The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee held a meeting on Monday, September 27, 2010 at the Newtown Municipal Center, Newtown, Connecticut. Amended Minutes.
Mr. Floros called the meeting to order at 7:12 pm.
Present: Michael Floros, Paul Lundquist, Michael Mossbarger, Nancy Roznicki, Alan Shepard, and Deborra Zukowski; Absent: Dennis Kyle, Robert Maurer, Ben Roberts, Gary Steele Stephen Zvon.
Public Participation: Ruby Johnson from 16 Chestnut Hill Road, Sandy Hook discussed the Ambulance Association’s request at the Fairfield Hills Authority meeting to move their facility to Fairfield Hills. They proposed a 1,200 sq ft building and would need two acres of land and considerable parking. The Authority will look into this since the Police were looking to relocate as well. Ms. Johnson also discussed a playground or fun place for younger children. She said the bowling alley in Plymouth Hall has been destroyed by flooding and she’s expecting this building to be demolished. She discussed a restaurant on campus for parents who would like to get simple food to feed their families before sports events. She also reviewed the Sputnik/NASA space race and
discussed the National Defense Education Act and the Master Teacher efforts. She encourages a magnet school for a Master Teacher Video Production, which was discussed at the Board of Ed meeting. She is also disappointed that brokers are discussing commercial ventures at Fairfield Hills.
Approval of Minutes: Ms. Shepard motioned to approve the minutes of September 9, 2010. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lundquist. The minutes were approved unanimously as written.
Subcommittee Updates
Education Subcommittee – Ms. Roznicki said the subcommittee met with meeting notes e-mailed by Ms. Zukowski (Attachment A). She said that she attended the Board of Education Facilities Subcommittee meeting and that she and Ms. Zukowski attended a BOE meeting. The subcommittee will collect BOE information. The Chair of the BOE may not be able to meet with the subcommittee but can do a presentation for the full committee.
Public Safety Subcommittee – No updates.
Resources and Infrastructure Subcommittee – Although the subcommittee has not yet met, Mr. Shepard met with Fred Hurley to discuss infrastructure. The water and sewer systems are older, but the electric is being updated around the loop. The subcommittee will work to gather information.
Commercial Subcommittee – Mr. Shepard said he is researching usage on the property, Mr. Maurer is looking at the commercial interests and Mr. Zvon is researching rehabilitation costs.
Ms. Zukowski discussed commercial being reviewed to help the campus be revenue neutral. She also felt having a strong commercial base in Newtown would help future increases in gas prices. Mr. Shepard said commercial use us being reviewed but that other commercial properties in Newtown are more user-friendly and affordable.
Mr. Floros said the subcommittee is reporting on what types of commercial uses could work as well as feasible locations on the campus. It’s ultimately up to the full committee to determine whether commercial is to be included. Ms. Zukowski discussed 30 year leases, 99 year leases and selling the land. Mr. Shepard said short of selling the property, a long term lease would be more attractive.
Open Space, Recreation, and Social Services Subcommittee: Mr. Mossbarger stated the subcommittee has not met and an updated will be provided at the next meeting.
Public Process Subcommittee – Mr. Lundquist said the subcommittee has not formally met but discussions are under way.
Housing Subcommittee – Mr. Floros said the subcommittee has not met yet.
Demographics Subcommittee – Ms. Zukowski discussed the subcommittee’s meeting and distributed notes (Attachment B). A second meeting will be called in the next week or so.
Mr. Mossbarger asked if the role of the Demographics subcommittee will overlap with the Public Process Subcommittee and whether the two should be combined. Mr. Lundquist said that demographics feed into Public Process. Ms. Zukowski said the knowledge can be used for other subcommittees.
Mr. Floros said the timelines need to be discussed. Mr. Lundquist said that all subcommittees should keep in mind that the information gathered should be relevant and actionable for the main committee. Mr. Floros will send out an e-mail regarding subcommittee deliverables.
Ms. Zukowski said the subcommittees could report the needs of their resources while detailing realities. She hopes each subcommittee returns with a list of alternatives with pros and cons. Mr. Shepard agreed that the committee should discuss all alternatives. Mr. Lundquist said the subcommittees’ work can be fed into a community feedback tool (i.e., when the community is asked for opinions on housing, it would be framed with the realities of what it may look like and with commercial development, it would be framed with potential limitations and/or benefits).
Review the Master Plan "Maintain the Architectural and Site Design Characteristics of a Campus." (Page 18 of Fairfield Hills Campus Master Plan of March 2005).
Mr. Floros asked for the committee’s view regarding the “campus” theme, whether all buildings should remain in the same footprint and if square footage should remain the same as the original campus. Ms. Zukowski noted two buildings (Shelton and Danbury) that when demolished, another could not be built on the same footprint because of water issues. Mr. Shepard said it would be limiting the Town if the campus was required to be identical and that the campus feel could be maintained without having to remain in the same footprint. Ms. Zukowski said the campus theme provides a welcoming feel and agrees there’s no need to maintain the same configuration. Ms. Roznicki reminded the committee of the suggestion of a nature center and discussed current activities on the campus (people
walking and kids practicing sports). She said the trees and landscape provide the campus feel, as well as it being in the center of Newtown and on a hill. Mr. Lundquist said the campus feel can be provided with a certain sparseness of buildings and that even four buildings would still provide the campus look. Mr. Mossbarger said any potential commercial business would have to maintain the same architectural theme.
