Public Survey On Fairfield Hills Expected In May

By Kendra Bobowick

The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee this week offered a glimpse of what residents will likely see on a townwide survey regarding future plans for Fairfield Hills.

Posing an inquiry regarding commercial development at the panel’s April 12 meeting, member Paul Lundquist suggested asking what residents are interested in, or not, at Fairfield Hills. “The same goes for residential,” he said.

The survey will in part reflect recent community conversations regarding the former state hospital campus. The conversations plus survey results will help the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee form its final recommendations to the current master plan and what reuse themes to keep, alter, or remove. The 2005 master plan itself specifies the review process. The committee’s charge also asks that members heavily consider public input as they make their recommendations.

Members Tuesday considered for inclusion in their survey topics, based on recent discussions of housing, a developer’s interest to renovate Cochran House into apartments.

Mr Lundquist also proposed asking, “How informed are you about Fairfield Hills?”

He told members he would like to learn residents’ “overall attitudes” about the campus regarding “what should be there, and why.” He said, “I want a framework about how people think about Fairfield Hills.”

Looking back at past weeks’ discussions with the public, he said, “Some things are brought up enough times, that I thought they were worthy to ask about.”

Mr Lundquist mentioned vision. The current master plan includes themes such as preservation of open space and room for passive recreation. Other topics that have come up recently include commercial and/or economic development, parklike themes, a downtown-type feel, and Fairfield Hills as a destination for residents.

Turning to other committee members this week he asked, “What am I missing?”

“An emphasis on performing arts?” asked member Deborra Zukowski.

“I didn’t think that was a top-level theme,” Mr Lundquist answered.

“It’s my sense that a lot of people said performing arts; it’s more than an outdoor pavilion, that’s not enough,” she said.

Chairman Mike Floros hoped that the topic of commercial development could be clarified in bullet points for those who thought of it as creating jobs and an opportunity to work close to home rather than commute. Aware that commercial development may prompt both positive and negative responses, he said, “It means different things to different people.”

Perusing additional items in the draft survey, Mr Floros laughed: “I don’t like your choice of restaurants!” Food establishments had been listed with the commercial development.

Speculating about responses to the topic, Ms Zukowski said, “I am not going to become a store clerk, so to me the commercial development doesn’t cut it, but economic development does.”

A corporate office would fit her concept of economic growth. She hoped those two differences would become bullet points to a question, offering residents a choice on the survey.

Mr Floros asked, “How much are we educating, and how much are we assuming [the public knows]?”

Ms Zukowski said word choice could help clarify items for residents taking the survey. “Subbullet [points] can cull it out.”

Robert Maurer asked if there was “anything in there about [razing the buildings].” Ms Zukowski asked about “lease vs sell options” for the “viable buildings.”

As members looked over a draft of ideas, Mr Lundquist asked members to return their feedback and changes to him as soon as possible in order for members to discuss and clearly define survey questions in coming days.

The Mad Dash

Members quickly realized they “need to be done by June 15,” Mr Floros said.

“I think we’re short-changing ourselves,” said Mr Lundquist. The end of school, graduations, and the potential for families to leave for vacations, for example, created a sense of urgency. The group needs time to complete the survey, circulate it, assess feedback, and use its information when making a final recommendations on the master plan review.

Waiting for midsummer could cause their final report to “fall through the cracks,” Mr Floros stressed.

A large part of their goal is to gain the public’s trust in their process, which Mr Floros felt would be compromised if it is completed in late June/July. “From a [public] perception and acceptance standpoint, June 15 is the date,” he feels is right. Flipping through the calendar, he said, “We have nine weeks.”

Mr Lundquist will need members’ feedback regarding his preliminary survey topics, and then refine the document and “get something to [the first selectman]” by the end of April. The survey’s prospective launch date is May 5 or 6.

They feel the survey should be out to the public possibly in both paper and online form, for several weeks, and then back to the commission for June 1. As Mr Floros sat counting calendar days, Mr Lundquist remarked, “It’s the mad dash.” Once members have the survey back to “digest” as they form the final report, Ms Zukowski suggested that “we be as public as possible” with any updates leading to their final recommendations, which will be filed to the Board of Selectmen.

She wants the public to have a “big window into what’s happening — no surprises.”

“That’s a great idea,” Mr Lundquist said.