Review Opens Door To Question Fairfield Hills Plans

By Kendra Bobowick

Clutching a paper stamped DRAFT, resident Bob Savin was first to name a topic that loomed Monday night’s Board of Selectmen meeting: a Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee.

“I’ve been here 11 years and notice large sums spent at Fairfield Hills. I support moving Newtown forward, but are the plans our leaders are enacting of value to the town?” he asked. He was addressing a topic at the end of the night’s agenda — discussion of the charge for the master plan review committee. According to the draft prepared by the Board of Selectmen, officials seek a panel to “review the master plan [of 2005] and make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate for revisions or modifications in that plan.”

“So, I have questions,” Mr Savin said. He asked what plans were in place for residents to know what is spent on town crews completing portions of work. Why are certain projects not sent to referendum? Are other projects deferred in order to do work at Fairfield Hills? The review is another step in plans set in motion at a 2001 town meeting where residents voted to appropriate $21 million for the Fairfield Hills purchase and ensuing work.

A long-ago nonbinding or advisory referendum followed years later as the master plan took shape, but was voted down. Mr Savin made the appeal, “Please put a new Fairfield Hills plan up for referendum.” Resident Ruby Johnson would also insist, “The people voted it down and the administration didn’t care. I hope the Republicans in control here will give the public a chance to vote …”

Later in the meeting, Mr Savin raised the subject again regarding the master plan that did not find voter approval: “A lot of tension I see here comes from that. People feel they’re not being heard.” He asked again that the review for the master plan go up for a referendum so residents could “accept or reject that.” Mr Savin suggests: “Maybe you should start from scratch. The voters feel left out.”

He and others Monday reviewed the evening’s draft that spoke of concepts including, “solicit input and active participation from the public … provide forums for local discussion of key issues pertaining to the future use and development of the campus.”

Ms Johnson found a foothold Monday for one of her ongoing arguments: “I would hope you request a review of the [ordinance establishing the Fairfield Hills Authority] and take away some of the power and give it back to the people. It’s our land.”

Legislative Council member Kevin Fitzgerald spoke on a “point of contention.” He agreed, “The taxpayers never had a chance to adopt [the 2005 master plan].” He also had concerns that there are “still projects going on to suggest that Fairfield Hills work is continuing” after all the bond funds have been depleted. First Selectman Pat Llodra explained that Capital Improvement Plan funding requests do include Fairfield Hills items. Noting line items to raze certain buildings on the campus, she said, “Some buildings have to come down, no matter what.” Earlier years’ CIP plans are for infrastructure. Those necessities are also “not going to go away, regardless of a [master plan] review.”

Po Murray had thanked the selectmen for the review process, then said something was “missing.” She asked about the “long-term needs of the community, a police station, etc, that’s not in here.” As a former Legislative Council member, she said, “The previous [council] voted to have the Board of Selectmen initiate a long-term planning process.”

She said, “We’re still treating Fairfield Hills like an island rather than incorporated into the broader needs of the community.”

Making four points, Ms Murray said via email Wednesday, “I think the committee should include people with variety of opinions to work towards building a common ground and some type of consensus. Second, the committee should encourage significant public input. Third, I would like to see a full financial analysis of the money spent to date. How much money did we spend so far? Determine how well the master plan was executed and whether or not the existing plan continues to make economical and practical sense — with an eye on the broader long term needs of the community.

She added, “I support Bill Furrier’s idea of a town vote.”

 

Selectmen’s Discussion

Selectman William Furrier would like to evaluate “How we did with the [original] master plan.” He said, “It’s been five, six, seven years? How did we do?” What are the accomplishments?

The original master plan will be the starting point, Mrs Llodra said. The draft paperwork also states, “The committee shall use the existing master plan as the starting point for its review, understanding that the town meeting in June 2001 identified five themes for campus redevelopment.”

The five points for consideration include: open space and playing fields; renovated buildings for economic activity and for town municipal use; the “entry plaza” portion of the campus should be renovated to accommodate professional offices; a core area could be reserved for revenue generating economic development; and all components should be provided within the context of a master plan that preserves the campus environment.

Mr Furrier questioned one of those themes Monday, saying one portion “was not a part” of the 2001 meeting. Mrs Llodra replied that she had taken the language directly from records about that town meeting.

She said Wednesday that she used “source documents” for the background. Records from the 2001 town meeting, available in the town clerk’s office, reflect the meeting and vote for $21 million appropriation. A reference to the 2001 meeting is also included on the town’s website at www.newtown-ct.gov/public_documents/newtownct_ffhills/index.

In documents detailing the background for the Fairfield Hills master plan is the statement: “The town meeting vote authorized a variety of activities … including the preparation of a master plan … materials at the meeting established five themes for the plan.” Five bullet points in that document are identical to the themes in the draft.

Also available on the town’s website through the Land Use Department’s Zoning Regulations, Section 3: adaptive reuse for Fairfield Hills, is Section 6.03.200 notes procedure. “The Fairfield Hills site possesses unique circumstances that shall require multiple steps and approvals for the reuse of the campus as outlined herein.”

Section 6.03.210 states, “The first step involves the creation of a master planned development proposal for the entire campus and the submission of such plan to the commission for its consideration and action. Read more at www.newtown-ct.gov/Public_Documents/NewtownCT_ZoneRegs/zoning#ARTICLE6.” Land Use Director George Benson explained that the plans in place are “no secret. It’s all laid out” in the town’s documents.

Selectman Will Rodgers is “happy with the draft and comfortable with its historical underpinnings.” He said, “I find the charge less important than the personnel we appoint.” His objective is finding open-minded people, he said. He feels it would be “damaging” to find people “determined to banish, just as it would be damaging to find people determined to uphold the original master plan.”

Arguing one point, Mr Furrier said that with “respect to” Mr Rodgers’ comments, he felt it was a “mistake” about themes from the town meeting regarding the core area of campus being reserved for economic development.

Mrs Llodra noted his argument and replied that the economic development was a “lightning rod.” She said, “I think we want the review committee to ask if these [themes] are things we are still committed to as a town.”

 “Well, I would agree with that,” Mr Furrier said.

“Glad to hear it,” Mrs Llodra replied, concluding the friendly exchange. She hopes to “focus the committee without directing the outcome.”

Mr Rodgers moved to adopt the draft “with the proviso to add instruction” when they have a clearer idea of what the committee’s work would be.

Selectmen noted that the night’s conversation was the draft’s first review and the next step would be discussion on how to assemble the committee, determine its number of members, how to generate a pool of interest, and to come to the next meeting prepared for discussion.

The timing of the master plan review appears to be right on schedule. The 2005 Master Plan document calls for the five-year review, and the original funds bonded for the purchase and initial phases of campus redevelopment are now depleted.