Split Decision —

P&Z Endorses Fairfield Hills Master Plan

By Andrew Gorosko

Following lengthy discussion, in a 3-to-2 vote Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have approved the Fairfield Hills Master Plan, with opposition to the plan focusing on its traffic statistics, as well as the prospect for “affordable housing” at Fairfield Hills.

P&Z members acted on the master plan at a March 17 session, with Chairman William O’Neil, Lilla Dean, and Jane Brymer endorsing the document, and members Sten Wilson and Robert Mulholland opposing it. Mr Mulholland , who is an alternate P&Z member, voted on the matter in the absence of regular P&Z member Robert Poulin.

The town purchased the 189-acre Fairfield Hills core campus from the state last August for $3.9 million. The master plan, formulated during the past several years for the town by consultant Harrall-Michalowski Associates of Hamden, is designed to guide the redevelopment of the former psychiatric hospital and grounds. Fairfield Hills, which once housed more than 4,000 mental patients, closed in December 1995.

In August 2003, voters at referendum turned down an initial version of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan. Residents voiced their opinions on a revised version of the plan at a February 17 public hearing.

On March 17, Mr Mulholland said that traffic-flow projections stated in the master plan greatly underestimate the volume of traffic that would travel on Wasserman Way. The presence of Reed Intermediate School on Trades Lane and the construction of developer Toll Brothers’ proposed 60-unit age-restricted condominium complex on Oakview Road would result in much more traffic traveling on Wasserman Way than the master plan projects, he said.

Such traffic volumes raise public safety issues and congestion concerns, he said. “I have a major concern about the traffic,” he said, noting that traffic data that was generated in 2002 is listed in the master plan, which is dated January 2005.

The master plan traffic projections that were made in 2002 are not accurate, Mr Mulholland said. Reed School opened in January 2003. Mr Mulholland urged that the P&Z seek new traffic information for the master plan.

Mr O’Neil responded that the eventual uses of Fairfield Hills are a more urgent matter than the plan’s traffic statistics.

Town residents appear divided over whether Fairfield Hills should be used largely for recreational purposes, or should be put to some commercial uses, Mr O’Neil said. It seems unclear whether Fairfield Hills could ever achieve its commercial development potential, he added.

Mr Mulholland stressed that master plan’s underestimation of potential traffic flow at Fairfield Hills is a “significant issue.”

Mr O’Neil said it would be difficult for him to reject the master plan because some traffic statistics in the plan are out of date.

Mr Mulholland responded that if the master plan were a P&Z application requiring traffic information, the master plan would not meet the P&Z’s standards.

Obtaining revised traffic information for the master plan would not necessarily affect the P&Z’s decisionmaking on future land uses at Fairfield Hills, Mr O’Neil said. The chairman asked why the P&Z should delay its action on the master plan.

Inaccurate traffic information in the master plan poses “a major concern,” Mr Mulholland said.

Affordable Housing

Mr O’Neil noted that a master plan provision that would allow for the possible future use of eight vacant Fairfield Hills single-family houses as “affordable housing” had drawn public opposition at recent P&Z hearings.

Consequently, P&Z members then dropped a proposed zoning regulation that would have allowed such affordable housing as a permitted land use at Fairfield Hills.

P&Z members, however, have retained the wording in the master plan that would allow those eight houses to be used as affordable housing. Fairfield Hills workers formerly lived in the eight white, wood-frame houses.

As specified by state law, affordable housing is subsidized housing intended for low- and moderate-income families that meet annual income restrictions. Affordable housing may be publicly owned or privately owned.

Affordable housing should be available somewhere in town, Mr O’Neil said. The P&Z chairman suggested that the town form an “affordable housing study group,” which would consider where affordable housing could be built in Newtown, either on public land or private land.

Mr O’Neil said it is unclear if Fairfield Hills is the “right place” for local affordable housing. Mr O’Neil noted that using the eight existing single-family houses at Fairfield Hills for that purpose would not amount to very much affordable housing, compared to the local need for such housing. The town might be better served if several dozen units of affordable housing were constructed at Fairfield Hills, he said.

Mr Wilson said, “I’d rather see the master plan without any mention of those [eight] houses at all as affordable housing.”

“We have to put affordable housing somewhere,” Ms Dean responded.

“I think that’s a mighty expensive piece of property for affordable housing,” Mr Wilson said of the Fairfield Hills site. There would be strong public opposition to placing affordable housing there, he predicted.

The P&Z members then voted 3-to-2 to approve the Fairfield Hills Master Plan.

Plan Specifics

The P&Z motion to approve the master plan states that the plan is consistent with the three land use zones at Fairfield Hills, which are the Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse (FHAR) zone, the Conservation & Agriculture (C&A) zone, and the Aquifer Protection District (APD) zone.

The motion adds that the master plan will not result in unacceptable congestion or traffic hazards on neighboring streets. It states that the plan will not result in impaired property values in the neighborhood.

The motion adds that the plan will not result in a health or safety hazard for people or for property either on the core campus or off the core campus.

The P&Z motion adds that Fairfield Hills Master Plan acceptance is consistent with the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development.

The master plan recommends what should happen to each building on the core campus, be it reuse, demolition, or partial demolition. The plan assumes that those buildings slated for reuse would be reused within five years of the master plan’s approval. If a building’s reuse is not determined within five years, then demolition would be scheduled for that structure.

The master plan generally calls for 22 of 31 existing buildings at Fairfield Hills to be retained, after nine buildings are demolished.

There is the potential for the construction of three new buildings, including a town hall, a high school academy, and a building designated for parks and recreation use, plus cultural uses.

The core campus would hold three community-use buildings, plus 18 private-use buildings. Private-use buildings would include housing, office space, and stores.

As the site is redeveloped, there would be a need to increase parking areas. Such parking could grow from the existing 645 spaces to as many as 1,425 spaces.

The open space area on the 189-acre site would increase from 112 acres to 140 acres.

The P&Z’s FHAR zoning regulations provide a mechanism through which an approved master plan could later be modified, as needed.

Permitted Uses

The P&Z’s revised FHAR zoning regulations, which were approved recently in conjunction with the master plan, specify permitted land uses at the Fairfield Hills core campus. Permitted uses that are not listed would be prohibited.

Permitted uses would include: indoor and outdoor recreational and sport facilities; museums, art galleries, and cultural centers; theaters for the performing arts, public libraries, senior centers, and teen centers.

Also allowed would be: town halls and governmental uses, excluding dumps, incinerators, waste recycling centers, waste transfer stations, garbage disposal areas, garbage handling areas, municipal garages, and public works storage yards.

Also permitted would be: educational facilities, accessory housing, and sports facilities; shops and stores for retail sales with a maximum of 10,000 square feet per tenant; shops offering personal services including beauty salons, barber shops, day spas, and dry cleaning businesses, which do not conduct on-site dry cleaning. Also allowed would be facilities for gymnastics, fitness centers, shoe repair shops, tailors, dressmakers, photography studios, photocopy centers, rental services, and counseling services.

Permitted uses would include restaurants that have outdoor service, but not drive-through facilities.

Other allowed uses would include: banks and financial institutions; general, professional, and municipal offices; medical and dental offices; research and development facilities; corporate headquarters for one or more corporations; publishing establishments; hospitals; conference centers and meeting halls; and child day care centers and elderly day care centers.

The regulations would allow nurseries and greenhouses, provided that they are incidental uses to a permitted land use. Crop farming would be allowed in open space areas.

Also, parking structures, such as parking garages, would be allowed, provided that such parking is incidental to a permitted use.