Police Panel Considers Enlisting Expert For Condo Traffic Review

By Andrew Gorosko

Police Commission members are considering whether the town should hire a traffic expert on the commission’s behalf to review the traffic aspects of a developer’s controversial proposal to construct 26 mixed-income condominium units on a 4.5-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center.

The Police Commission serves as the town’s traffic authority, and reviews the traffic aspects of development proposals for the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).

The P&Z is scheduled to resume a public hearing on January 18 on Danbury developer Guri Dauti’s proposal for Edona Commons, a 26-unit condo complex that would be housed in six buildings on the steep, rugged site. The project has drawn stiff opposition from nearby residents who charge that the site is an inappropriate place for such development, citing an increase in traffic flow in the congested area as a major concern.

The proposal marks Dauti Construction LLC’s fourth attempt since 2003 to develop the site with condos.

One of the sticking points in the town’s review of the 23-unit condo project was the developer’s provision of only one entry-exit driveway at the site. The P&Z rejected that 23-unit proposal last August.

In the current 26-unit proposal, a main driveway, which would terminate in a turnaround circle, would serve 23 condo units. An emergency accessway would be constructed to link that turnaround circle to Church Hill Road. A secondary driveway, east of the main driveway, would serve the other three condo units.

Last June, concerned that traffic generated by the presence of the then-proposed 23-unit condominium complex would worsen existing difficult traffic conditions in Sandy Hook Center, the Police Commission recommended against the construction of Edona Commons.

Police Chief Michael Kehoe told Police Commission members January 2 that the commission does not have funds budgeted to hire a traffic expert to review the current traffic plans for Edona Commons.

Police Commission Chairman Carol Mattegat said she would research whether the town would provide funds for the commission to hire a traffic consultant. The panel is slated to resume discussion on the topic on February 6.

A traffic study, which was performed for the developer, found that the presence of a 26-unit condo complex “will have an insignificant impact on the overall operation of vehicular activities along Church Hill Road and nearby intersections.”

Police Commission member Duane Giannini said two issues face the Police Commission. They are whether the panel reaffirms its previous recommendation against Edona Commons, and whether the agency should hire a traffic expert on its behalf.

Letter

In a December 18 letter to Ms Mattegat and Chief Kehoe, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil wrote that during a December 7 P&Z public hearing on the 26-unit Edona Commons proposal, several traffic-related public safety issues surfaced.

They include: the questionable practicality of large trucks using the short driveway that would serve three condos; the possibility of visitor parking on Church Hill Road; the lack of internal sidewalks on the site; the school bus pickup and discharge of students on Church Hill Road; and safety issues posed by motorists making left turns onto Church Hill Road when exiting the two driveways proposed for the site.

Mr O’Neil wrote, “If you feel there is a safety issue, I would request that you hire an ‘expert’ to review your position.”

“I have been advised by the town attorney that in the case of an ‘affordable housing’ application, under state regulations the burden of proof shifts to the commissions, and the courts often do not accept commission judgments on issues unless backed by written expert opinions,” Mr O’Neil added.

Unlike his previous application, Mr Dauti’s current 26-unit proposal was submitted to the P&Z under the provisions of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act, a 1989 law that provides developers with certain legal leverage in getting affordable housing projects approved by a judge, if the project is the subject of a court appeal following a rejection by a land use agency. The state law reduces a municipal land use agency’s latitude in its reasons for rejecting a construction proposal.

When it rejected the 23-unit version of Edona Commons in August, the P&Z listed a host of reasons for that rejection, including potential traffic problems and a high construction density. The developer has appealed that rejection in Danbury Superior Court, but not under the terms of the state law on affordable housing.

At the December 7 P&Z hearing on the 26-unit version of Edona Commons, the developer had a stenographer at work to create a verbatim record of the session, which would be used in the event the developer files a court appeal of a potential fourth rejection of the project by the P&Z.

In an initial 2003 attempt to develop the site, Dauti Construction sought to build 16 condo units. In a second failed attempt early in 2004, Dauti sought to build 12 condo units. The P&Z short-circuited both those efforts by rejecting the developer’s proposals for revisions to the town’s Affordable Housing Development (AHD) regulations.