Consensus Sought –

Two Visions Evolve From Fairfield Hills Panel

By Steve Bigham

Later this month, the Fairfield Hills Advisory Committee will go before the town with two different visions for the redevelopment of the 185-acre campus currently for sale by the state.

The town is poised to purchase the former state mental health hospital. However, before doing so, residents must first determine what they wish to do with the land and buildings. To get approved, that plan must be consistent with the needs and wishes of the citizens. That means compromise, and the 15 members of the advisory committee are working hard toward that end. To date, they have come up with two likely scenarios. Both plans are similar, but the few distinct variations between them could result in a divided public.

On Tuesday, the group fine-tuned those two visions during another three-hour workshop in the middle school library.

The first vision – presented by residents Walter Motyka and Al Cramer – is commercially based, featuring a corporate setting that encompasses the five largest buildings in the center of the sprawling campus. Newtown and Woodbury halls, the two showpiece buildings at the front entrance of the campus, would also be set aside for corporate use. Plymouth Hall, in addition to several smaller buildings, would be knocked down in favor of parking. This vision/proposal would use up only about 75 percent of the 185-acre site. The remaining 100 or so acres and the handful of smaller buildings would be available for town use.

This plan provides the town with an opportunity to generate revenue. And it is an idea that appears to have some viability, under a development proposal by the Boston real estate development firm of Spaulding & Slye.

The advisory committee is split on the merits of this plan. A dissenting group, headed by Ian Engelman, asserted, “You can have the five largest buildings (Canaan House, Kent House, Greenwich House, Bridgeport Hall and Shelton House) for corporate use. However, Newtown and Woodbury halls must be retained for the town, possibly for town offices. Plymouth Hall must also remain intact for use as a Parks & Recreation facility. Cochran House would be demolished and the land used as a site for the Board of Education’s proposed 5/6 school. Several homes on the campus would be torn down to make way for the 5/6 [school] ball fields along Mile Hill Road South.”

Neither vision includes any form of housing, which is expected to receive a positive public response.

Newtown resident Michael Taylor and colleagues from Vita Nuova, LLC, are facilitating the advisory committee meetings. His group, hired by the town, is using a process that actively solicits community involvement and ensures the community has significant input into the assessment, planning and redevelopment of the site.

The public will have its next opportunity to comment at a public meeting February 17, although that date may be pushed back to February 24. There may also be two public meetings. Next week’s Bee will include the dates and times of the meetings.

“We’re trying to develop ‘defensible’ positions. We need to have momentum around a vision,” explained Mr Taylor, adding that no plan is final. All comment from residents will be seriously considered before a final plan is presented to the Board of Selectmen, the Legislative Council and the public. That final plan will be the basis for purchase of the property. However, it would simply be the “foundation” for the master plan.

The Emergence

Of Spaulding & Slye

Late last week, the Boston development firm of Spaulding & Slye made a presentation to town officials that pleased advocates of commercial development at Fairfield Hills. The company’s plan would provide revenue for the town, while eliminating many of the costs at the same time.

Spaulding & Slye proposes to help “position” the property for a large corporate entity to take over the campus. In doing so, it would take on the responsibility and cost of renovating the buildings, then marketing them to an interested tenant. In addition, the town stands to receive as much as $1 million per year in lease money, and, most importantly, would retain control of all development. Newtown’s only expenses, in addition to purchasing the property, would be the demolition of some small buildings and houses, and the cost to hire an “asset manager” to lead a local committee that would be responsible for managing the campus. The town would also be required to share the profits with Spauling & Slye.

The Spaulding & Slye plan would use about 75 acres, leaving plenty of open space for passive recreation by town residents. Its proposal also calls for the demolition of Litchfield, Fairfield and Bridgewater halls at the far rear of the campus.

That’s a far brighter scenario than the one that had called for the town to spend more than $1 million simply to maintain the vacant buildings, commercial-led supporters say.

Walter Motyka, an outspoken advocate for economic development, admitted he didn’t think town ownership of Fairfield Hills was going to work… until he heard the Spaulding & Slye presentation.

“Now we can control the property, have somebody else do the work, and still get some costs back,” he said.

Alvah Cramer agreed. “You get schools, fields and revenue. What you’re not getting is the apartment houses.”

The down side is that Spaulding & Slye’s plan would be a major hit to those who want to see more municipal usage of the property. In addition, some are wondering if Spaulding & Slye would be able to bring in the kind of corporation that would require the kind of space available. Commercial development may not provide payback to the town for several years. Many area towns are reportedly having trouble filling their vacant buildings with companies.

Public Reaction?

Is there a market for old institutional buildings? Spaulding & Slye seems to think so.

But advisory committee member Ruby Johnson, who spearheaded the effort to buy Fairfield Hills for Newtown, wonders how this plan will sit with residents. The commercially based vision offers “the front yard.” She fears this means that Edmond Town Hall will get that 23,000-square-foot addition many in town have opposed.

“They’re [Spaulding & Slye] going to get most of it and the town is really going to get very little of it,” she said. “Essentially the town would be buying this to give to them. It’s not saving Fairfield Hills for Newtown.”

Other members disagreed, pointing out that Newtown would stand to make money on the deal over time. It is money that could be used to build ball fields and address other future needs of the town, noted Joe Borst.

But Ed Marks, an advocate of a municipally based Fairfield Hills, feared that the public might perceive this as the vision of Spaulding & Slye and not the vision of the group. Noting Mr Motyka’s sudden enthusiasm, he wondered why the advisory committee did not come up with such a plan before.

That was the original plan, all along, Mr Motyka replied, pointing to the Fairfield Hills Task Force, led by State rep Julia Wasserman, which recommended a redevelopment plan featuring a blend of commercial and municipal uses. Now there is a major development company that has confirmed this to be a viable plan, he added.

The commercially based group is still trying to develop some financial basis for its vision. But it all comes down to money, and, according to Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker, the town’s commercial tax base has gone down slightly in recent years.

“We’ve made significant progress,” noted Michael Floros, advisory committee chairman. “Money will be a key point. It all comes down to what tradeoffs do we make.”

According to Ian Engelman, the municipally based group will not include any assumed revenue from commercial development in its financial analysis. There is no guarantee of a “home run” like Spaulding & Slye has proposed. It is better to be prudent. His group is adamant that Newtown and Woodbury halls be retained for town use and that the corporate area have a separate entrance to eliminate traffic in the municipal area.

Under Mr Engelmen’s plan, the town would “building bank” Watertown Hall and Danbury Hall.

The Fairfield Hills advisory committee concluded Tuesday’s meeting with a discussion on how to present these visions to the public. Michael Snyder suggested the committee come up with one single solution.

“The people are looking for us to come forward with a proposal,” he said.

That may be the best way to go, Mr Motyka interjected.

 “I don’t think its going to be either one of these plans. It’s going to be a compromise of the two,” he said.

In closing, the entire group agreed that no plan will succeed unless there is some consensus within the community.