These minutes are subject to the approval of the Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee
The Fairfield Hills Master Plan Review Committee
Minutes of June 15, 2011 Special Meeting
Senior Center, Newtown, Connecticut
Present: Michael Floros, Paul Lundquist, Robert Maurer, Michael Mossbarger, Nancy Roznicki, Alan Shepard, and Deborra Zukowski; Absent: Gary Steele, Ben Roberts,; Also Present: Ruby Johnson and Rosa Zubizarreta
Mr. Floros called the meeting to order at 7:20 pm.
Approval of Minutes: Ms. Zukowski motioned to approve the minutes of June 10, 2010, and seconded by Mr. Floros. The minutes were approved as amended. Mr. Lundquist motioned to approve the minutes of June 10, 2010 and seconded by Mr. Shepard. The minutes were approved unanimously as amended.
Public Participation: Sherry Birmingham, Queen Street, discussed the historical aspects of the public not wanting housing at Fairfield Hills. She believes Fairfield Hills can become a town center.
Final Report Deliberations
A draft of “Recommendation Synopsis” was handed out by Ms. Zukowski that includes a set of preambles and themes. Ms. Zubizarreta suggested the committee determine where the group is in consensus and what items they are not in agreement on. It was suggested that the committee focuses on what they agree on first and then hash out items of disagreements.
Ms. Zukowski felt the committee seems to agree on social and municipal services, cultural arts, and recreational (unknown scale). Everyone also agrees with minor retail and open space. The items where there is not a consensus are: Housing, Education, and the scale of certain items.
Regarding housing, the committee members took a poll that showed that only three committee members felt that housing should be included. Ms. Roznicki said that although the committee agrees that Newtown needs diversified housing for young couples and the elderly, a majority of the committee feels it should not be at Fairfield Hills.
The committee members discussed land banking versus open space and reviewed the wording for the open space portion of the Master Plan. Mr. Mossbarger suggests the town officials review alternative locations first before considering Fairfield Hills for a location for a school. Ms. Zubizarreta said she hears one voice in that the campus should not be entirely built up. She feels a list of pros and cons should be developed and that it should be looked at periodically. Ms. Zukowski said if there is an open space theme, they should be careful where certain permanent structures are placed (i.e., a police station) in order that land banking be done in a useful way. She feels the Master Plan uses the term land bank too loosely and that certain areas should be considered conservation/agricultural.
Ms. Zubizarreta recommended that Mr. Lundquist work with Ms. Zukowski and Mr. Floros to make sure the open space language is appropriate.
The committee discussed the difference between regional versus local and provided examples. They also discussed a community garden where crops could be used at local restaurants or culinary schools. Ms. Zubizarreta said she heard from the Microcosm Council and community discussions that there are diverse opinions about the scale for each use. Where some people discussed interest in having the campus a regional destination, others felt the campus should be more of a local draw. She found that minor retail is favorable to most everyone and that there was a discussion over a shopping village.
Ms. Zubizarreta asked for the committee’s examples of community versus regional. For instance, for a cultural arts center, the example for the community use would be the Edmond Town Hall. An example for a regional use would be the Ives Center. Then a third example would be a super regional center, such as the XL Center in Hartford. The committee took a poll where it was six to one where a majority felt a community/local cultural arts center would be appropriate for the campus.
In respect to recreation, where an example of community/local use would include playing fields with bleachers, the regional use for recreation would include permanent seating – the committee took a poll and unanimously agreed that recreational use should be thought of in the community/local scale.
The committee then discussed the scale of use with regard to retail development. Mr. Floros felt it should start small and then grow. The discussion of different types of retail development continued and the potential of selling land versus leasing. Mr. Mossbarger shared his interest in creating a village-type destination with restaurants and small retail - a place for people to go to, walk around, and grab a bite to eat. Ms. Zubizarreta discussed existing buildings where retail would be on the first floor and small office space could be on the upper floors.
The committee also discussed town and community services, community events and passive recreation. Agriculture was also discussed and it was noted that the meadows are currently hayed.
The committee discussed process recommendations and missing elements. There seems to be little support for the campus to be used for housing or educational uses. It was stated that any long term need for educational facilities be considered as a potential municipal need and be addressed as such in future reviews.
Sustainable organic farming was discussed including a community garden where produce can be donated to a food bank, used for culinary classes, or sold to local restaurants. There is currently a Victory Garden on campus where produce from that will be harvested for local food pantries.
Mr. Maurer motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Tammy Hazen, Clerk.
| 
