Fairfield Hills Plan Review Takes A Broad View, But Returns Again To Housing

By Kendra Bobowick

In its reassessment of the development of Fairfield Hills, Newtown’s Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee will look at the larger picture in pieces. Yet one piece — the prospect of housing at the campus — seems to loom larger than others in the minds of the public attending the committee’s meetings.

Subcommittees will assess seven themes, said Chairman Michael Floros during the July 26 meeting, and seek “as much information as possible” regarding education, municipal, public safety, resources and infrastructure, commercial reuse, open space and recreation, and housing. Considerations overall include long-term demographics and ongoing resources. Ultimately, the subcommittees will come back before the main group’s voting members.

The review committee’s primary purpose is to review the master plan for the Fairfield Hills campus and make such recommendations to the Board of Selectmen as the committee deems appropriate for revisions or modifications in that plan.

Without getting into additional details, Mr Floros said, “We’ll flesh out subcommittees at the next meeting.”

Agenda items aside, the controversial issue of allowing housing development on the campus filled much of Tuesday’s conversation. Mentioning recent media reports about Fairfield Hills, resident Ruby Johnson said, “I read they’re thinking of Cochran House for apartments …” Ms Johnson believes the town must first determine what to do with the police department’s space needs, for example, and seniors’ space needs.

Last week, on July 21, the Fairfield Hills real estate broker Michael Struna of Advantage Realty had provided an update to the Fairfield Hills Authority members indicating a developer’s “real” interest in Cochran House for apartments, among other interests in Newtown and Woodbury Halls. Fairfield Hills Authority Chairman John Reed soon reminded the committee, “There is no activity to take at this time.” Several hurdles currently stand: according to the current master plan for redevelopment, the building is one of several slated for demolition, and housing is not among approved reuses.

Former first selectman Joe Borst also commented. “I hope you keep the Town of Newtown’s best interests in mind as you move forward,” he told the review committee members.

Rita Willie addressed the committee, saying, “I feel strongly about this; I love Fairfield Hills. Cars and parking lots and apartments will destroy Newtown.” She said, “It’s a wonderful atmosphere and a special place, so whatever you need to do or funding you need to find, I pray it is not housing.”

Diane Benedetto of Sandy Hook lives less than a mile from Fairfield Hills and believes housing would raise the amount of traffic on her street. Other towns use open spaces as nature centers, for an aviary, etc. “Since it’s such a beautiful town, something like this could work.”

Aware of recent reports from local print and web-based news articles, Mr Floros introduced Mr Struna and added, “It is way too early to discuss housing and too few [commission members] are here. A subcommittee will get into it in the future.” Several voting members were absent.

Mr Struna explained that he has spent two months becoming familiar with the campus. He stressed, “My job as broker is not to decide if a proposal is good or bad, but to try to bring proposals forward.”

Last week, First Selectman Pat Llodra spoke during a Fairfield Hills Authority meeting where Mr Struna first noted a developer’s interest in Cochran House.

Hoping to “set the stage” for Mr Struna that evening, Mrs Llodra had said at the July 21 authority meeting, “We need to hear ideas and not be fearful to hear the ideas.” She had also told the authority, that regarding controversial topics, “We have to take the lid off and discuss these as a community. We have to be courageous enough to let the conversations take place.” She had said that housing and economic development were “markers for differences of opinion,” and she has “alerted the review committee of the lightning rod concepts.”

Seeking Clarity

After attending the meetings both last week and this week, committee member Nancy Roznicki sought clarifications. She asked Mr Struna, “Didn’t anyone tell you housing is not in the master plan?”

“I am aware — the fact that the uses are being reviewed [by the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee] opens my eyes not to judge who I show a building to. Everyone who comes to the table is a learning process for me and for the town.” Also, a developer and not the town will make the investment to determine a building project’s economic feasibility, Mr Struna noted.

He told Ms Roznicki that he feels, “The fact that uses are being reviewed opens the book.” He would not make a judgment and tell someone, “You’re not going to come look at these buildings,” he said.

Ms Roznicki noted impending demolition at the campus, asking, “You were aware?”

“Absolutely,” Mr Struna said.

She later noted that she had attended the Fairfield Hills meeting, but at the time had not yet met Mr Struna. In light of Cochran’s status in line for demolition, she asked, “How can the review committee engage with citizens to see the needs and concerns and gain [public] consensus with headlines [about] housing?” Referring to a past nonbinding referendum where residents had rejected the idea of housing, Ms Roznicki said, “Citizens must be concerned that the item rejected by them is one that’s receiving the most publicity. I think it’s unfortunate and has stirred up anxiety.”

Regarding his role, Mr Struna told the committee, “I can give relevance to the feasibility of ideas that come to the table.” Member Paul Lundquist asked about the interest in Woodbury and Newtown Halls. Mr Struna explained that a group is looking at the buildings. They must work with Mr Struna to determine if they invest millions. “I help them determine the market conditions,” he said. “I help them understand where the costs are coming from.”

Bringing the conversation back to Cochran, Mr Lundquist said, “It will be a challenge to convince the public, but hard facts would help.” Mr Struna had explained that due to the size of the building, “a project starts to make sense,” where the same investment would not in a smaller structure.

Mr Lundquist asked, “When would hard facts become available?”

“That depends on your committee,” Mr Struna replied. “If favorable, they’re ready to move forward.”

Positions From 2004

Ms Johnson had offered members copies of her Positions Paper on Fairfield Hills, dated 2004 when she was involved with then Friends of Fairfield Hills. The Friends’ mission statement vowed to “carefully evaluate” proposals developed by consultants and local officials and provide “factual and educational material for interested citizens as issues are raised.”

The seven-page document talked about several topics highlighted for subcommittee work discussed by the review committee Monday, including open space, noting that it is “extremely valuable” at Fairfield Hills. The Friends’ goal was to “see that specific portions of this property be designated, preserved, and protected.”

Open space is considered an investment, states the paper, and will save Newtown money long-term.

The paper discussed building demolition, housing, and economic/commercial development.

Regarding housing, the Friends’ paper noted remediation costs, stating they should not be incurred by residents. “Our citizens should not be asked to accept a cost that does not contribute to the welfare of the general public,” the paper stated. They also recommended that no housing be built or designated to existing buildings.

On economic development, the paper recognized differences between the then Fairfield Hills Master Plan Committee and the Friends’ proposals regarding how several buildings are handled. The Friends’ 2004 paper sought to limit economic development for the following reasons: open space would be compromised, loss of control over commercial activity through sale or lease of building, loss of trees and added pavement, increased traffic, future land acquisition would be more costly than preserving space at Fairfield Hills, economic development should not be a priority over community needs, and the tax benefits would amount to less than a one mill reduction, the paper stated.