MINUTES
Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
Land Use Office Regular Meeting
Council Chamber November 7. 2013
Primrose Street, Newtown, Connecticut
Present: Mr. Mulholland, Chair Pro Tem, Ms. Brymer, Mr. Porco and Mr. Swift. Alternates: Mr. Pozek, Mr. Spragg and Mr. Corigliano. Also present: Clerk: Ms. Wilkin
The meeting was opened at 7.30 p.m. Notice is made that the entire meeting was taped and can be heard in the Planning and Zoning Office, Municipal Building, 3 Primrose Street, Newtown, Connecticut
PUBLIC HEARING
Application by the Town of Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission for update to the 2004 Town of Newtown Plan of Conservation and Development as contained in a draft document entitled “Town of Newtown Plan of Conservation and Development 2014 Update” dated August 15, 2013
Ms. Brymer read the call for the hearing.
There was nothing to read in the file, but copies of the Fairfield Hills Campus Master Plan was distributed for comment and discussion.
Present to explain the contents of the Master Plan were Deborra Zukowski, Fairfield Hills Master Plan Amendment Work Group and Review Committee, 4 Cornfield Ridge Road, Newtown, Connecticut and Margorie Cramer, Fairfield Hills Master Plan amendment Work Group and member of the Conservation Commission, 38 Huntingtown Road, Newtown, Connecticut.
Mr. Mulholland explained that this is merely a plan for the entire Fairfield Hills property, which is executed under a zone regulation “adaptive use” which calls for a Master Plan.
The Master Plan can be read on the Town’s website. Ms. Zukowski said that the intent was to capture what people want. Two issues were prominent in the discussion: Open Space and housing.
Page 8 Under Open Land: “The open feeling of the campus results from much undeveloped land between buildings on the core campus as well as larger designated Open Space areas such as the High Meadow and the East Meadow. Areas on the core campus would be available for community initiated use such as community gardens, playing fields and community events. The designated Open Space land be left undeveloped in perpetuity and available only for passive recreational use under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission.” Ms. Cramer thought the language for open land might be confusing differentiating land between buildings and the open space. The overwhelming sentiment was the leave the Master Plan intact through the vision statement and open space,
Page 22 General Approve “We envision Fairfield Hills as a vibrant sustainable destination where all members of the community can go to enjoy recreational, social, cultural, indoor and outdoor activities. The campus would provide a home for some municipal services and a gathering place for a variety of town-wide events. Small retail stores, restaurants, and professional offices would be nestled harmoniously within a core section of the campus. The well-designed campus would connect the history of the site with its future, with the town maintaining overall control of the property and preserving the campus environment and architectural style”
The Commission had no problem with this.
Page 26 Housing “Since first attempting to develop the Fairfield Hills campus, developers who planned to include housing with commercial development have been discouraged from presenting plans. Coincident with this, the 2010 census shows a dramatic decrease in young families, potentially attributed to the lack of housing diversity. While the amended plan still omits housing as an allowed use, the practice of actively discouraging developers from presenting plans that included even a minimal amount of housing may have resulted in a loss of development that would have benefited the community by enabling some development and increasing the diversity of its members. Therefore, this plan allows the site review process – with one or more well-publicized public hearings – to be considered for development
proposals that include a limited number of rental units where such units are ancillary to commercial use and where they do not constitute the bulk of the development. In addition, the overall scope of rental housing across the entire property should be limited and should in no way impact the property’s intended cultural, recreational, municipal, and commercial uses.”
There was very little support for stand alone housing and the overall consensus was that housing should not be a part of the Master Plan, although for certain activities such as a potential art gallery with accommodation on the second floor for the employee(s) could be considered. Mr. Mulholland suggested the term “mixed use”: housing above commercial as an option.
The Master Plan is a guide, which should encourage development which can be evaluated. It was agreed that the language should be tightened, notably “to provide rental mixed use apartments on upper floors of commercial use in selected buildings which could be allowed”. The hearing will be left open in order for Ms. Dean and George Benson to read and comment on it.
After a discussion the application further Mr. Mulholland opened the floor to the public.
Pat Llodra, First Selectman is working with Mr. Benson to ascertain how to proceed legally. This should be coming before the Commission shortly. She also noted that the Master Plan is now available on the town website.
Mr. Spragg asked if a cost analysis or financial impact statement had been done. He considered this to be fundamental for any decision coming before the Commission. Ms. Zukowski stated that this has not been done.
A recess was called at 8:49 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:59 p.m.
Mary Wilson, 12 Whippoorwill, Newtown, Connecticut, Chairman of the Conservation Committee had helped with the Master Plan. A Meadows Management Plan was distributed to the Commission for perusal. She would like to see protection of the meadows by designating them open space. There is a plan for removal and control of invasive species and create a perimeter trail. She added that they are available to answer any questions.
Kelly Johnson, 16 Chestnut Hill, Sandy Hook, Connecticut did not want housing considered. She felt once the door was open it would be a slippery slope. She did not want to see a rush to develop. She preferred things be left alone but agreed with Mr. Spragg that a financial impact statement should be available.
Tom Connors, Turkey Ridge Road. Newtown, Connecticut, member of the Fairfield Hills authority said that the changes allow for discussion. Previously they were unable to talk about housin. He agreed that there is a need for a financial impact study. If someone comes before them it would be thoroughly examined.
Pat Llodra, 90 Riverside Road, Sandy Hook, Connecticut admired the work done by the Review Committee, particularly the work on the Vision Statement. During the 90s schools were overcrowded. This situation has since dissipated. Her personal concern is for population diversity. It will be difficult to sustain the economy unless the town grows. She expressed concern about the future of the buildings, noting that it will cost approximately two and a half million dollars each to pull down. There is a need to find sources of tax revenue. Answering a question “would she be I favor of residences of businesses” she said it depends on the details of a particular proposal.
Ryan Knapp, 11 Jeremiah, Newtown, Connecticut considered this a great document. He would prefer to see preliminary work before opening the door to housing.
Edward Marks, Chairman of the Parks and Rec. Commission, 3 Sweet Meadow Road, Newtown, Connecticut said that the Plan is supposed to generate public interest. He does not see evidence of support without more information, such as cost benefits.
Mr. Mulholland said they cannot give a generic cost analysis for overall Fairfield Hills. Only for specific buildings.
The hearing was left open to reword it and get further input from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING (Continued)
Application by the Town of Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission for update to the Town of Newtown Plan of Conservation and Development
Mr. Mulholland asked all members to read the entire document one more time to ensure accuracy.
COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Mulholland received two inquiries about a stone wall built on the curb in Sandy Hook. There was concern about child safety. Mr. Porco noted that this was a pre-existing wall. He will ask Mr. Benson for details.
Approval of Minutes
No vote this evening
Land Use Agency Director’s Comments
Nothing to report.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Pozek made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Porco. The motion was unanimously approved.
The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m.
| 
