These minutes are subject to the approval of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee
The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee
Minutes of March 28, 2011
Newtown Municipal Center, 3 Primrose Street, Newtown, Connecticut
Present: Robert Maurer, Michael Mossbarger, Ben Roberts, Nancy Roznicki, Alan Shepard, and Deborra Zukowski; Absent: Michael Floros, Paul Lundquist, and Gary Steele; Also Present: Rosa Zubizarreta
Mr. Maurer called the meeting to order at 7:08 pm.
Approval of Minutes: Mr. Roberts motioned to approve the minutes of February 28, 2011 with a second by Mr. Shepard. The minutes were approved as amended. Mr. Shepard motioned to approve the minutes of March 10, 2011 with a second by Mr. Mossbarger. The minutes were approved as amended.
Subcommittee Updates: Mr. Roberts said the next Open Community Conversation is scheduled for March 30th. There will be different conversations at this meeting, including more discussion on housing.
Ms. Zukowski explained how the input council was selected randomly by the committee and included residents that had no particular opinion or view. She is concerned that the silent middle is not attending the community groups and that it seems the residents who are attending have a strong position. She has also seen that those speaking in the media (Patch, Facebook, etc.) have definitive positions as well. She would like to have a fruitful dialog with those who have those strong opinions and be able to ask them “Why Fairfield Hills?” She said the committee has challenged themselves with that same question to determine why particular uses make sense at the campus. Mr. Maurer agreed. Mr. Roberts said officials in the Town were invited to participate as individuals. He said the committee
has a special perspective and can elicit information from the Town. He also felt the process is designed to collectively digest the information and feels everyone in the community should work together.
Ms. Zubizarreta reflected on what she heard to date and provided the committee with a synopsis. She said each level challenges views and helps people think systemically. She discussed information that was drawn upon from the last open community conversation and feels the topic of housing needs more attention. Since a proposal for housing has come forth, she believes it would make sense to invite a full conversation from all perspectives to assure that all views are heard. At the same time, she feels the committee should synthesize all themes and not just focus on housing. She distributed an outline that illustrates major scenarios and said there seem to be two major poles.
Ms. Zukowski stated concerns over comments she’s heard about housing and would like the opportunity to explain how affordable housing is not the same as public housing. She explained that affordable housing means deed restrictions and income requirements - it would include people who make between $60k and $80K (i.e., teachers, police officers, etc.). She feels offering more information about affordable housing can make a difference in viewpoints. She said senior housing could be either luxury housing or something similar to Nunnawauk Meadows (which currently has a 150 person waiting list).
Mr. Shepard said there should be a discussion with residents on thresholds, i.e., should housing be subsidized, should it end up breaking even, or is the bar higher. He also said that housing doesn’t necessarily mean a financial advantage; it could also mean a financial impact to the debt as well.
Mr. Maurer said that the First Selectman mentioned that although diversified housing is needed, she questioned whether Fairfield Hills was the right place.
Mr. Shepard discussed how the State of Connecticut may or may not honor local zoning and that opening it up to affordable housing can take away local control. He also said it may be more complex with the current sewer systems at Fairfield Hills.
When Mr. Maurer asked what the next step would be after the completion of the open community conversation, Mr. Roberts said tabulating the results may take a week or so, which will be followed by the town-wide survey. He said Mr. Lundquist (not present at this meeting) will speak about the survey, but he feels it may take a month or more to get the survey designed, released (with enough time allowed for responses), and then the input tabulated. Mr. Mossbarger said he thinks it could take up to six to eight weeks.
Mr. Maurer said the First Selectman asked for a preliminary report that would include a three to five page Executive Summary and a list of Recommendations. Mr. Roberts felt the three to five pages limit may be too short but then again addendums can be added. Mr. Shepard suggested focusing on an outline and adding supporting documents (research, support calculations, etc.). He feels if should not be too fragmented.
