Fairfield Hills — Recreation and Playing Fields — An Update

To the Editor:

In June 2001, at a special town meeting, citizens voted to construct the 5/6 school and to issue bonds totaling $21,850,000 to acquire and improve FFH; $3.9 million was designated for the purchase of Fairfield Hills, $1 million for Edmond Town Hall improvements, and $600,000 for the high school playing fields. The remaining $16,350,000 was based on estimated costs of insurance, hazardous material removal, demolition, and $800,000 for seven ball fields —two senior baseball fields, four soccer, and one softball.

The 2003 Master Plan, defeated August 12, 2003, included the seven fields. The Parks and Recreation Department had made a compelling argument for these fields and stressed the importance of the critically needed baseball fields. A visit to the new baseball field at Newtown High School will provide an understanding of the large amount of land needed for senior baseball and the difficulty in finding this space in town.

The rejected 2003 plan designated about 200,000 square feet of existing building space for economic development, requiring 1,500–2,000 parking spaces (15–20 acres). While some parking might be shared at FFH, the overall results of so much commercial space was the need for a combination of tree destruction, existing road destruction, and paving over of grass areas to satisfy parking demands. Now that the selectmen have voted to add Stamford Hall to the demolition list, it is possible that a reconfiguration of the playing fields will yield a less destructive plan.

Fairfield Hills is ideal for these playing fields because its level ground will mean minimal earth moving costs, and available water will make upkeep easier. Of course, these new fields could be constructed on the land between the Reed School and Commerce Park that the state will soon deed to Newtown, but the bond issue was for Fairfield Hills.

In my opinion, the town could go one step further by demolishing Canaan House to make room for more parking and the proposed recreation building, planned to contain an oversize gym, now included in the Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. Furthermore, demolition of Kent House would provide space for nonplaying field activities such as outdoor play performances or musical events. Understandably, a redesign of the campus is needed. FFH should be able to accommodate the seven fields, fulfilling the bond issues vote, without destroying the integrity of the existing landscape design. However, before UConn conducts its public opinion poll, citizens need two questions answered.

How will the seven playing fields fit into an overall campus design?

Where will the new recreation building be located?

Progress on Fairfield Hills has been painfully slow, but the need for the fields has not changed. The Parks and Recreation Department and the commission deserve our support, not only for the playing fields, but also, in all their efforts to provide recreational opportunities for everyone.

Ruby Johnson

16 Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook                          May 26, 2004