Fairfield Hills Group Gives Mixed Reviews To Proposed Master Plan

By Dottie Evans

Ask Friends of Fairfield Hills spokesman Ruby Johnson what she and citizens group members think of the Master Plan Executive Summary recently completed by Fairfield Hills Master Plan Committee and submitted to the Board of Selectmen Monday night, and prepare for a variety of answers.

They might range from “good,” to “ill-advised,” to simply “not acceptable.”

Mrs Johnson admits there some points of agreement between her group and the Fairfield Hills panel, such as the need for a new town hall facility (but not necessarily a new building and certainly not a building sited at the northern entrance of the entry plaza), the need to preserve open space at the high meadow, the need for new ball fields (but not so many and not so close to Wasserman Way) and the need to set aside Plymouth Hall for community and cultural events.

The master plan committee and the Friends group also agree there is no predicting the future, and any plan adopted for Fairfield Hills must have built-in flexibility for unforeseen contingencies and community needs.

In addition, both groups insist they are keeping the faith by following the directives set forth in the Fairfield Hills bond issue as voted by the public in June 2001. Their differences arise from the way they interpret those words and directives, how to manage the costs, and what to do about commercial development.

“We strongly support commercial development, but not at Fairfield Hills,” Friends spokesman Linda Dunn said as she gave the selectmen petitions containing a total of 727 signatures in favor of preserving the 186-acre campus for open space, education, recreation, and cultural arts. The signatures were collected between December 2002 and February 1.

Actually, there were three or four petitions each having slightly different wording, that were taken around town by approximately 25 to 30 people in the Friends group, Mrs Johnson said.

The petitions all mentioned the need to preserve the campus for open space and community uses, but at least two cited the decision of the master plan committee to “ignore all polls taken on Fairfield Hills, including the recent one conducted by the town of Newtown.”

In addition to that complaint, another urged signers to protest the town’s support of the consultant’s view that seven buildings, including Newtown, Woodbury, Stratford, Bridgeport, Canaan, Kent and Shelton, should be sold for future commercial development or business use.

First Selectman Herb Rosenthal commented Tuesday on the petitions, saying, “Actually I could have signed one or two of them,” referring to those that expressed views he felt were both general and supportable, concerning only community use and the need to preserve open space.

The Friends of Fairfield Hills used every bit of their allotted 30 minutes to offer alternatives and comparisons to the master plan document.

 “We would rather the town utilize the 38 acres on Commerce Park Road already zoned for commercial use,” Mrs Johnson said during a slide presentation that compared the differing goals of the citizens group with the Master Plan Executive Summary as written by the Ad Hoc Committee in conjunction with consultant Harrall-Michalowski Associates, Inc, (HMA) of Hamden.

“Sell no land and sell no buildings, short-term leases only,” was the credo of the group’s presentation, since they believe sale to a private interest would mean the loss of the town’s control over the kind of business coming in.

For its part, the town maintains that selling a building does not preclude controlling its use, since the land beneath it will always be owned by the town and lease terms for any building on that land must be renegotiated periodically.

The group also took issue with “possible” development of Stamford Hall for a residential hotel and possible future conversion of the duplexes into housing.

“That says it all. It means additional parking and that will generate undesirable traffic,” Mrs Johnson said.

“You’ve set aside Newtown, Woodbury, and Stratford for commercial development and we support you. But we don’t want intensive development to the point that Fairfield Hills becomes a parking lot,” she added.

The Friends of Fairfield Hills warned of parking places in an excess of 2,200 cars.

“Think about Sand Hill Plaza. That holds 1,000 cars. Now you’ve got an idea of what’s coming,” she added.

In subsequent comments, Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee chairman Bob Geckle said only 1,450 to 1,500 spaces would be needed, with the main volume generated by Plymouth, Bridgeport, and the playing fields, which are all community uses.

The Friends group also objected to the proximity of the four proposed soccer fields to highly traveled Wasserman Way.

 “It’s been my experience from when my children played soccer,” Mrs Johnson said, “that the ball won’t stay in the field too often.”

In his presentation, HMA consultant Richard Harrall said that the two center fields would be fully 150 feet from the road. But he acknowledged that the far corners of the two outside fields would, indeed, be much closer to that road.

The road to the high meadow fields was another area of concern, since according to the master plan, it is slated for demolition to make room for the four soccer fields.

“The Pinkerton Agency needs that road for access to the water tank for security reasons, and building a new road would be expensive,” Mrs Johnson said.

Mr Rosenthal has since commented that another access way already exists on the other side of the high meadow property that could be used for that purpose.

While the Friends group was collecting signatures for the petition, it heard the concerns of Newtown residents, Mrs Johnson noted.

“They are afraid if the town doesn’t preserve Fairfield Hills for town needs now, at a later date it will either ignore those needs or have to buy the land some place else.

“Please consider costs of what we do up there. People are worried about their jobs. They are worried about the economy, about the war. They’re just plain worried,” she said and advised the selectmen to get a second opinion on current and future building conversion proposals.

Under the community needs category, the Fairfield Hills group included mention of a skateboard recreation facility along with ball fields, community center, senior, and educational facilities. They would demolish 11 buildings to immediately reduce costs of security and liability and construct only five playing fields and parking spaces in order to preserve existing trees and lawns.

Two more ball fields might be constructed at a later time, they said.

The proposed master plan calls for eventual demolition of 17 buildings and construction in sequence according to Parks and Recreation needs of ten playing fields (in addition to two existing fields) with parking. It does not stipulate a site for a skateboard park.

Finally, the Friends of Fairfield Hills suggested an action plan that could be followed by the Board of Selectmen by which all financial data would be reviewed by the Board of Finance and the finance subcommittee of the Legislative Council. The plan would allow for second opinions to be obtained on Shelton Hall renovations, as well as on inspection of roofs and estimated repair costs.

Estimates for security costs by police department and estimates of road works and building maintenance costs from the highway department were also needed, they said.