By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members on January 20 approved revisions to their proposed Fairfield Hills Adaptive Reuse (FHAR) zoning regulations, omitting a controversial section that would have allowed eight existing single-family houses at Fairfield Hills to potentially be used as “affordable housing.”

At a recent public hearing on the proposed revisions to the FHAR zoning rules, the wisdom of allowing “affordable housing” as a permitted land use at the town’s Fairfield Hills core campus drew much public comment, both pro and con.

A number of residents who spoke at the hearing said that the town would be misguided in allowing affordable housing at the campus, while a somewhat smaller number said there is a pressing need for such residences there.

Affordable housing, as defined by state law, is designated for people who fall under certain annual income limits. Such housing is deed-restricted for that use.

The P&Z initially had proposed that eight existing vacant white, wood-frame houses in the “West Meadow” section of the campus be designated as affordable housing. Those houses formerly were occupied by workers at the state psychiatric hospital, which closed in December 1995.

The town bought the 186-acre Fairfield Hills core campus from the state last summer for $3.9 million. The FHAR regulations address how the town would redevelop the site and also list the permitted land uses for the property.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil said that when the proposed Fairfield Hills Master Plan for redeveloping the property is aired at a February 17 P&Z public hearing, the issue of allowing affordable housing at Fairfield Hills would be thoroughly discussed. The proposed master plan calls for using the eight houses as affordable housing.

P&Z members could spend hours discussing the suitability of affordable housing at Fairfield Hills, Mr O’Neil said, adding that the matter would be fully discussed at the February 17 session.

P&Z members had proposed the affordable housing rule provision in order to bring the FHAR zoning rules into conformity with the Fairfield Hills Master Plan.

On January 20, P&Z members voted 4-to-1 to approve the revisions to the FHAR zoning rules, with member Lilla Dean dissenting. Voting in favor of the FHAR rule revisions were Mr O’Neil, Robert Poulin, Jane Brymer, and Robert Mulholland. The P&Z created FHAR zoning regulations in 1998, when Fairfield Hills was still owned by the state.

The revisions to the FHAR zoning rules create a regulatory mechanism for the site’s redevelopment, and a process through which a Fairfield Hills Master Plan can be accepted and later modified, as needed.

After holding the February 17 public hearing on the master plan, the P&Z would approve the plan, approve the plan with modifications, or reject it.

P&Z criteria for approving the master plan, and for any subsequent changes to the master plan, would include that: the plan be consistent with the FHAR zoning regulations, with the Conservation and Agriculture (C&A) zoning regulations, and with the Aquifer Protection District (APD) zoning regulations, all of which affect Fairfield Hills.

According to the P&Z, the master plan must not cause unreasonable congestion or traffic hazards on neighboring streets; must not substantially impair property values in the neighborhood; must not create a health or safety hazard for people or for property on the campus or off the campus, and must be consistent with the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development.

Permitted Uses

The P&Z has specified a long list of permitted land uses for the Fairfield Hills core campus. Permitted uses that are not listed would be prohibited.

Permitted uses would include: indoor and outdoor recreational and sport facilities; museums, art galleries, and cultural centers; theaters for the performing arts, public libraries, senior centers, and teen centers.

Also allowed would be: town halls and governmental uses, excluding dumps, incinerators, waste recycling centers, waste transfer stations, garbage disposal areas, garbage handling areas, municipal garages, and public works storage yards.

Also permitted would be: educational facilities, accessory housing, and sports facilities; shops and stores for retail sales with a maximum of 10,000 square feet per tenant; shops offering personal services including beauty salons, barber shops, day spas, and dry cleaning businesses, which do not conduct on-site dry cleaning. Also allowed would be facilities for gymnastics, fitness centers, shoe repair shops, tailors, dressmakers, photography studios, photocopy centers, rental services, and counseling services.

Permitted uses would include restaurants that have outdoor service, but not drive-through facilities.

Other allowed uses would include: banks and financial institutions; general, professional, and municipal offices; medical and dental offices; research and development facilities; corporate headquarters for one or more corporations; publishing establishments; hospitals; conference centers and meeting halls; and child day care centers and elderly day care centers.

The regulations would allow nurseries and greenhouses, provided that they are incidental uses to a permitted land use. Crop farming would be allowed in open space areas.

Also, parking structures, such as parking garages, would be allowed, provided that such parking is incidental to a permitted use.