By P&Z—

Condo Complex Rejected

By Andrew Gorosko

Following lengthy review, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has rejected a Danbury developer’s controversial proposal to construct a 26-unit mixed-income condominium complex on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center.

In a unanimous vote on April 5, P&Z members rejected Dauti Construction, LLC’s, proposal for Edona Commons on a steep, rugged 4.5-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road, near Dayton Street. It is the fourth time since 2003 that the P&Z has rejected multifamily construction proposals for the site from the developer.

The six-building Edona Commons proposal had drawn strong opposition from nearby residents who protested the project for many reasons. They charged that the project would create increased traffic in a congested area, adding that the site is an inappropriate place for high-density development.

Resident Megan Williams, of 82 Church Hill Road, and former Sandy Hook resident Morgen McLaughlin led the opposition to Edona Commons.

Ms McLaughlin said this week the P&Z took much time to review the Edona Commons application and was thorough in stating its reasons for a denial. She said she expects the developer will file a court challenge of the April 5 condo complex rejection.

Ms McLaughlin described the proposed 26-unit complex as “too dense a development for that particular site.”

“We did all that we really could do as public citizens [to oppose the condo complex proposal]. Zoning did a very thorough job” in stating a reasons for rejecting the application, she said.

In its nine-page decision to reject Edona Commons, P&Z members found that the interest for protecting the public health and safety outweighed the need for the eight “affordable housing” units that would be part of the 26-unit complex.

A major flaw in the proposal was the applicant’s failure to describe the means of sewage disposal at the site in view of the Water and Sewer Authority’s (WSA) rejection of a municipal sewer system connection for the project, according to the P&Z.

Also, the applicant failed to ensure that adequate steps would be taken to protect the underlying Pootatuck Aquifer, which is a public water supply source, the P&Z decided.

Last August, the P&Z rejected a proposal for a 23-unit version of Edona Commons on a 4.04-acre site at the same location. The P&Z listed a host of reasons for that rejection, including potential traffic problems and a high construction density. The developer then challenged that rejection in Danbury Superior Court.

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) zoning regulations.

Affordable Housing

Developer Guri Dauti applied for the 26-unit project in October 2006 under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. Through that law, the applicants for affordable housing projects, which are rejected by municipal land use agencies, gain certain legal leverage in getting those projects approved through court appeals. Only public health issues and public safety issues are considered to be justifiable reasons for a land use agency to reject an affordable housing project.

During several P&Z meetings at which the 26-unit Edona Commons application was discussed during the past several months, the developer had a stenographer use a shorthand machine to take verbatim notes of the proceedings, apparently to form the legal basis for a court challenge in the event that the proposal was rejected.

The P&Z conducted public hearings on Edona Commons last December 7 and January 18. Issues raised at those hearings by the public opposed to the project included concerns about: aquifer protection, stormwater drainage, construction density, public safety, traffic, building heights, building lengths, wetlands, plus concerns that Edona Commons would be located in an area holding historic homes that lies near the entry point to the redeveloped Sandy Hook Center.

The condo complex application sought three P&Z approvals — the creation of a new zone known as the Mixed Income Housing District (MIHD) zone; a change of zone for the 4.5-acre site from R-2 Residential to MIHD zoning, and also a site development plan endorsement.

The proposed MIHD zone would increase the construction density allowed at affordable housing complexes compared to the P&Z’s existing AHD regulations.

Compared to the existing AHD rules, the proposed MIHD regulations would: require MIHD zones to be served by public water and public sewer systems; double the maximum construction density; decrease the allowable minimum lot size by 25 percent; decrease required lot frontage; increase maximum building heights; increase maximum building lengths; increase the allowed number of dwellings per building; reduce site buffering requirements; eliminate the requirement for an aquifer impact review in a MIHD zone; eliminate a requirement for recreation areas on the site; reduce minimum setback distances from property lines; and allow MIHD complexes to be permitted as a “right” of the zone, rather than being subject to the P&Z’s special permit review process.

Rationale

In its motion to reject Edona Commons, the P&Z explained its reasons for turning down the project.

P&Z members decided that in view of the WSA’s decision not to provide a municipal sewer system connection for the 26-unit condo project, the developer would then be required to explain what alternate means of waste disposal, such a large-scale septic system, would be employed for waste disposal.

“Because an adequate sewage disposal plan has not been provided to meet the needs of future residents [of] the affected parcels, the substantial public health interest in providing adequate sewage disposal…for development outweighs the need for affordable housing. There is a substantial public health interest in assuring that some form of sewage disposal or sewer service treatment would be provided for the newly created zone for Moderate Income Housing Development (MIHD),” according to the P&Z.

The WSA had decided that a municipal sanitary sewer connection would not be provided to the condo complex because the project’s construction density would be higher than what was anticipated in past sewer system planning. Consequently, the higher construction density allowed in the proposed MIHD zone was not endorsed by the WSA, which opted against providing a sewer system connection.

The substantial public health interest in providing an adequate sewage disposal plan outweighs the need for affordable housing, according to the P&Z.

As part of the Edona Commons application, the developer proposed that multifamily development in MIHD zones be exempted from the requirements of an aquifer impact review. A portion of the Edona Commons site is in the town’s Aquifer Protection District (APD), which is located above the Pootatuck Aquifer. That aquifer is the source of two local public water supplies, resulting in the P&Z having restricted the permissible activities in the APD as an aquifer protection measure.

Because the developer sought to exempt itself from the P&Z’s aquifer protection regulations, the P&Z found that the developer failed to show that adequate measures would be taken to protect the aquifer.

“There is a substantial public health and safety interest in protecting against degradation of the public water supply…The substantial public health interest in providing protection of the public water supply outweighs the need for affordable housing,” the P&Z found.

For the same reasons that the P&Z decided against creating a MIHD zone for the Edona Commons complex, the P&Z decided against rezoning the site from its current R-2 designation to MIHD.

Also, the P&Z opted against approving the proposed site development plan for Edona Commons because the developer had not explained septic waste disposal for the project in view of the WSA’s rejection of a municipal sewer connection for the complex. Thus, the substantial public interest in providing adequate waste disposal for the complex outweighed the need for affordable housing, the P&Z decided.

Additionally, the P&Z decided that the application does not meet the terms of the state’s affordable housing law because the eight affordable condos would not be equivalent to the 18 market-rate units in terms of numbers of bathrooms per unit and the size of the units.

In such high-density multifamily complexes, the lower sale prices of affordable units are subsidized by the higher sale prices of market-rate units.

In the Edona Commons proposal, market-rate units would sell from between $325,000 and $375,000. The affordable housing units would sell at prices of approximately $128,000; $148,000; $181,000; and $209,000, depending upon the income of the family buying the unit and the number of bedrooms in the unit. Two-bedroom units would enclose approximately 1,200 square feet; three-bedroom units would hold about 1,500 square feet of space.