On Saturday, December 6, the town held the first of two public forums on the advisability of allowing rental apartments by special zoning permit at the Fairfield Hills campus.

A second forum on the controversial topic was slated for 7 pm on Thursday, December 11, also in the library of Reed Intermediate School.

About 50 people attended the December 6 session, at least one-quarter of whom were members of town agencies, including the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z), Fairfield Hills Authority, Economic Development Commission, Legislative Council, and Board of Selectmen.

Unlike typical town sessions at which the members of an agency sit at a table at the head of the room with audience members seated in front of them, the December 6 session had all those attending sitting at small tables in the library to foster conversation.

Judging by comments made during the session, the public is skeptical and unconvinced that allowing rental apartments at Fairfield Hills is a good idea.

According to a proposed zoning amendment, which was distributed at the session, 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.

George Benson, town director of planning, told forum participants that the town’s FHAR zone at Fairfield Hills is unlike other zones within town. At Fairfield Hills, the town owns all the land inside the FHAR zone and would lease that land to any private firm which would use that land, he said.

“We (town) have much control,” he said.

For example, NYA Sports & Fitness Center leases the land beneath its building at Fairfield Hills from the town.

Because the town owns any land at Fairfield Hills which would be developed, “We have more layers of [municipal] approval” for private Fairfield Hills development than exists elsewhere in town, Mr Benson said.

Also, the Board of Selectmen must give final approval to any Fairfield Hills lease issued by the town, he said.

The development of Fairfield Hills would generate revenue which could be applied to the maintenance of Fairfield Hills, Mr Benson said, adding that town officials do not want Fairfield Hills to be a “financial burden” for the town.

A firm has contacted the town in seeking to create a mixed-use development at Fairfield Hills which would include rental apartment space, according to Mr Benson.

He pointed out that because Internet connectivity has allowed many people to work out of their homes, there is not the need for office space which had existed in the past.

Mr Benson noted that earlier this year, the P&Z modified the zoning regulations to allow apartments to be located above commercial space in conjunction with a Norwalk firm’s plan to build a 18,750-square-foot building at 146 South Main Street. The firm gained P&Z approval for the project in July, but has yet to construct the building.

“Mixed-use is a popular trend … We have to consider it … I’ve been trying for the past ten years to get some type of development at Fairfield Hills,” he said.

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.

All developers who have discussed redeveloping Fairfield Hills want to have the option of creating residential uses at Fairfield Hills, Mr Benson said.

“We’ve had a lot of ideas going around … a lot of conceptual proposals,” he said.

Town Grants Coordinator Christal Preszler said the town receives approximately $30,000 overall in revenue annually from NYA and Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Association, both of which have facilities located on town-owned land at Fairfield Hills.

Questions From Participants

Resident LeReine Frampton, who is the Democratic registrar of voters, asked whether the revenue that 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 responded.

One woman at the forum said that based on past public comments, “It was very loud and clear that this [housing] was not wanted.” Her comment drew applause from the audience.

Resident Deborra Zukowski, who is a member of the Charter Revision Commission, said that the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee membership was divided on whether apartments should be allowed at the campus, with five members opposed and four members in favor.

That master plan panel submitted its report to the town in 2013. Ms Zukowski was a member of the nine-member master plan review committee.

Participants at the December 6 forum then split into small discussion groups and considered the issues stemming from the presence of apartments at Fairfield Hills.

Following those talks, one woman said of the housing issue, “It needs to be on a referendum.” Housing at Fairfield Hills raises quality of life issues for those living at Fairfield Hills and for people living in the town at large, she said.

One man observed, “We’re talking about the same thing [Fairfield Hills housing] for years and years.”

“Nobody listens,” he stressed, adding that residents do not want housing at Fairfield Hills.

Ms Zukowski said, “A referendum would really help” to clarify public sentiment on the housing issue.

One woman suggested that the topic be listed as an “advisory question” on the town’s next budget referendum.

Ms Frampton asked whether any potential residents at Fairfield Hills would have land there reserved for their exclusive use. She also asked whether the existing prohibition on alcohol there would pertain to Fairfield Hills residents. She also posed questions about town liability.

One woman suggested that any housing at Fairfield Hills be small in size and be age-restricted.

Another woman suggested that housing for the disabled be provided at Fairfield Hills.

Resident Robert Hall, a local land use lawyer, said that due to an economic downturn during the past five years, there has been little new housing approved locally.

“What is the motivation for the town proposing this housing at this time,?” Mr Hall asked, wondering why new housing needs to be at Fairfield Hills.

Resident Ryan Knapp, a Legislative Council member, stressed that his comments reflected his personal views and not those of the council. Mr Knapp said that creating zoning rules to allow housing at Fairfield Hills would serve as a mechanism to attract developers to the site. He suggested that the town wait for a time to learn whether redevelopment would occur at Fairfield Hills without the need for a residential component.

Mr Benson disclosed that Claris Construction, a local construction firm, has a conceptual plan for mixed-use development at Fairfield Hills.

“It’s a good idea, I think,” he said.

The 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.

Although the town’s zoning regulations that were in effect in the past had allowed various residential uses at Fairfield Hills, the P&Z revamped its rules about a decade ago, eliminating such residential uses from the FHAR zoning regulations.

Past Controversy

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.

The 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, P&Z withdrew its proposal to allow multifamily housing as a permitted use at Cochran House.

In November 2013, P&Z approved an update to the Fairfield Hills Master Plan, which now allows local officials to “consider” and thus discuss the possibility of allowing housing at Fairfield Hills.

The revised master plan’s wording on housing concerns the consideration of rental apartments functioning as a secondary land use located above commercial space in construction designs in which the apartments are not the primary use of the development. The wording of the revised master plan does not have the regulatory weight of specific zoning regulations.