Revenue / Cost Projections
Mr. Floros spoke with Bob Geckle and Walt Motyka. Mr. Geckle will provide a history of the first Master Plan committee and discuss the public involvement and process they went through. There were more than 50 different community organizations the group engaged with. He will discuss their feedback and how it was distilled into the master plan. Information regarding cost estimates for rehabbing and demolishing existing buildings will be shared as well. A document will be e-mailed to everyone, which is similar to the CIP but with a difference in timing. They will look at specific buildings and where they are in the CIP timing versus the Fairfield Hills Authority documents. The information will provide a benchmark to start from. This will be discussed during the October 25th meeting. Mr. Geckle is available to attend. Mr. Motyka will check to see if he can make it.
Ms. Zukowski said demolition costs are capital costs, whereas operational costs include lights, water, sewer, and maintenance. The question of whether the municipal offices (town hall, police, etc.) would be considered revenue neutral since there were costs for them in prior locations. She also discussed net operational costs versus absolute operational costs, capital costs versus operational costs, and tax benefits if land were sold. Mr. Floros said that Bob Geckle will present their findings to the Committee based on the information at that time. The question was posed that if the Police Station and Senior Center moved to Fairfield Hills, would you consider the cost offset from their previous location.
Mr. Lundquist said he feels comfortable including caveats noting additional costs or revenue regarding buildings that were vacated. Ms. Roznicki said the best example is the Town Hall (Edmond Town Hall) and the Board of Education (Pecks Lane) with previous leasing costs. Ruby Johnson said the cost of Edmond Town Hall was $25,000 and the Board of Ed paid multiple tens of thousands for renting the Pecks Lane building, which is a significant amount of cost the Town no longer carries.
Mr. Mossbarger asked for clarification regarding Kevin’s Community Center and Newtown Youth and Family Services. Mr. Floros interpreted that the Youth and Family Services is an approved use of the property at Fairfield Hills and that the Authority and the Board of Selectmen have it within their realm to move forward as the stewards of the Town. Currently the Master Plan shows the duplex area to be used as private offices, but he does not believe it is set in stone. The Master Plan is a directional piece and that although there might be a slight change from the current Master Plan, it is proposed to move it forward.
Mr. Mossbarger asked if the Board of Selectmen have the ability to make it a done deal. He felt perhaps another area in Fairfield Hills could be used for social services. He feels if they use the duplex area, it would change the landscape for what the property can be used for.
Mr. Lundquist felt Kevin’s Community Center has not committed to Fairfield Hills yet. The Youth and Family Services has a real interest, but he is not aware of any funding to bring them here. He said the First Selectman offered the idea of the duplexes having a thematic use for social services.
Mr. Mossbarger wanted to say for the record that he is not against these groups coming to Fairfield Hills, he just felt there may be an area more suited on the campus. Mr. Shepard said the duplex area is prime property and should be used to generate revenue.
Public Participation – Ms. Johnson said Wasserman Way was built to assist in the marketing of the Fairfield Hills campus. She reviewed her cost analysis for housing at Fairfield Hills with the Tax Assessor who agreed with her figures.
Mike Struna from Advantage Realty who was hired to handle the leasing on campus asked if the committee had any questions. Mr. Shepard asked if he tends to agree with the committee’s assumptions. Mr. Struna said one thing he wanted to note is that it is the role of the developer to do cost analysis and feasibility. Also from a broker’s standpoint, developers feel it would not be sustainable without a residential component and feels Fairfield Hills should be a mixed use campus. He said there is an overwhelming response for the need of a residential component before you get a restaurant or coffee shop on the campus and that the numbers work for the Cochran House. He also said that the town cannot be the developer. Mr. Mossbarger asked if there were developers asking to purchase
acreage. Mr. Struna said this could be part of the discussion but has not to date with the restrictions of it being lease only. He felt a 99 year lease would work and then urged the committee to think hard on residential. Ms. Zukowski asked if there were no buildings at all in the corner triangle of the campus, what would the land be worth. Mr. Struna discussed other property values and said with water and sewer available, it would be approximately $400,000 per acre and it is the developer’s responsibility to hook up utilities. Mr. Mossbarger discussed the tax benefits if the land were to be sold. Mr. Shepard discussed the restrictions from Planning & Zoning regarding the campus look and that there is little demand for office parks. Mr. Struna said there is 75% smart growth potential at Fairfield Hills. They discussed Cochran House having businesses on the first floor with residential units on the floors above. Mr.
Shepard asked how many residential units are needed in order to get restaurants interested. Mr. Struna said it would have to be looked into. Mr. Floros said Main Street has approximately 15 to 20 percent commercial. Mr. Lundquist asked if the residential component depends on using Cochran House or are other buildings being considered. Mr. Struna said Cochran House is the least appealing but is the one building that has been evaluated. The building would be stripped to the bare shell and walls and floors would be rebuilt.
Ms. Zukowski asked how much commercial property is available in Newtown and whether it would makes sense to hold onto the property until economic recovery. Mr. Struna said the developers have access to government funds and he would hate to see these opportunities slide by. Mr. Struna thanked the committee and told them to feel free to contact him if they have additional questions.
Mr. Lundquist motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 pm. Motion seconded by Mr. Shepard. Motion approved unanimously.
The next meeting will be held in the Council Chambers on Thursday, October 14th at 7:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Tammy Hazen, Clerk.
| 
