- Papa Al’s A Family Business Is A Family Favorite
- Business Buzz: Labels Plus Tags Opens In Sandy Hook
- Bus Talks Lead To FOI Concerns
- Legion Baseball Tryouts
- Newtown United Soccer Team Captures U11 Championship With Win Over New Canaan
- Grant Awarded To Hire Dislocated Workers For Sandy Recovery
- Newtown Unit Of The Salvation Army In Need Of Bell Ringers
Decisions Still Open On Fairfield Hills
To the Editor:
Normally, I do not respond to letters to the editor because I believe very strongly in freedom of expression whether I agree with the opinions expressed or not. However, William Sheluck, Jr’s letter in the December 27, 2002 Letter Hive contains so many misstatements and errors about my intentions that it is in the public interest for me to respond.
Let me begin by stating categorically that no final decisions have been made regarding the components of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan. However, based on my attendance at the last two meetings of the advisory committee, it appears to me that they are developing a consensus around a plan that will be in keeping with the spirit of the public commentary the committee has received. In other words, the plan will take care of those things that the public authorized funding for in June 2001: a town hall, additional playing fields, trails, and demolition of buildings with no apparent reuse possibilities. The large meadows to the west and the east (the “high meadow”) will be left as open areas. They will remain open unless in the future, they could provide space for critical needs of the community.
Some of the central core buildings will be retained for community or limited commercial uses and the areas created by the demolition of other core buildings would be available for a variety of uses allowed by the zoning of the property or left as open areas. In short, the plan will provide flexibility for decisions by future consensus of the community.
We don’t have to make all of the decisions now and no funds are available for anything beyond what was previously approved. The committee is still meeting and has not taken any final votes, so I would encourage interested people to attend the remaining meetings, the next of which is on January 7 at 7 pm at Canaan House.
I have contacted The New York Times and the writer of the article to which Mr Sheluck referred, to express my dismay and dissatisfaction with the inaccuracies contained therein. The editor assured me that they will write another article when we approve a plan to correct any misconceptions.
Herbert C. Rosenthal
45 Main Street, NewtownÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â December 31, 2002