Council Amends, Then Endorses FFH Master Plan

By Jan Howard

The Legislative Council voted unanimously, 11-0, June 18 in a roll call vote to approve the Fairfield Hills Master Plan, but not until after stipulating that four amendments be inserted into the plan.

The clarifications the council approved tighten up the master plan, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said Thursday morning. “The advantage of going through different bodies is you get different perspectives.” He said all changes would become part of the master plan that goes before the voters.

Mr Rosenthal said the proposed Fairfield Hills Authority would be a managing, implementing body for the master plan. The members of the authority, he said, would not be policymakers.

On Wednesday night, the first selectman explained to the council that the authority would not have “unbridled ability to do what they want.” They would be bound by the master plan and limited, with no ability to overturn any part of the town charter.

He said a referendum on the master plan may be set for the second Tuesday in August, based on information from State Senator John McKinney who said the state would hold statewide primaries on that date beginning in 2004. Other states hold primaries on that date, he said, and have not experienced fewer voters than in September primaries.

Amendments Approved

Prior to the vote Wednesday night, members of the Legislative Council voted favorably on four amendments to the master plan entitled “Status of In-Fill Component,” “Fairfield Hills Authority Building and Use Specific Responsibilities,” “Conflict Resolution Language,” and “Fairfield Hills Authority.”

Mr Rosenthal told council members that there apparently is confusion on the issue of the “in-fill component,” which is an option mentioned in the master plan to construct up to 200,000 square feet of commercial office space at Fairfield Hills in four new buildings. He said the master plan does not contain an in-fill component, with the exception of a new town hall. It does, however, describe an opportunity for in-fill if Canaan House and Kent are not reused.

“Those sites have the potential of in-fill for new buildings,” he said. This would occur, he said, if the high school academy does not become a reality on the Kent site and no future town or other use is made of Canaan House.

To clarify the issue, he recommended that the master plan contain language that any in-fill construction, with the exception of a new town hall, a high school academy, or a potential freestanding recreation facility, would require an amendment through the same approval process used for the adoption of the original plan –– including a town vote.

“The authority could not demolish and build in-fill buildings,” he said. Approval would be required from the Board of Selectmen, Legislative Council, and the public.

The amendment was approved unanimously.

The amendment regarding Fairfield Hills Authority’s Building and Use Specific Responsibilities outlines its responsibilities, which will vary based upon specific use of buildings and portions of the property, and how these responsibilities are shared with the town.

Council discussion centered on a clarification of shared parking places and whether paid parking was envisioned in the plan. While Consultant Richard Harrall of Harrall-Michalowski Associates said paid parking was never considered on the site, council member Amy Dent felt the amendment should indicate that.

Finances, and how they would be handled, also came under discussion. Mr Rosenthal explained there is no plan for the Fairfield Hills Authority to control money. The purchasing authority, which for Newtown is the first selectman and the financial director, would handle financial transactions, he added. “We will follow the same process we follow for all construction projects.”

 Following other discussion, the amendment was unanimously approved incorporating the statement that there would be no charge for parking at the Fairfield Hills site.

The Conflict Resolution amendment was designed to allow the authority to request a joint advisory opinion from the Legislative Council and Board of Selectmen to seek advice as to whether any action is within the scope of its authority or in furtherance of the master plan. The two boards would meet jointly, and a majority vote of the total number of selectmen and council members present would control, provided there is a quorum of each body present. Said advice from the joint body would be binding on the authority.

The amendment was approved 10 to 1, with William Meyer casting the dissenting vote.

The Fairfield Hills Authority amendment discusses the administrative procedures of the authority, written procedures for conducting business, and how income would be used. There was a consensus that any excess funds be used to pay down the debt.

It was agreed that the Board of Selectmen and Legislative Council would review the master plan within five years of its adoption and at least every five years thereafter. Approval of any amendment to the master plan will require the affirmative vote by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Board of Selectman and the Legislative Council and a majority vote of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The amendment was approved unanimously.

Prior to the vote on the master plan, the Legislative Council members also discussed the road where soccer fields are planned. Mr Harrall explained that the road, which ends in a cul de sac, was not meant to be an access to the water reservoir area on the east side of the campus. He said there would be a walking area accessible to that part of the property. A drainage structure under the road would be replaced by a swale. He also noted that the playing fields are not as close to the roads as maps make it appear.

 An amendment raised by Joe Borst to have the membership of the Fairfield Hills Authority raised to eight failed. While Mr Rosenthal said he had no objection to a larger board, he pointed out that many town boards operate with a small number of members.

The Legislative Council also voted unanimously to clarify Section 5 of the special act creating the Fairfield Hills Authority to read that any vacancy in membership shall be appointed by the first selectman and to eliminate section ten, which contained language that was a duplication of Section 5.

Resident Ruby Johnson addressed the Legislative Council before and after the vote on the master plan. In her opening remarks, she addressed what would happen to excess revenues generated by Fairfield Hills Authority, citing Richter Park in Danbury as an example.

Among other comments, she also noted that she would like to see the authority created through an ordinance rather than a special act of the legislature. However, Mr Rosenthal explained later that an ordinance would not have superseded the town’s charter regarding leasing, and the attorneys felt the only way around that was through a special act.

He also noted the authority members would be appointed instead of elected because there is no precedent for elected authorities. He also noted, “It’s a lot easier to find people that are appointed.” He said people with the specialized skills required to serve as managers “might not be willing to knock on doors” to get elected.

Following the master plan approval, Mrs Johnson questioned how the public would be educated regarding the upcoming vote. Mr Rosenthal said copies of the master plan would be published on the town’s website and in The Newtown Bee, and placed in the library.

Mrs Johnson said she was sorry the Legislative Council had voted as they had on Fairfield Hills. “You had a chance to make it a great place for Newtown,” she said. “I’m sorry you didn’t see the beauty of saving it.”