Public survey results polling residents about Fairfield Hills development are in.

The Master Plan Review Committee, tasked with assessing the master plan and its current application to Fairfield Hills redevelopment, has the draft results of a community survey. The [naviga:u]questions posed to the public in recent weeks[/naviga:u], between April 15 and May 15, included topics such as recreation, housing, building demolition, and the multiple potential uses at the former state hospital campus.

Draft summary results are available online at [naviga:u]newtown-ct.gov[/naviga:u]. 

Review Committee Chair Deborra Zukowski said, “I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to fill out the survey.” She sited 1,825 “valid responses,” which is about 800 more than the last survey several years ago when the review process took place. Reviews occur every five years.

“We look forward to sharing the results and our thoughts with the public soon,” she said.

The draft, dated May 21, 2019, states that the survey analysis is based on the valid 1,825 responses. The responses are “intended to provide a higher-level interpretation of the survey results for use by the public and to supplement the raw survey data and research information used as part of the Fairfield Master Plan Review Committee deliberations,” the introductions states.

A brief summary notes that “Over 50 percent of respondents thought that the following items were available at about the right level: parking, sports fields, walking and biking trails, agriculture, and arts.

Another more than 50 percent of respondents “identified the following as insufficient, i.e., too little was available on the property.” Those items included: bathrooms, food, resting areas, outdoor entertainment.

Under the heading, “Views on future services and features,” the draft states that “more than 50 percent of respondents supported the following. A band shell received 83 percent total approval, with small food services, a town green/pedestrian plaza, small retail shops, restaurants, a pub or tavern all ranking between 68 and 79 percent approval.”

Ranging between 56 and 66 percent total approval were retail businesses, performing arts and community center, arts/crafts market, event space, playground/water park, art gallery, and theater for performing arts.

Fewer than 50 percent of respondents supported the following, according to the draft: highest ranking at 45 percent total approval were basketball courts, with multi-level parking lowest on the list at nine percent. Other items in between included educational facilities, a small movie theater, horse trails, small corporate offices, tennis courts, small professional offices, national retailers, health service center, bank and real estate offices, and light industrial.

A footnote states, “Unfortunately, the survey does not include a question for an ice rink, since there were plans at the time… to build one on the property.”

“Views on housing,” asked respondents to gauge their feelings about certain forms of housing from very favorable to totally unfavorable. The draft states, “Housing has a history of eliciting strong responses, and proposed developments that include a housing component have been met with public push-back… the pro/anti response” is important. The highest ranking “totally unfavorable” response to age/income restricted apartments received 78 percent, with income restricted apartments or condos at 77 percent totally unfavorable.

Every category of housing from mixed-use, condos, stand-alone apartments, rental housing, and the age and income restricted apartments or condos averaged about a 50 percent “very unfavorable” response. The “very favorable” responses to the categories was only between four and eight percent. Favorable responses to the housing options reached only as high as 16 percent for mixed-use.

The draft states that “very unfavorable is consistently near or above 50 percent.”

Questions regarding the status of buildings and finances included reserve for future needs with 65 percent “totally favorable” and 13 percent “totally unfavorable.” Rating the sense of urgency to develop, 62 percent responded “total agreement,” and 22 percent “total disagreement.”

Twenty five percent favored no more development, and 59 percent of respondents found it totally unfavorable.

The draft tallies percentages of responses to development and demolitions and sees a high “totally agree” response of 72 percent to the town maintaining control of campus.

Write-In Comments

The data also invited some write-in comments, which include “It’s a beautiful campus and needs to be preserved for community and municipal needs…” “Keep it pristine and peaceful,” “no housing at FFH,” “Stop wasting money, and let it make us money,” “renovate one of the buildings back to its mental hospital days for a museum,” “...do not think the pub should have been allowed. Drop the word campus. Sounds like a college,” “Those buildings are tough to look at. I completely understand the need for housing to exist if commercial development is to thrive. It’s a really tough call,” “A community college or university would be an excellent use of space,” “area is too crowded, I am strictly against developing this,” and one lengthy comment from a high school senior talking about memories and experiences at Fairfield Hills.

More write-in comments include, “As a parent and long-time Newtown resident, I am very disappointed with the failures of leaders, past and present, to get an ice rink constructed…” “as is, Newtown has too much retail space unoccupied. It would be a shame to see additional retail space at Fairfield Hills sitting empty,” “I am in favor of mixed use,” “Brewery would be amazing,” “bring in housing and lower our taxes,” “bring in small shops,” “bring in taxpayers,” “build an income-producing golf course,” “choose wisely, consider senior needs.” The write-in results fill 74 pages of both brief and lengthy replies and are also available through the town website.