Don’t Make Fairfield Hills Plan Too Rigid Or Inflexible

(The following letter consists of comments made at the February 17 public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission on the Fairfield Hills Master Plan. The writer served with two committees involved in planning for the future of Fairfield Hills, first as an ex-officio member in the early 1990s, and as a member of the most recent Fairfield Hills Master Plan Committee, which presented a plan later modified by the Legislative Council).

To the Editor:

I have two areas of concern with the contents of the plan. Much has been said about preserving open space at Fairfield Hills. When we drive through the property, it looks large and beautiful, but I think the townspeople need to be reminded that the property was originally over 1,000 acres. After the State of Connecticut took approximately 200 acres to build the prison facility, Representative Wasserman used her intelligence and influence to set aside the largest part of this acreage to the Department of Agriculture in order to preserve its current status as farmland. This leaves us with the approximately 200 acres on the south side of Wasserman Way that was highly developed as the center of the state mental institution.

Some would like to remove in excess of a million square feet of building to provide dedicated open space or land restricted to Town of Newtown use. I think it would be better to obtain large parcels of land that have not already been developed to serve as open space, and to leave a more flexible approach to the Fairfield Hills property. This site is in the geographic center of town, has access to an installed sewer system, is adjacent to an interstate highway entrance, and has seen extensive development of buildings and roadways. The population served here at one time equaled the entire population of the Town of Newtown.

Times do change, and this was the main reason that our committee decided not to be rigid in defining the uses of the property. We must have faith in future residents to develop the land in good taste and sensible usage. The important thing is that we now own it. I am in favor of keeping all land rights so that we can control the usage, but we cannot dictate what the town’s needs will be at the quadricentennial celebration. Again, we are not the only generation with vision.

The second problem I have is an economic one. The current financing only prepares the property, and does not provide any financial resources for the public buildings we would all like to see. I think there should be a more positive attitude toward business development on the property to provide tax income so that we will be able to afford our dreams. The committee invited all local clubs and service groups and town agencies to our meeting to hear their dreams for the property. They ranged from a modest storage area for the food kitchen to large meeting and concert spaces. Not one of these groups, however, had the financing to support their wish.

Many in town are worried about being able to provide for all the children who are moving into town. Residential development has never provided sufficient revenue to educate our school children, especially during the last boom time in the 60s and 70s when we all had four to eight children. We cannot avoid the population push we are now encountering. Many of our problems, such as traffic, were caused in the past by people who didn’t want anything to change, including new highways. Don’t we all wish now that more traffic went around town rather than through it? We are in Fairfield County, and we are near an interstate highway, and the pressures will continue.

But now manufacturing has left and will not return, and we cannot expect that professional use alone will support our tax needs. I am suggesting that we also think ahead to what we would like in town for employment opportunities for our children and grandchildren so they will not all have to leave after graduating. We don’t need to be dependant on any one huge company to provide this. There are opportunities for smaller companies that provide web portals and database analysis, business processing over the Internet, and others that don’t create heavy customer traffic and would enjoy sharing a business community. I envision this on the western edge near Mile Hill South and the duplexes that would be turned into art galleries, a coffee shop, an art supply or bookstore, or candy store also convenient to the new recreation facilities. This tax base would help us build that new recreation building and senior center, a school when needed, and a new town hall where we can provide an up-to-date, heated office space for our employees. In other words, with a little imagination, we could forge ahead without bankrupting the taxpayers.

I have had many conversations with other residents who share my opinions. Perhaps we have not been as vocal as some, but we would like to see a town friendlier to business and managed development.

In conclusion, I agree with the planning for the property, with the caveat that we must not be too rigid or inflexible, and that we must plan for our financial future as well.

Janice A. Roman

10 Taunton Lake Road, Newtown                        February 22, 2005