The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) conducted its second public hearing for Application 20.15 by the Town of Newtown Board of Selectmen and approved it during its January 21 meeting over Zoom. The application is for a text amendment to Newtown’s zoning regulations to allow rental residential housing in up to two of the existing campus buildings at the Fairfield Hills Campus (FFH).

At the P&Z meeting, the commission also approved the Holly Estates subdivision, discussed permitted uses for vineyards in residential zones, and reviewed the 3 Edmond Road subdivision (see articles “P&Z Approves Holly Estates Subdivision On Berkshire Road” and “P&Z Continues Hearings For Vineyard Uses, Edmond Road Subdivision,” respectively).

More than 40 people virtually attended the meeting.

Commission’s Input

P&Z Chair Don Mitchell said that after reviewing the proposed text amendment he had two suggestions for edits he would like to see made.

Under 6.03.310 Special Exception Uses item A.4 that states, “Residential and commercial unit rental agreements shall contain a notification and waiver of Parks and Recreation activities, daily public use, other leased entity/tenant uses, and special events held at the Fairfield Hills Campus,” he suggested removing the words “and waiver.”

In item A.5 that states, “Existing historic exterior architecture shall be maintained,” Mitchell recommended changing the word “maintained” to “restored.”

Land Use Agency Director of Planning George Benson and First Selectman Dan Rosenthal said they were okay with those changes to the text.

Mitchell then discussed a question from the previous P&Z meeting about parking structures at FFH.

“You look at the history of what this was before the town acquired it, [and] it was basically high-density residential… it was designed only for several hundred but wound up for a couple thousand residents there who didn’t drive, and they didn’t need parking, so it wasn’t scheduled for it. The campus wasn’t designed for it,” he explained.

Regarding parking at the campus today, Mitchell added that there are now limits for parking based on their agreement with the state. He said he can see the rationale for parking structures; if they cannot spread the parking out, then parking would have to be built up.

Mitchell also reminded everyone, “I think so far a lot of what’s in the [FFH] Master Plan is already in our current regulations and in this proposed regulation. Is this being done backwards? Well, no. The regulations say you can’t approve a development unless you’re in line with the Master Plan. Right now, we are not approving a development. We are opening up opportunities to this, whether they will emerge or not we don’t know.”

P&Z member Jim Swift said he was under the impression “that the regulations need to take into consideration or reflect the Master Plan” and that the regulations stated the Master Plan is their guide. He inquired if the current Master Plan allows residential housing.

Benson cited page 19 of the Master Plan and said, “It’s a permitted use. It’s not a preferred use, but it’s not a prohibited use. By the Master Plan, the original Master Plan, residential housing is a permitted use.” He added that the original Master Plan never went away, even with the review committees’ input over the years.

“The sentiment is, we know we want some sort of residential housing at Fairfield Hills. I don’t think anyone knows exactly what the final project is going to be — we can’t, we don’t know. This is going to let us review, and the selectmen review, and the FFH Authority review proposals for possible residential use at Fairfield Hills,” Benson concluded.

Public Participation

The first to speak in the public participation portion of the P&Z meeting was Newtown resident Matt Schuster. He inquired into the application process and if the public has any say in the approval/rejection of an application.

Mitchell explained that a developer negotiates the terms of a lease with the Board of Selectmen (BOS); if a proposed lease is approved, the project goes to the P&Z; and if the commission approves the site plan, then the BOS reviews it again. As for the public’s input, that can be done during the P&Z’s public hearings.

Schuster said, “I had seen proposals from developers that kind of drove this to a ballot question. Obviously, those proposals really were not voiced in the question on the ballot… I don’t think a lot of the public is aware of the types of interest that there’s been. I think opening these regulations up without any types of limitations is a little scary.”

Mitchell said, “We’ve got elected officials, and we elect them to exercise their judgement. I don’t know that it’s up to Planning and Zoning to limit the selectmen’s judgement for what they think is best for the town and campus or the Fairfield Hills Authority.”

Benson added that there are some limits in place due to the concerns of the public, such as the use being for only two buildings.

Newtown resident Bruce Walczak expressed that he felt the whole process has been a “charade” with all the recommendations from Master Plan committees over the years discussing if they should allow or not allow apartments on the campus, all the while housing has already been an approved use from the original Master Plan.

