Proposed Residential Development At FFH On Two Agendas This Week

By John Voket &

 Kendra Bobowick

The same issue came up simultaneously at two separate meetings being held just about a mile apart, Wednesday evening, January 19. Both the Fairfield Hills Authority and the Legislative Council were looking at issues related to a proposed residential component at Fairfield Hills.

When Legislative Council Vice Chairman Mary Ann Jacob heard local officials were holding a potential multimillion-dollar Fairfield Hills reuse project at arm’s length out of respect for an ongoing master plan review, she was initially taken aback. Then she decided to ask if, in its capacity, the council could request the Fairfield Hills Authority to pursue putting as many specifics about the proposal into the public eye as possible.

And after about 20 minutes of deliberation and a couple of suggested amendments — one from Ms Jacob — the council narrowly passed the four-point resolution near the end of its regular meeting Wednesday on a vote of 7-5. Over at the Booth Library, the Fairfield Hills Authority conducted its own regular meeting with the knowledge that a resolution involving the authority was pending at the council meeting.

But with no hint of its outcome, authority members decided to take a “wait and see” position until they received some official word or directive from the council.

First Selectman Pat Llodra, who attended both meetings, was asked about the council’s issue by FHA Chairman John Reed.

Mrs Llodra answered, “I believe it is on the agenda to talk about this authority’s position to reconsider its decision to not hear the specifics of the proposal from [sole real estate broker Michael Struna].” Housing is not one of the current master plan’s approved reuses for the 180-plus acres of former state land and buildings that the town purchased a decade ago.”

Considering the information, Mr Reed said, “Whatever they are doing, we can’t speculate about what their vote would be.” Rather than talk about the potential prompt to change their approach of vetting one developer’s interest in turning Cochran House into an apartment complex, he suggested the authority “wait and see.”

The authority then turned its discussion to other aspects of the development proposal as telegraphed by Mr Struna. Authority member Andrew Willie reminded his panel that they were working on “the word of Mr Struna,” who was hired in the last year to advise the authority about successfully marketing its property, and to attract investors and developers.

He encouraged the authority to “think outside the box about how we’re offering the buildings to those who want to rent them.”

Modify Leases?

Past leases required that most of a 30-year lease payment to change hands “up front,” Mr Willie pointed out. Noting that several restaurants have opened in town in the recent past, while Stratford Hall, for example, sat empty and without takers, he argued to offer the buildings in a different way.

Mr Reed noted that the prior lease structures were no longer posted on the town’s website. Mrs Llodra reassured, “You shouldn’t feel bound by agreements made years ago.”

Again referring to Mr Struna, Mr Willie added, “He said we can’t rent without larger buildings or apartments.”

Late last year Mr Struna stressed that renovation costs for a small area of square footage did not make financial sense, but as the availability of square footage increases, numbers began to make financial sense. He also lobbied on behalf of a residential element within the campus redevelopment.

“I don’t know the right answer,” Mrs Llodra said. “We have no clarity of a direction we should pursue, or how to get there. I know what I hear from Mr Struna, but don’t know how to test its truth. He says residential goes hand-in-hand with commercial development, but I don’t know the weight of that statement.”

Returning to the topic of lease arrangements, Mr Reed said, “There is no predetermined idea of up-front money. All is negotiable. Bring us an idea, we’ll discuss it.”

Back at the council meeting. Ms Jacob introduced her resolution. She said she was neither a proponent for nor against housing at the town-owned facility. But before the meeting, Ms Jacob told The Bee that she feels local residents need to know every available aspect of the one current plan to jump-start stalled economic development on the former state hospital site.

According to Mr Struna, a capable and well-funded national developer is interested in pouring enough capital into Fairfield Hills to create a mixed environment of upscale apartments. He and Mr Reed have also said that any likely reuse of at least two other commercial buildings on the campus would be all but impossible and not economically feasible to develop individually.

Some sources, including Mr Reed, have also suggested to enhance the overall utility of the campus, the developer might also negotiate to build a new public safety center there, designed to house the police department, the town’s volunteer ambulance headquarters, an emergency communications center, and even an option for a new firehouse for Newtown Hook & Ladder.

Initial thoughts leaned toward pitching the developer to construct such a facility for the community’s needs, and then negotiating a lease-back of the building(s) to the town for one dollar. Mr Struna has said the nationally known developer was prepared to invest as much as $27–$28 million in the project, if a residential component was eventually approved.

‘We Need People’

Mr Struna also stressed that Fairfield Hills reuse, “in my opinion, without a residential component, economic development is not possible. We need people [on the site].”

Since the initiation of a master plan review, the Board of Selectmen and the FHA have committed to not discussing the development, or taking any action that could be viewed as unduly influencing the review committee. So Ms Jacob said it may fall on the council to help facilitate circulating more information on the housing proposal.

“It’s just not appropriate to ignore or postpone this revenue opportunity without public discussion,” Ms Jacob said. “The public ought to hear about this. My god, we could certainly use the money.”

First and foremost, the council resolution recognizes that housing is not currently permitted under the Fairfield Hills Master Plan, and that the plan is currently under review by a selectmen-appointed committee. The resolution also states, however, that the council supports “reviewing and vetting all projects that may bring economic stability to the Fairfield Hills Campus.”

In doing so, the council asks that the authority invite the developer to present his offer in a public meeting “where the residents of Newtown can learn all surrounding facts prior to discounting a potential municipal revenue source.”

After hearing heightened concerns about interfering with the authority and review committee, Ms Jacob requested and received support to remove a provision from the original language that would have encouraged the authority to reconsider its inaction on the Cochran House project.

Council member Benjamin Spragg also requested that the word “apartment” be added to the resolution’s title, because he said that was what the Cochran House proposal was all about. But passing that amendment was unsuccessful.