Residents Question Their Role In FFH Process

By Kendra Bobowick

Residents invited to share their thoughts on the future of Fairfield Hills spent nearly three hours at Edmond Town Hall Wednesday evening, voicing their frustrations, hopes, and concerns.

Seated at small tables in The Alexandria Room minutes before the Master Plan Review Committee’s open community conversation began on March 30, Kris Ang and James Wolff spoke quietly. Bringing Ms Ang out this week was a hope to “save the fields” on the campus. Many Babe Ruth parents were concerned about development and came for information, she said. Friends of the Library member Mary Maki “cares very much out Fairfield Hills,” she said. “I care about what happens in town.”

As review committee member Ben Roberts would soon explain, seeking public input is one aspect of their charge to review the current master plan for Fairfield Hills reuse. Information from Wednesday’s meeting, a prior community conversation on March 16, and a smaller collection of individuals engaged in a think tank-style discussion March 5–6 will all, in part, fuel a townwide survey circulated both online and on paper in coming weeks. Results of the community meetings and the survey will play a part in the review committee’s recommendations regarding the master plan, which they will pass to the Board of Selectmen.

Brian Scov lives within sight of Cochran House. Most recently, one developer has made a formal offer to lease the building for the purpose of renovating its four stories into roughly 160 one- and two-bedroom apartments. Minutes before the meeting began, he said, “I am against [plans] for Cochran House. That’s not the answer.

“You could do a lot of things there, a new fire station or police station, but not [160] units of housing,” said Mr Scov, who hoped to be part of the discussion

Bringing the meeting to order, Mr Roberts told the approximately 40 residents, committee members, and several participating town officials: “We’re not here to talk, we’re here to listen and engage citizens in the future of Fairfield Hills. Tonight is about talking to us and to one another.

“We’re here to engage in the process of learning what’s important to you,” he added.

Mr Roberts also cautioned that all input “may not necessarily be in our recommendation, but we’re listening.” The committee’s recommendations, he continued, would all be fully explained when the time for recommendations comes.

Before posing a series of questions for group discussion, he mentioned the Cochran House offer, and an upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing that would soon open regarding the potential addition of a residential component to the list of Fairfield Hills adaptive reuses.

“We figure housing is very much on your minds,” Mr Roberts said. “At the same time, we don’t want to lose sight of the larger picture.”

Professional moderator Rosa Zubizarreta reiterated points covered in previous March meetings soliciting the public’s opinions. She noted areas of both consensus and tension, jotting key ideas onto a pasteboard facing the guests. Pointing her permanent marker, she said, “These aren’t answers, but conversation points.”

Soon, small groups of people put their heads together over several questions, forming new groups at intervals. Before asking participants their first question, Mr Roberts advised, “We’re not here to debate or yell, but be passionate. Don’t argue, but get interested in why others think as they do.”

The first question he posed was, how does housing fit, or not fit, in overall framework for Fairfield Hills? For several minutes the small groups talked with themselves. Minutes later people traded places to form new groups to answer, what are we learning?

Third, they considered what types of questions they would like to see on the upcoming survey. As residents spoke among the small groups, First Selectman Pat Llodra, who had been greeting many of those gathered, said, “I think this process is a good process. I hope there is as much listening as talking.” Thinking about her words for a moment, she continued, “There is a perception of a uniformity of thinking on some contentious issues, but there is not [a uniformity].”

As a community she believes, “We are tired of worrying and struggling. There is definitely Fairfield Hills fatigue.” Constant concerns about resources and “how to get there” in the planning has residents worn down, she said. “We are tired of this battle.”

Comments & Discussion

As the groups disbanded and questions ended, review committee members and Ms Zubizarreta opened the floor for comments and general discussion.

Resident Marc Michaud was adamant that the public should vote on decisions, rather than leaving Fairfield Hills in appointed and elected officials’ hands alone.

“It’s my great-grandkids dealing with this if we do it wrong — so leave it up to a vote,” he said.

Review committee member Deborra Zukowski asked him to define “it.”

“It” is changes to zoning regulations, said Mr Michaud, who then reiterated that if housing should become a permitted use, he “just wants to see that happen with the consent of the town.” He does not want regulations to changed by officials alone, but keep it “in the hands of the people.”

Donna Randle said, “People want their voices heard and not taken from them.”

Concerns about housing mandates from the state, affordable housing, possibly seeing some residential, but not at Cochran House, and developers potentially overriding town regulations were all mentioned. More than one person noted that the Fairfield Hills land is beautiful, and if it is developed, it will be lost.

Wayne Addessi is not opposed to some form of housing. He envisions a village.

“When we’re old and gray, can we afford to live in our homes? Maybe not, but we might still want to live in Newtown,” he said.

Po Murray insists on repealing the legislation enabling the Fairfield Hills Authority, arguing that if the town reverts back to its charter to handle property leases, “then we, the people in this room, make decisions at a town meeting.”

Jan Brookes spoke in favor of housing, although she is not sure that the Cochran proposal is right for the town. She sees a place for housing when couples’ grown children “can’t come back to Newtown because they don’t see a place for themselves here. And, at some point, my husband and I might not want to live in and care for the house we have, but we may want to stay in Newtown.”

Robin Fitzgerald stressed that the public needs to learn to trust its elected officials, and without fears, might be more open-minded. She also “would consider housing if it incorporated storefronts, etc.”

Priscilla Jones feels strongly about maintaining “the green.” She said, “We don’t need more stores.” She stressed again the point that “as soon as we relinquish control of the property, we won’t get it back.”

Robert Keegan said, “We have lots of different views.” He doubts that all views can be meshed, “without someone wanting to kill someone. It’s tough.”

He insisted on using a mission statement as a means of seeing what “fits, or what is out.” Even with a mission statement, he said, “You might get 40 percent [agreeing] but the rest will be fighting on the edges.”

Michael Struna, the sole real estate broker for Fairfield Hills, who recently forwarded the proposal to redevelop Cochran House, said after the meeting, “Everybody looks through a different eye.” He mentioned a degree of misinformation among remarks Wednesday, including criticisms of a date of May mentioned in the offer for a lease agreement, as a time when the developer would like to gain proper permits.

“It’s just a date, you have to start with something,” said Mr Struna. “It’s a negotiation.”

Developers are accustomed to concerns about traffic, school enrollment, and other issues “being vetted out,” he said.