Following a public endorsement in a referendum ballot November 3 that passed by more than 2,000 votes, the Board of Selectmen (BOS) formally accepted a recommendation to add a residential option to the Fairfield Hills Master Plan. Selectmen then unanimously approved a motion to move that recommendation to the town Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) for consideration, review, and possible modifications.

While the year-plus-long lead-up to the referendum and this subsequent action at a December 7 meeting were up to selectmen, and primarily First Selectman Dan Rosenthal, to administer, it will be P&Z members who finalize any wording of what is actually an application for the long-awaited Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse Zone amendment.

The regulation would become official after P&Z accepts it.

On Election Day, residents voted 9,401 to 7,311 to pass the following proposal: “Should the Town of Newtown consider commercial proposals at the Fairfield Hills campus that include a housing component, provided that a housing component would be limited to no more than two of the existing buildings, and that the renovation is consistent with the architectural vision for the property?”

Leading up to the vote, there was robust discussion and a couple of modifications made on suggestions from Selectmen Maureen Crick Owen and Jeff Capeci, with assistance from Land Use Director George Benson, who attended the meeting remotely.

Prior to that discussion, selectmen heard from several members of the public, including three former town officials who participated in a Newtown Bee virtual information forum in mid-October, offering their perspectives on why the master plan recommendation should be withdrawn.

Former Police Commissioner and local landlord Bruce Walczak said he was concerned that language being sent to the P&Z for review was contrary to what voters believed they were considering in the referendum. Walczak went on to contend that the amendment was also contrary to what the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee had in mind when they unanimously voted to recommend the residential component be added to the document.

That point was clarified and corrected by former review panel member Gary MacRae, who said Walczak’s suggestion of a “Main Street concept” with commercial ground floor use topped by rental apartments was not what his panel envisioned.

MacRae said it was the committee’s vision to recommend selectmen “give consideration to a housing component regardless of size.”

Resident Wayne Addessi also took issue with Walczak, saying he was not speaking for the town when he related opinions and remarks, but for himself. Addessi also asked selectmen to consider making any residential operation owner-occupied versus rental so the town could collect more property taxes along with conveyance fees any time a residential unit changed owners.

Infrastructure Concerns

Patrick Reilly called in expressing concern for the aging water and sewer infrastructure in the event that a multi-unit residential proposal was cleared for development. But Rosenthal explained that a recently secured federal grant and previously authorized town match would cover the cost of necessary upgrades.

Once completed, the taxpayer contribution to the match would be paid back through user assessments. It was not lost on Rosenthal that town facilities made up the majority of system users, but said other existing ratepayers, along with possible new users, would eventually recoup the public investment.

Former First Selectman Pat Llodra, who expressed concerns because of meeting audio/video issues, asked selectmen to consider the aesthetic impact new developments — and in particular, new parking facilities — would have on the campus. She also said adding a residential component would permanently alter core uses of the campus that residents most enjoy.

Former Fairfield Hills Authority Chair Robert Geckle said he was under the impression that up until now, it was the authority that received and negotiated lease applications on campus. It was later clarified that a subsequent charter revision shifted the consideration and recommendation on campus leases to the Board of Selectmen.

Once discussion on the regulation language commenced, Benson pointed out that most commercial uses on campus are already allowed, but there was such a high public concern over any residential applications that any such applications deserved unique handling including a review by P&Z — which would include a public hearing opportunity.

Benson also noted that since there was no specific project under consideration, the regulation needed to be broad in its language.

“It’s a vague idea of what we want until we have a proposal,” he said, adding the BOS motion that was up for consideration was a preliminary “first layer” in a very complicated process that could eventually see a multi-family rental development come under review.

“We included many options [in the regulation draft] because you don’t know what will be proposed,” Benson said. He said the regulation before the selectmen is more specific than most.

“We wanted it to be a taxable entity and limited to two-bed units,” he said. Responding to suggestions that the draft was not specific, the land use director said, “It is actually more specific than most regulations.”

Many Exit Points

Benson reminded selectmen that there are a lot of points where a suggested project could be rejected, including from the Fairfield Hills Authority if its members believe a proposal or concept is not “right for FFH.”

Rosenthal reminded his colleagues that in the event a proposal comes forward for something like an assisted living complex, or any proposed project where some tax-exempt entity was seeking to develop, he would insist that the project be fully taxable. He also said the draft language stipulates any eventual lessees would have to acknowledge they are moving to an active public campus with many events and community users.

“We can debate language, but the intent is to provide fair warning and making each lessee agree to it,” the first selectman said. He said any developer would need to agree to parking agreements.

“No developer can use existing parking — they must construct their own,” Rosenthal said, adding that any development would also be responsible for its share of common area maintenance charges.

At that point, the selectmen discussed fine tuning the proposed regulation language. Selectman Crick Owen moved to accept the Proposed Amendment to Article III, Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse Zone (FHAR), specifically the 6.03.310 Special Exception Uses.

The motion stipulated making changes to Section 3a to state: “Residential unit rental agreements shall contain a notification and waiver of Parks & Recreation activities, Town sponsored events, daily public use and special events held at the Fairfield Hills campus” — and section 6 to state: “A Commercial component, separate from any housing component, shall be included in any project proposal.”

The balance of the regulation language was accepted as proposed — to review, CLICK HERE