Ms. Zukowski said the committee needs to provide recommendations and justification, i.e., what’s been heard, gathered research, and the committee’s opinions. Her sense is that it will be a longer report and that it should show the difference between the vision and the five-year implementation. Her sense is not to worry about it being limited to three to five pages but agrees there should be an outline. Mr. Maurer said the committee needs to create a timeline to discuss at the next meeting.
Ms. Zubizarreta said that Ms. Zukowski can be called upon to provide affordable housing information during the open community conversation. The rounds this time will be limited to 15 minutes. Ms. Zukowski said the people who attend with particular views should be encouraged to let go of their ideas and participate in the process. Ms. Zubizarreta said she does not want to give up on the small group portion and feels people need to be heard but then can be asked to consider other options.
Public Participation – Dan Holmes from the Sustainable Energy Commission introduced himself stating he is interested in the committee’s work. He said Fairfield Hills is an exciting opportunity for the Town in many ways and is pleased to see the results of the open forum. He feels the first survey completed a couple years ago seems to be in alignment from what is being heard now. He discussed bringing some of the sustainable energy ideas to the Fairfield Hills campus, explaining that the Town is working on a long-term process to develop a sustainable energy plan. The idea being that all development (upgrades or new construction) can have an energy component within to help reduce operating costs for the Town and therefore, reduce its carbon footprint. He feels Fairfield Hills is ripe with
opportunity for this endeavor and hopes a clear focus or plan be paramount to any decisions made. He’s looking at Town energy and resources in the long term and would like his group to be part of the collaboration.
Ms. Zukowski said it would be helpful to have more information regarding energy alternatives and to know what types of sustainable energy would be complimentary to the property. She noted that the slopes on the property are north facing. Mr. Holmes said they should start with what resources are required and felt letting the site dictate what can be done is a good place to start. He discussed assimilating some of the current ideas and turning this into a design competition for university students, etc. It would be relatively free and would gather a synthesis of many ideas. He feels talk is critical to get this on the table since the existing plan is still conceptual.
Ms. Zukowski discussed two items coming out of public participation, including the lack of support for land banking (for a High School). She said there may be an increase in children attending school if diversified housing is included and would like to see other alternatives researched for the high school. She said there should be representation at the BOE Facility subcommittee to see what other alternatives are available. Mr. Maurer said that 60 acres seems to be a lot of property that would be needed for the High School. Ms. Roznicki said the idea of blocking 60 acres would jeopardize the high meadow and if two parcels of 30 acres are used for playing fields, maybe one parcel can be used for a stem school or for sports oriented fields.
Mr. Shepard recognized certain needs and that maybe some land should be banked, but that the committee should not get into the details of what should go where. He feels the high meadow area would be land banked. Ms. Zukowski said land banking 30 acres is more acceptable than 60 acres. Mr. Maurer said with the current data, it looks like a school may be closing and maybe the conversation should be postponed to the next five-year plan.
Ms. Zukowski discussed the five year projection and how two prior projections had fundamental flaws. She feels demographic reports have too many random variables. She discussed questions about the impervious surfaces relating to the 150 acres that are in the adaptive reuse zone. She feels further homework is needed to find out what amount of impervious surface currently exists. She wants to find out how the previous FFHMP committee came up with the initial 20% limitation of impervious surface.
She said the entire watershed should be looked at. Mr. Shepard said it’s a big issue. He discussed guidelines on stormwater management and discussed a USGS report from the Water Pollution Authority.
Public Participation: Joe Hovious (3 Leopard Drive), representing the Conservation Commission, stated that even 10% of impervious surfaces can affect water quality. He suggested the committee review a study done by Alicia Messier on the impervious surface in Newtown, stating that it also speaks on the watershed. Mr. Hovious said also that as a member of Trout Unlimited, he is concerned about the stream and amount (and quality) of stormwater run-off currently flowing off Fairfield Hills, stating that there have been prior issues with the quality of the water run-off.
With no further comments, Mr. Mossbarger motioned to adjourn at 8:25 pm. Motion seconded by Ms. Zukowski. Motion approved unanimously.
Respectfully submitted by: Tammy Hazen, Clerk
| 
