Statement By The Board Of Selectmen

Although, on the advice of counsel, we generally do not make comments regarding pending litigation, we believe it is important to set the record straight with regard to the false allegations made and the misinformation put forth in the Federal suit filed by Mr DeAngelis.

First of all, every dollar of tax money spent for Fairfield Hills has been approved by the taxpayers on multiple occasions. Beginning with a town meeting held on June 6, 2001, attended by approximately 900 people, the appropriation of $21,850,000 and bonding resolution that contained the purposes for which funds may be spent were passed by a large majority. The town meeting vote followed previous unanimous approvals by the selectmen and Legislative Council. Subsequently, each time we have borrowed money in accordance with the original resolution, we have included the amount and purpose for the borrowing and resulting debt service expenditures in the annual budgets approved by the selectmen, Board of Finance, Legislative Council, and by the taxpayers at annual budget referenda. This has been done each year, including for the current year, prior to the borrowing and the expenditure of the funds. In addition, all of the expenditures both for operations as well as from borrowing for capital projects are reported each month at public meetings of the Fairfield Hills Authority.

The only requirement for a Master Plan of Development is a zoning requirement. On May 7, 1998, the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission created the Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse Zone, Section 4.23 of their regulations. At that time it appeared there might be private redevelopment of Fairfield Hills and the commission wanted to preserve the character of the “campus.” The intent of the FHAR zone is “to focus on a campus setting and encourage use of the property, existing buildings and new structures that will reinforce and contribute to the overall cohesiveness of the area.”

Section 4.23.200 of the regulations set forth a procedure for adaptive reuse as follows:

1) “Submission of a master planned development proposal which shall provide the commission with an overall development scenario and shall include a description of the project’s phasing, potential impact on historic factors and natural resources and the existing infrastructure.”

2) “An environmental impact study…”

3) “A plan for vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and parking areas…”

4) “A landscaping plan consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone.”

After years of work by three advisory committees, dozens of public meetings, workshops, forums, public campus tours, video campus tour on Channel 21, approvals by the Board of Selectmen, Legislative Council, a scientific public opinion survey conducted by UConn, and modifications made by the selectmen based on that survey, the revised master plan was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. All of the above procedures required by Section 4.23.200 were completed. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a well-attended public hearing on March 17, 2005 at the Middle School auditorium, after which the commission approved the master plan, effective as of March 28, 2005. A Fairfield Hills Authority, duly constituted under state legislation and by Legislative Council ordinance, has been faithfully carrying out the dictates of the master plan since their inception in July 2005.

The important point in light of the present litigation is that there is nothing in Newtown’s Charter that requires a Master Plan of Development to be approved by the voters at either a town meeting or a referendum. More importantly, the charter does not provide a means for holding either a binding town meeting or a binding referendum to adopt a Master Plan of Development. Without a means for a binding vote, the selectmen opted for the nonbinding, advisory referendum held on August 12, 2003 in the hope of obtaining a consensus of public opinion for the then-proposed plan. Unfortunately, there was very low voter participation (15 percent) and no consensus (the “no” votes exceeded the “yes” votes by 154). After the vote, we heard a variety of conflicting comments from “no” voters:

 1) Too much commercial development; not enough commercial development

 2) Too many playing fields; not enough playing fields

 3) Renovate a building for town offices; build a new building for town offices

We decided that further simple “yes” or “no” votes would not help us understand voter sentiments or achieve consensus for any complex plan. Before the 2003 town election we said there would not be another vote and that we would modify the plan, but not scrap it. We decided on the aforementioned public opinion survey conducted by the University of Connecticut to help us to understand voter opinions. The researchers contacted more than a thousand people to obtain the proper statistically significant sample of 400 validated surveys with a total of 26 questions answered for each one. The complete results of the survey are on our website, www.newtown-ct.gov.

Finally, we want to assure you that we have followed all of the statutory and town requirements for moving ahead with this important project, and that no funds have been expended without authority.

Herbert C. Rosenthal

First Selectman

Joseph H. Bojnowski

William A. Brimmer, Jr

Selectmen

December 4, 2006