In Sandy Hook Center—

Town To Appeal Court Decisions On Condos

By Andrew Gorosko

The Legislative Council and the Board of Selectmen this week endorsed the town pursuing appeals in the Connecticut Appellate Court contesting a Danbury land developer’s recent court victories, which would open the way for him to build a 26-unit condominium complex containing some “affordable housing” on a rugged 4.5-acre site in Sandy Hook Center.

In separate actions this week, the council and the selectmen endorsed the town pursuing legal challenges of developer Guri Dauti’s June 1 legal victories in New Britain Superior Court. Mr Dauti, doing business as Dauti Construction LLC, prevailed in two separate court appeals which he had filed in 2007.

Mr Dauti challenged the Water and Sewer Authority’s (WSA) September 2007 denial of his request for municipal sewer service for the proposed Edona Commons complex. The developer also challenged the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) April 2007 rejection of his construction proposal.

New Britain Superior Court Judge Lois Tanzer ruled in favor of Mr Dauti’s parallel administrative appeals. The judge directed the WSA to approve Mr Dauti’s request for sewer service. Judge Tanzer also directed Mr Dauti to return to the P&Z to make certain changes to his development application for its approval by the P&Z.

Mr Dauti wants to build the project at 95 and 99 Church Hill Road, near Dayton Street. Eight of the condo units would be designated as affordable housing and be sold to eligible families at prices significantly lower than the market-rate condo units there. Sewer mains run alongside Church Hill Road adjacent to the development site.

Mr Dauti had applied to the town for the Edona Commons project under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. Under that law, applicants for affordable housing projects, which are later rejected by municipal agencies, gain certain legal leverage in getting those projects approved through court appeals. Only public health issues and public safety issues are considered justifiable reasons for a land use agency to reject an affordable housing project.

In a nine-page petition for certification submitted to the appellate court, town attorneys David Grogins and Barbara Schellenberg explain why they believe that Judge Tanzer erred in deciding on Mr Dauti’s appeal of the WSA’s denial of sewer service.

Following lengthy review, the WSA rejected Mr Dauti’s application for municipal sanitary sewer service for Edona Commons because the application failed to meet WSA’s regulations concerning the classes of properties that are eligible to use the central sewer system’s remaining sewage treatment capacity. The WSA’s allocation of sewer service is based upon a “priority matrix” that the WSA had formulated for aid in deciding on sewer usage requests.

The town’s request for appeal certification states, “The [Superior] Court found that the WSA improperly exercised zoning power by adopting the priority matrix. Specifically, the court determined that the priority matrix is not rationally related to the public’s health, safety, and welfare because it was developed based on the 1994 zoning status of properties in Newtown.”

“The [Superior] Court erroneously concluded that the WSA’s priority matrix is not rationally related to the public’s health, safety and welfare because it was developed based on the zoning status of properties in Newtown as of April 28, 1994…Looking to zoning as a guideline to develop the priority matrix was the most logical and equitable way for the WSA to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Indeed, far from arbitrary or unreasonable, the WSA’s actions ensured that the public’s health, safety, and welfare would be adequately protected,” according to the court papers.

P&Z members endorsed appealing the Superior Court decision at a June 9 meeting; WSA members endorsed pursuing an appeal at their June 11 session.

Mr Dauti’s various controversial proposals for developing the site with high-density housing, which date back to 2003, have drawn strong opposition from nearby residents who have criticized the proposals as being too intensive for the site.

P&Z members have generally criticized the Edona Commons proposal because the project would require many existing town zoning regulations on affordable housing to be modified to allow the construction of a much more densely built project than the rules would otherwise allow.