Mitchell took exception to the comment.

Walczak continued, “This is a public hearing, and the purpose of this hearing is to hear input from the public, not for the commission to get into an argument in public participation.”

Benson said, “There are a lot of things in the Master Plan that we haven’t done. What the Planning and Zoning Commission does or did, they went back to the Master Plan and they cherry picked what they wanted and what they felt they were going to put into the zoning regulations. Once again, the Master Plan is not the zoning regulations.”

Walczak asked if residential housing was already an approved use and requested Mitchell — not Benson — answer.

Mitchell responded, “Both the Fairfield Hills Authority and the Planning and Zoning Commission have recognized that there are allowed uses and they have recognized that there are priorities in those uses. For a long time, the priority was: get commercial in there.” He went on to say priorities can change, and he does not believe it has been a charade.

Mitchell then asked Benson to respond, to which he said, “It’s not an approved use… it’s a use that is permitted by the Master Plan.” Benson elaborated that the definition of a permitted use by the Master Plan is different than an approved use by the P&Z.

“No, housing has not been approved by the P&Z as a use for Fairfield Hills. That’s why we have to go through the process,” Benson said.

Walczak requested to read his prepared statement, which included, “All the history needs to be considered, not simply one referendum. This review will demonstrate conclusively that residents do not want rental apartments on Fairfield Hills; however, nor do they want to pay for the demolition of two buildings which would cost upward of $8 million.”

He requested the text amendment be rewritten “to accomplish the wishes and desires of the voters” and “not giving carte blanche to developers who are primarily motivated by their profit potential.”

Walczak then cited the recent referendum results saying that 9,000 voted to approve apartments to save money, but that there were 7,000 who opposed it.

Newtown resident Wayne Addessi spoke next and told the commission that he supports housing at FFH and felt it was time to move forward with the text amendment.

He added, “I know it hasn’t been talked about, but I would like to see condominiums.”

Addessi concluded that it would be a positive to have people living on such a walkable campus.

Newtown resident Kathy Grable expressed that she believes when the public voted on the referendum question for FFH, it was not made clear that parking garages could be going up.

Grable noted, “Renters don’t pay taxes. They’ll send their kids to our schools, but they don’t pay the taxes. And who is going to be maintaining these buildings, and who is going to police the outside of them so that nobody is coming in on people’s private property?”

Newtown resident Ned Simpson commented that he likes the path that the P&Z is on.

“As of November 2020, the majority of people in town support housing,” he said.

Simpson wants the process to move along and leave the developers to be the ones to think creatively about parking.

Benson clarified about the topic of parking garages, saying, “They’re right now allowed as a permitted use at Fairfield Hills, regardless of this proposal.”

Schuster voiced that he feels the referendum question was misleading in that it did not present the proportion of what the residential to commercial component could be.

“What I saw from the developers that are interested in the property, we’re looking at hundreds of apartments in a building with ‘Hey, maybe we throw a rental office in the bottom and that counts as our commercial…’” he said.

If residents had known that, Schuster says the voting results may have been very different.

Mitchell responded, “I recognize your concern… but that is not for this regulatory process. It’s for down the line if this is approved.”

After much discussion, the public participation portion was closed.

The Vote

Swift said, in general, he agreed with Walczak’s sentiments. He went on to say that when he voted in the November referendum he was in favor, but with the information presented tonight, said, “This is not what I envisioned. This is not what I voted for.”

Swift requested that he would like changes to be made to the proposal.

Benson said they are not changing it, and this is what they are voting on.

The P&Z motioned to approve the application, with the two amendments Mitchell made about wording.

Swift voiced his concerns that under the proposed regulation there is little reason they can deny an applicant.

“What I’m afraid is going to happen is it’s going to go to the Board of Selectmen, through the Fairfield Hills Authority, and then by the time it gets to us it’s been approved by both of them... The pressure on us to approve it is going to be enormous. It’s very difficult for us to say no, even if we have overwhelming public opinion against it,” Swift summarized.

Benson responded, “It’s not public opinion that determines what you do. It’s your decision as a commissioner what to do.”

When the P&Z conducted their vote, the motion passed with four members in favor and one against.

To learn more about the Planning and Zoning Commission, visit newtown-ct.gov/planning-zoning-commission. Call the P&Z office at 203-270-4276 for information on participating in meetings virtually.