectmen’s plan (for the reuse of Fairfield Hills), “has not been published.”

Mr Rosenthal said that virtually every step in the development of a plan — scheduled to be presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission in February — has been reported thoroughly and accurately in the local media. Furthermore, he noted that a 2004 survey of public sentiment conducted by a University of Connecticut affiliate resulted in modifications being made to the original plan.

“The people of Newtown have been in on this every step of the way. There isn’t any secret plan that we’re keeping from the public,” he said. “The Bee has reported on the development of our plan extensively, the original version is on the town’s website, and within the next few days, we’ll have the final modifications to the plan posted there, too.”

In the same letter, Ms Johnson said: “The high school space needs committee requested the West Meadow for a building to relieve overcrowding at Newtown High. This is the same area the selectmen said was to be left as open land.”

Mr Rosenthal suggested that the writer may have confused comments made on the record about part of the West Meadow parcel.

“All we said during a selectmen’s meeting was that according to the plan, the West Meadow area was supposed to be a land bank. But an area around the Kent House was designated to be set aside for a possible future school site,” he said.

Ms Johnson’s letter continues: “Consideration is underway to reserve these houses [on the Fairfield Hills campus] for town employees such as teachers, police officers, etc.”

Mr Rosenthal said he had no idea where that assertion came from, and that the selectmen never proposed the houses be used for employees.

“That plan may work, but I don’t know who is considering it. The selectmen never proposed it,” he said. “I do know that under the town’s affordable housing regulations, town employees should be given preference in accessing sale or rental properties that are deemed affordable. That’s pretty typical of most towns, I believe.”

Mr Rosenthal added that he empathized with lower paid municipal employees who want to live in town. “I think it’s very hard for young teachers, police officers, maybe some of the highway department crew and clerical staff. They might have a hard time affording a market-rate home in town,” he said.

The January 10 letter from Ms Dunn states: “In May 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted zoning regulations for Fairfield Hills that expressly prohibited single-family homes.”

But according to the First Selectman, that statement is untrue.

“Our zoning regs listed permitted uses, and that was not one of the permitted uses for development — any existing structures could be used. No matter what the 1998 regulations said, single-family use of those existing structures would have to be allowed anyway.

“Furthermore, I defy anyone to find on the record anywhere, language that states ‘single-family housing is expressly prohibited,’” he said.

Mr Rosenthal referenced a prior letter in The Bee that suggested the town’s purchase of Fairfield Hills was done on the basis that there would be no housing on the campus.

“Zoning at the time accommodated up to 30 different uses, and allowed for up to 550 units of housing on the campus,” he said. “Those regs would have permitted adult congregate living facilities, multifamily elderly, assisted living, and multifamily dwellings provided 25 percent were designated as affordable.”

Mr Rosenthal said selectmen, on recommendations by the Fairfield Hills Advisory Committee, voted that certain uses be eliminated.

“As it turned out, we actually reduced the number of housing units allowed from 550 to eight. And we only proposed the plan allow for the possibility of using those homes if someone comes forward with a viable plan.”

In the next paragraph, Ms Dunn asserts: “…it is not in the town’s best interest to overturn zoning regulations and cut up and parcel out pieces of the Fairfield Hills property.”

Mr Rosenthal took exceptional issue with that comment, indicating that the author apparently did not have a full understanding of Newtown’s zoning regulations.

“That’s a flat out…incorrect statement,” Mr Rosenthal said. “We never proposed or voted to sell off any of the 185 acres — that information is blatantly false. Besides, if you read the regulations, it is illegal to split any lot unless it can provide at least two 150-acre parcels. We couldn’t split 150 acres off the 185, that would only leave 35 acres and that would be in violation of zoning regulations.”

Mr Rosenthal said the only way that could change would be if the zoning regulations were changed.

“Both Linda Dunn and Ruby [Johnson] have been saying or implying that we intend to sell the land. But there’s no plan to do that,” he concluded. “At least I’m not going to do that.”