‘Friends’ Group Challenges Fairfield Hills Master Plan

By Dottie Evans

As the Legislative Council prepares to vote on the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Executive Summary before sending it on to the voters, there are still important issues to be considered –– especially in the minds of the grass roots group known as the Friends of Fairfield Hills.

The dialogue between the council, the town-appointed planners, and the citizens group began in earnest May 21.

“It’s a time for discussion and the end result will be a better plan,” said Friends group member and Wildcat Road resident Bob Eckenrode at the end of the lengthy council meeting in the Cyrenius Booth Library meeting room.

“This project is bigger than any one of us,” he added, referring to the town’s plan to purchase the 189-acre campus from the state and the difficulty of approving a master plan that meets current needs but saves something for the future.

The council had invited the Friends of Fairfield Hills to present their views on the Master Plan Executive Summary that has already been approved by the Board of Selectmen with two important changes. The selectmen recommended that the new town hall building not be placed across the northern entryway and they also preferred that the town lease, and not sell, any buildings for private use.

Linda Dunn of 26 Old Bethel Road presented a petition signed by 727 residents who supported the goals of the Friends of Fairfield Hills.

 The petition stated, “I will support a master plan for Fairfield Hills that protects our quality of life by preserving the present open space for passive recreation and using the core campus for the municipal, cultural, recreational and educational needs of Newtown.”

As Al Roznicki of Hanover Road said, “We hope to postpone major decisions on Fairfield Hills until the [town’s] plan of development is completed.” To do otherwise, he added, would be “putting the cart before the horse.”

The Friends also objected to the appointment of an authority, or separate governing body, to manage Fairfield Hills.

 “They should be elected instead,” Mr Roznicki said.

Finally, the Friends stood firm on the issue of commercial development, which is their greatest point of argument with the current proposed master plan that allows for limited development.

“We believe that what happens here is a quality of life issue. We should protect our rural nature and control growth and traffic,” said John Christensen of Phyllis Lane, a 27-year resident.

The executive summary of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan states the “selected structures within the entry plaza portion of the campus should be renovated for economic development activity, such as small professional offices.”

In addition, the summary states that a “core area of the campus could be reserved for revenue generating economic development activities compatible with other uses and the surrounding area.”

Ruby Johnson, spokesperson for the Friends group, gave a detailed slide presentation in which she hoped to demonstrate that economic development at Fairfield Hills would not solve the town’s tax dilemma.

“We already have areas set aside in the town’s plan of development for commercial uses,” Mrs Johnson said, as she listed Hawleyville, Curtis Corporate Park, and the 38-acre Commerce Park site as yet undeveloped.

The Friends also object to the proposed 1,040–1,175 parking spaces needed to support development, some of which might be shared for recreational and municipal uses.

Challenging The Assumptions

While they paid close attention to arguments put forth by the Friends group, several of the nine members of the Legislative Council who were present seized opportunities to comment despite acting chairman Tim Holian’s caution that this was to be a listening session and not a dialogue.

[Chairman Don Studley and members Joe Hemingway and Brian White were absent.]

Council members Peggy Baiad, Bill Meyer, and Amy Dent took issue with the Friends’ position that economic development would only add to the town’s tax burden by increasing demands for services and infrastructure.

“Economic development feeds the town’s other businesses, like restaurants, dry cleaners, drugstores, and groceries,” Mrs Baiad said, adding, “I object to your defeatist attitude, saying that we’d need ten Sand Hill Plazas to raise one mill, and so on.”

Mrs Dent noted that property taxes can go up even where there is not a lot of economic development.

“Look at Newtown, for example,” she said.

Council member Jan Roman commented that “future citizens should decide” about future uses of open land at Fairfield Hills. But she was in favor of some economic development, saying, “We have to find some way to afford ourselves here.”

Council member Will Rodgers went so far as to question the credibility of the Friends group, asking whether they were a sizable enough entity to speak for a majority of the townspeople.

“Is someone who signs your petition considered a member? It would be helpful,” he added, “to know there is a consistent core group of people here.”

After First Selectman Herb Rosenthal presented the selectmen’s view of the master plan, he pointed out that “there are more similarities than there are differences between the two plans [Friends of Fairfield Hills vision and the executive summary].”

He and selectmen Bill Brimmer and Joe Bojnowsky supported the executive summary with the aforementioned two changes regarding placement of the town hall and leasing of buildings.

“I support this very strongly and want to put it to a public vote, a referendum,” Mr Rosenthal said.

“We have a rare opportunity to build on these similarities,” Mr Bojnowski added.

He saw a “pressing need” to get on with the plan, especially because “the voters approved retaining Fairfield Hills for useful purposes,” both municipal and recreational.

Mr Brimmer noted that public dialogue had helped shape the ideas in the master plan.

All three selectmen preferred building a new town hall rather than renovating Shelton House because as Mr Rosenthal pointed out, “Renovations include huge unknown costs.”

Finally, the council heard from Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee Chairman Bob Geckle who summarized the process.

“Very few roads would be changed and the infrastructure is already in place. We recommend retaining 13 of 31 buildings, mostly toward the [entrance] of the campus. One third of those retained would be mothballed, and if they were not used within five years, they, too, would be demolished.”

Even if private entities were involved, he said, the town could carve out space at Plymouth or Bridgeport halls and would have immediate use of a new town hall. Parking would be for town buildings and playing fields and might increase from 645 spaces to 1,450 or 1,500. The current 112 acres of open space would change to 140 acres after some of the buildings were demolished, and much of that open space would be land-banked for future use.

“We’re right on, or very close to the $20 million that was voted in June 2001,” Mr Geckle said.

Concerning the proposed “authority,” council member Will Rodgers has several questions.

“Who is the arbiter? What if they become a renegade body? What’s the remedy if they begin action against the plan? What are the checks and balances?” Mr Rodgers wanted to know.

Clearly, the debate could have gone on well into the night. Even the issue of how to inform the voting public about the master plan was up for discussion.

“Surely you’re not going to print copies of this executive summary for every resident. How are you going to legally make this imperfect master plan available before they vote?” asked Susan Washburn of the Friends.

Bill Colbert, another Friends supporter sitting in the audience, used New York City’s Central Park as a model for what he thought the 189-acre property in question might eventually mean to the citizens of Newtown.

“You owe it to everyone to go down and look at a great park. Put the commercial development in other places in town. If you don’t, you will be missing something.”

Even if this was the final comment of the evening, it certainly would not be the last word in the continuing debate about what to do with Fairfield Hills.