In Closed Session—

Authority Agrees To Hear Developer’s Proposal

By Kendra Bobowick

Officials took a step forward Wednesday to at least hear one developer’s ideas for renovating buildings at Fairfield Hills, including Cochran House, which could be repurposed as an apartment complex.

Ending nearly two hours of occasionally heated discussions, Fairfield Hills Authority member Ross Carley amended a motion on the table asking, “Can I move to hear the [developer’s] proposal in executive session?”

Michael Holmes added, “Should there be a proposal, it should go through this authority.” All were in favor.

“I think this is the best possible outcome from the resolution, and I appreciate what you did tonight,” said Legislative Council Chairman Jeff Capeci. He was referring to the authority’s lengthy back-and-forth in response to the council’s late January request to hear in detail one developer’s ideas regarding possible development on the primarily vacant Fairfield Hills campus. Last month authority Chair John Reed had said he would put the proposal before the full authority for discussion.

The authority’s real estate broker Michael Struna, who has been in contact with the developer during recent months, expressed his relief: “Thank you. Executive session, I concur, is the way to do it.” The second stage, he said, would be to hear from the developer and “let him make a presentation.”

Mr Reed said, “We’re volunteers with a charge to in some way respond to development issues at Fairfield Hills.”

Before Mr Carley’s amendment, the motion from member James Bernardi stated, “In response to the council’s letter, I move we send our broker to make himself available to the council to discuss in a public forum, proposals for Cochran House.”

Mr Struna was concerned. “With real estate proposals, you don’t go into detail…I can speak generally.” He aimed to protect his client’s ideas since no formal offer has yet been made to the town.

Mr Bernardi had stressed often Wednesday that if the council wanted the developer’s ideas vetted, they should invite the broker to speak at a council meeting. But, Mr Struna had advised, “As your broker, the best forum for the proposal is this authority.”

The first roll call vote quickly failed as Mr Reed concluded, “The motion does not carry.” Moments later Mr Carley made his amendment, which unanimously passed with little discussion.

At odds were varying opinions regarding the authority’s role in negotiating leases, the proper forum for hearing developers’ thoughts, whether or not real estate deals should be held up to public scrutiny before a formal proposal is made, whether the authority should hear of ideas such as housing, which are not among the approved uses of a master plan now under review.

Also emerging from the meeting was a desire for a joint board meeting with the council, selectmen, Fairfield Hills Authority, and the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee.

“I do not feel that this is ours to pick up and carry to the finish line,” said Mr Reed. Other groups such as Planning and Zoning, the Board of Selectmen, the Legislative Council, and the Master Plan Review Committee would all have roles to play in decisions regarding housing, members agreed.

As far as hearing the developer’s ideas initially, Mr Reed said, “We’ll have to walk through some kind of consultation to see if other groups want to appoint someone to be a part of this.”