About 50 people, including residents and town officials, gathered on December 11 at a second forum held to discuss the advisability of allowing housing by special zoning permit at the Fairfield Hills campus.

Based on comments made by residents at the session, the public still appears skeptical and unconvinced that permitting rental apartments at Fairfield Hills is a good idea. Residents voiced similar sentiments at a December 6 forum.

Rosa Zubizarreta of DiaPraxis of Great Barrington, Mass, served as the facilitator/moderator at both meetings, fielding comments from those present in documenting the various viewpoints on the controversial housing issue.

“All of you have different perspectives,” she said.

Resident Bruce Walczak questioned the impartiality of the of the forum, in asking whether the negative aspects of allowing housing at Fairfield Hills were being adequately addressed.

Several residents voiced concerns that only the positive aspects of allowing housing at Fairfield Hills were under discussion, and not the negative aspects of it.

Several people stressed that allowing housing at Fairfield Hills is simply not favored by the public.

One man said he does not expect that allowing up to 38 apartments at Fairfield Hills would have a positive effect on local economic development, as has been suggested by town officials.

Former state legislator Julia Wasserman represented the town in past talks to acquire Fairfield Hills from the state.

Ms Wasserman spoke in favor of allowing apartments at Fairfield Hills.

“I think they need a ‘live’ campus,” she said.

Mixed-uses at the campus would be beneficial, she said. “There should be something for everyone,” she added.

“It’s the pearl of the town and it should have luster,” she said of Fairfield Hills.

Tim Haas, president of The Chamber of Commerce of Newtown, Inc, said, “I know people are upset about the possibility of what might happen” in terms of housing at Fairfield Hills.

“It’s an embarrassment and an eyesore,” he said of some existing buildings’ condition there.

“Put something in motion to have this [place] become a treasure,” Mr Haas said.

Mr Haas urged redevelopment at Fairfield Hills to improve the physical condition of the premises.

The town bought 186 acres and many buildings at Fairfield Hills from the state for $3.9 million in 2004. The site had served as a state psychiatric hospital until its closure in 1995. At its height, Fairfield Hills was home to several thousand psychiatric patients.

Resident Jane Sharpe said that towns which want to attract development make deals with developers to do so.

“There are issues that need to be addressed, but the potential is tremendous,” she said of Fairfield Hills redevelopment.

Jean Leonard, chairman of the Economic Development Commission (EDC), said that redevelopment at Fairfield Hills would generate the public revenue needed by the town to operate the facilities there.

George Ferguson, a member of the Legislative Council who said he spoke on his own behalf, observed that based on public comments made the forum, “It’s clear that people aren’t interested in housing” at Fairfield Hills.

Resident Kevin Fitzgerald asked, “What’s the net value to the taxpayer” of allowing housing at Fairfield Hills. Such information is necessary for sound decisionmaking, he said.

“We need townwide feedback,” he said.

Several people speaking at the two forums suggested that the issue of allowing housing at Fairfield Hills either be submitted to voters as a referendum question or alternately be posed to voters as an “advisory question” at the next annual budget referendum.

During the two-hour December 11 forum, participants spent about half of that time in open public discussion and the other half split into small discussion groups. The session was held in the library at Reed Intermediate School at Fairfield Hills.

Proposed Zoning

According to a proposed zoning amendment, which was distributed at the forum, the Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse (FHAR) zoning rules would be modified to:

*Allow a maximum of 38 rental apartments within the entire FHAR zone;

*Apartments would only be allowed in the area where Shelton House, Newtown Hall, and Woodbury Hall now stand, whether those apartments are a component of new construction there, or involve the renovation of existing structures;

*Apartments would only be allowed above commercial property uses; and 

*The maximum size of an individual apartment would be 1,200 square feet of floor area.

At the December 6 forum, Newtown Director of Planning Geroge Benson disclosed that Claris Construction, a local firm, has a conceptual plan for mixed-use development at Fairfield Hills.

That concept of mixed-use zoning at Fairfield Hills surfaced last August when it was learned that Claris is interested in constructing a 30,000-square-foot new building at the current site of Woodbury Hall, which would include a combination of retail, office, and apartment space.

Although potential developers have explored the possibility of extensively renovating the aging masonry buildings at Fairfield Hills for new uses, some have concluded that it would be effectively simpler and ultimately cheaper to raze the structures and use their sites for new construction.

Last June, the EDC endorsed allowing the creation of rental apartments located above commercial uses at future development projects at Fairfield Hills.

EDC members endorsed creating zoning rules that would allow residential uses at Fairfield Hills under certain conditions, and provided that the applicants met the terms of the P&Z’s special permit review process.

On December 17 Mr Benson said that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) in the coming months may discuss the proposed zoning  amendment on allowing housing at Fairfield Hills.

“There’s no rush on it,” Mr Benson said.

At the December 6 forum, resident LeReine Frampton, who is the Democratic registrar of voters, had asked whether the revenue which the town would receive stemming from the presence of rental apartments at Fairfield Hills would exceed the public cost to educate the children who would live in such apartments.

The presence of 38 apartments would not have a financial impact on the public school system, Mr Benson then responded.

Based on public comments made by residents at past meetings on the Fairfield Hills housing issue, an underlying concern is that children who would be among the occupants at rental residences at Fairfield Hills would increase the local public school population, thus increasing the need for public education funding, which is largely covered by local property taxes. The level of local property taxation is a politically sensitive issue.

Public apprehension about allowing housing at Fairfield Hills was clearly illustrated in the spring of 2011, residents attending P&Z public hearings largely opposed a regulatory proposal from the P&Z that would have allowed the multistory 188,000-square-foot Cochran House on Mile Hill Road South at Fairfield Hills to be converted for use as an apartment building.

P&Z had conducted those public hearings in light of an unspecified New York City firm’s interest in creating multifamily housing in Cochran House. The developer had proposed a 160-unit apartment complex, but had never submitted an application for the project because the zoning regulations did not allow such a use.  Following the heavy opposition, the P&Z then withdrew its proposal to allow multifamily housing as a permitted use at Cochran House.