By Sarah Opdahl

At the Margerie Trail Advisory Committee (Committee) meeting in New Fairfield on Tuesday, July 22, several New Fairfield residents passionately spoke against the prospect of the Marjorie Trail project during the public comment session, which spanned the bulk of the meeting. Though some committee members offered a conciliatory or collegial bridge to connect with residents, with one suggesting that Frequently Asked Questions could be created to address repeat concerns, there was a charged and abrupt ending to the meeting after alternate member Mr. Ken Gucker had a tense moment with members of the public.

Sensing the displeasure that was about to be volleyed, Chair Ms. Holly Robison began the meeting by sharing the charge “because I see more folks here than have been here in the past, I think it’s probably a good opportunity to clarify the record as a point of personal privilege as chair of this committee.” She noted that there is a lot of information circulating on social media that does not align with the purview of the ad hoc, advisory committee. She said, “We are here to work with our consultant to evaluate design options, review public input, and evaluate the feasibility of this trail, all of which will inform future presentations to both the New Fairfield Board of Selectmen and the Danbury City Council as far as next steps. She went on to share, “This trail initiative enjoys strong support from both sides of the aisle, from the state legislature, and from our local politicians. They’ve assisted in securing funding and grants and spoken in favor of this project over the years.”

Robinson attempted to assure the public that the Committee has logged the concerns about water quality, wetlands protections, privacy screening, wildlife impact, erosion, distance of property, and noise concerns, adding “these have directly influenced how we structured our design phase of the trail. The revised RFP [request for proposal] that we used for design services explicitly required that the selected consultant use conflicting land use issues [and] wildlife impact minimization.” Additionally in the RFP, the Committee called out the sensitivity surrounding an eagle’s nest that has created a public outcry against the notion of the trail. She pointed to a survey that was made available to gather as much information as possible regarding the trail.

Robison addressed “comments about safety and crime and pollution…I cannot predict what happens in the future, but I do caution people to do a little bit of research,” saying of similar, now-popular trails in the state, “This has been a very common theme for concern from people before trails get built, without any empirical evidence where that has actually come to fruition.” Instead, she referenced the cleanliness and stability of the maintained trails.

Residents referenced a slew of concerns in public comment, from increased tax fears for creation and maintenance and insurance liability to environmental impacts and parking and traffic concerns. New Fairfield Selectman Mr. Tom Perkins was frank when he came to the podium in public comment, saying, “ I want to know exactly how much money is proposed to spend on this trail, because I can tell you right now, the Town of New Fairfield cannot afford one dime at this point. I’ve been through two budget seasons on the Board of Selectmen, and I know that our funding is very, very thin for our own necessities.”

Some see a political divide over the project, others are lodging complaints of transparency in the Committee’s movements. One commenter explained that she was submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all committee communication among each other and with local and state officials. A New Fairfield business owner in the proposed area expressed concern over the proposal for sidewalks and more foot traffic being a safety concern. There were residents who shared that the overall idea of a trail is a good thing and that people would probably use it but who were adamant that the drawbacks are reason enough to pull back from forward movement. One resident spoke in favor of the trail and praised the work of the Committee, lamenting that the project has become steeped in politics.

In the short, nuts-and-bolts portion of the meeting, committee members discussed how their bills are being paid to consultants and revisions in the approval process to speed payments, which have often lagged for months.

It was agreed that their next meeting, at which they plan to share design information, will be held in a town-hall style, allowing for back-and-forth with the public. Robinson noted that there were “a lot of comments on how much this is going to cost. I think that’s part of what we’re trying to get out of the design service plan, that we’re going to have a better idea in August when we have about a 90% completion progress report from the design consultant.”

The meeting ended with the barbed exchange between Gucker and members of the public. He said, “a lot of what has been brought up as concerns are from individuals and people that haven’t been here for the last 15 meetings. Some of you I have only seen a couple times. Some of you I’ve seen more than I would care to see,” to which Robinson chastised, “Ken, I’m going to give you a short leash,” over the cries of residents who had become incensed about his comment.