Log In


Reset Password
Archive

'Edona Commons' In Sandy Hook Center

Print

Tweet

Text Size


‘Edona Commons’ In Sandy Hook Center

By Andrew Gorosko

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has scheduled public hearings on a developer’s proposal to construct a mixed income 23-unit condominium complex on a rugged 4.04-acre site in Sandy Hook Center, at which seven dwellings would be reserved for moderate-income families.

P&Z members plan to conduct public hearings on April 6 on four pending applications from Dauti Construction, LLC, of Danbury, for Edona Commons at 95-99 Church Hill Road.

The firm also has a wetlands application pending before the Conservation Commission, serving as the town’s wetlands protection agency. A public hearing on that application was slated for February 22. (See related story)

Dauti Construction also is seeking approval from the Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) to link the proposed complex to the municipal sewer system.

Also, the Police Commission, serving as the local traffic authority, is expected to review the public safety implications of traffic planning for the project at a March 7 session.

At a February 16 session, after brief discussion, P&Z members concurred that they should obtain legal advice from P&Z attorney Robert Fuller concerning developer Guri Dauti’s application for Edona Commons.

It is unusual for a developer to simultaneously seek the approval of four applications for the same project. Typically, such development approvals are sought sequentially.

In his four applications to the P&Z, Mr Dauti is seeking:

?A zoning amendment that would create a new land-use zone known as a Mixed-Income Housing District (MIHD) zone.

?The rezoning of the 4.04-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road from R-2 (Residential) to MIHD.

éApproval of a site development plan for the condo project.

éApproval of a construction permit/special permit for excavation work.

On February 21, town Conservation Official Rob Sibley said that Mr Dauti will need an aquifer protection review of the site by the Conservation Commission, and also by the P&Z, because about two-thirds of the site lies within the town’s environmentally sensitive Aquifer Protection District (APD).

It is the third time that Mr Dauti has attempted to develop the property with multifamily housing. Two past proposals from Mr Dauti for high-density, multifamily complexes at that site have met with stiff opposition from nearby property owners, who have criticized such development as inappropriate for the area. Past opponents cited concerns about traffic, congestion, aesthetics, and decreased property values.

The two past development proposals from Mr Dauti were thwarted by the P&Z, which turned down his various requested zoning rule changes.

In a 2003 attempt to develop the site, Mr Dauti sought to build 16 units. In a second failed attempt early in 2004, he sought to build 12 units. Both proposals involved the creation of “affordable housing” at the site.

In October 2004, Mr Dauti initiated closed-session talks with P&Z members on his prospects for accomplishing a housing project on the property.

Mr Dauti proposes constructing 23 townhouse-style dwellings in five buildings. Two buildings would have six units; two buildings would contain four units, and one building would have three units. Overall, the five buildings would contain 57 bedrooms. Individual dwellings would have either two bedrooms or three bedrooms. The construction project would require 18 months to complete.

The dwellings designated for moderate-income families would be interspersed throughout the complex. The moderate-income units would be sold at lower prices than the market-rate units. The high construction density of such a complex would generate market-rate sales proceeds that would, in effect, subsidize the sale of moderate-income units.

The site is on the north side of Church Hill Road, west of the intersection of Church Hill Road and Dayton Street. The site abuts the 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condominium complex.

Comments
Comments are open. Be civil.
0 comments

Leave a Reply