Sandy Hook Center—

P&Z Approves Edona Commons Condo Complex

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members have approved a Danbury developer’s controversial plans to build a 26-unit townhouse-style condominium complex known as Edona Commons on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center.

The developer has proposed various high-density residential projects for the site since 2003, and finally gained approval for the Edona Commons project through court appeals.

At a June 16 session, P&Z members unanimously granted three approvals to Dauti Construction, LLC, for the project, which would be built on a steep, rugged 4.5-acre site at 95 and 99 Church Hill Road.

Those approvals cover the creation of a new land use zone and its accompanying regulations proposed by Dauti known as the Mixed-Income Housing District (MIHD); the rezoning of the site from R-2 (Residential) to MIHD zoning; and the site development plans.

The P&Z’s action follows the Connecticut Supreme Court effectively ordering the P&Z to approve the project, which the P&Z had previously rejected as being too intensive a development for physically difficult terrain.

In 2007 after the P&Z and the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) turned down the condo complex proposal for zoning reasons and for sanitary sewer capacity reasons, respectively, the developer then filed Superior Court appeals against both agencies in seeking to get the project approved.

The developer won both appeals. The town then appealed the developer’s two legal victories at the Connecticut Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also ruled in favor of the developer in both appeals.

The town then sought to appeal both cases at the Connecticut Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court ruled in March that the Appellate Court decisions would stand, requiring the P&Z and the WSA to approve the condo project with suitable modifications.

In the 26-unit project, eight of the dwellings would be designated as affordable housing and would be sold to eligible families at prices significantly lower than the market-rate condo units in the complex.

The developer had appealed the 2007 rejections by the P&Z and the WSA under the provisions of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. That law provides developers with certain legal leverage in gaining court-based approvals for proposed housing complexes containing affordable housing which have already been rejected by municipalities.

Sewer Service

Fred Hurley, town public works director, said earlier on June 16 that the WSA chairman is expected to submit a preliminary approval to Dauti for a sanitary sewer connection for Edona Commons, in view of the court decisions on Dauti’s appeal of the WSA’s rejection of sewer service for the project.

In 2007, the WSA opted against providing sewer service to the project from an adjacent sewer line along Church Hill Road because the construction density of the condo project, and the consequent volume of sewage that the condo complex would generate, well exceeded the town’s sewage volume estimates for the site.

On June 22, the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) extended the term of the town wetlands protection permit that Dauti holds for the Edona Commons project by two years. That permit will now expire in March 2014.

Aquifer protection aspects of the development proposal were resolved through the litigation between the developer and the town.

After Dauti receives all required approvals for the project, it would then need to obtain a final sewer connection approval from the WSA.

The price that the town would charge for connecting the condo complex to the municipal sewer system would be based on a town-hired appraiser’s estimate of the market value that sanitary sewer service would add to the condo complex.

Site Development

At their June 16 session, P&Z members approved development plans for Edona Commons, which include an emergency accessway that would meet Church Hill Road near the southeastern section of the property.

P&Z members had been considering having the developer not build that emergency accessway and instead widen a planned driveway that would meet Church Hill Road near the southwestern section of the property.

P&Z members had been considering having no emergency accessway at the site as a way to reduce tree removal, thus obscure the visibility of the project as seen from Church Hill Road.

George Benson, town director of planning and land use, however, said that the approval granted by the P&Z on June 16 would include the construction of the emergency accessway, but would leave open the possibility of the developer returning to the P&Z for approval to eliminate that feature of the project.

In a June 15 letter to Mr Benson, Bill Halstead, who is the town’s fire marshal and emergency management director, wrote, “At this time, I am requesting that the emergency access road remain for this project. Until I receive a viable reason why the [emergency] access road should be removed and what safety alternatives are being offered in lieu of the access road, it should remain.”

In May, Mr Halstead expressed concerns about the prospect of having only one accessway to enter and exit the condo complex where 100 people might live. If for some reason, a single access point to the site was blocked to traffic, it would pose problems for emergency crews needing to get onto the property, Mr Halstead has said.

At the June 16 P&Z session, attorney Christopher Smith, representing Dauti, said the developer potentially could seek to modify the site development plans to eliminate the emergency accessway by first gaining Mr Halstead’s endorsement and then gaining P&Z approval for such a change.

The developer has agreed to certain recommendations made by the town’s Design Advisory Board (DAB), an agency that reviews the architectural and landscaping aspects of certain development projects.

The developer met with the DAB on June 9.

The DAB prefers that the emergency accessway for the project be eliminated, provided that the project’s main accessway be widened, and provided that the fire marshal endorses such a plan. Such a redesign would preserve more trees at the site and would improve the overall appearance of the project, according to the DAB.

In terms of the project’s architecture, the DAB makes nine recommendations concerning features, including shingles, windows, siding, coloration, trim, gables, landings, garage doors, and facing stone.

Asked to comment on Dauti having gained P&Z approval for Edona Commons after several years of litigation on the matter, P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean observed, “We’re happy to work with Dauti to make this the best development that it can be, but I’m disappointed that the court thought that forcing such high [construction] density was a good idea.”

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

The town has a set of zoning regulations on affordable housing known as the Affordable Housing Development (AHD) regulations, but Dauti opted not to design the project based on those regulations.

In the past, nearby residents who objected to the proposed condo complex at public hearings charged that it would be too dense a development, it would be unattractive, and it would generate much traffic in an already congested area.

Because the state courts ordered the town to approve Edona Commons, the P&Z held no public hearings on the project before approving the condo complex on June 16.