Edona Commons—

P&Z Rejects 23-Unit Condo Complex In Sandy Hook Center

By Andrew Gorosko

For a third time since 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has rejected a Danbury developer’s controversial plan to build a multifamily housing complex at a Church Hill Road site in Sandy Hook Center.

At an August 3 P&Z session, agency members unanimously rejected developer Guri Dauti’s proposal for Edona Commons, a 23-unit mixed-income condominium complex on a 4.04-acre steep, rugged site at 95-99 Church Hill Road, where seven dwellings would be reserved for moderate-income families.

The condo complex proposal had drawn strong opposition from nearby residents, who charge that such development is inappropriate for the area, stressing that the traffic it would generate would worsen existing traffic problems in the area.

Other complaints from opponents have focused on school bus safety, emergency access to the site, the historic character of the neighborhood, the removal of trees, and issues of general aesthetics.

It is the third time 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 also met with stiff opposition from nearby property owners, who have criticized such growth there.

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. The P&Z thwarted both proposals, rejecting Mr Dauti’s various requested zoning rule changes.

On August 3, the five P&Z members voting to reject Dauti Construction, LLC’s, proposal for Edona Commons were Chairman William O’Neil, Lilla Dean, Robert Poulin, Jane Brymer, and Robert Mulholland.

On August 8, attorney Ryan McKain, who represents Dauti Construction, said Mr Dauti “still has a desire to do something with the property … He will evaluate his options and see where he goes from here.”

“He’s got a number of options at this point,” Mr McKain said of his client. Mr Dauti could file a court appeal over the rejected project or he could again apply to develop the site, the lawyer said. 

Mr Dauti will be evaluating the time and costs involved in pursuing the various options available to him, Mr McKain said.

“I thought we had presented an approvable application,” Mr McKain said.

In a related matter, on July 26, Dauti Construction sued the Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) over its recommendation that the P&Z not approve Mr Dauti’s requested change of zone for the condo construction proposal. In that lawsuit, the developer interpreted the WSA’s recommendation as an effective denial of his WSA application, which sought sanitary sewer service for the condo complex. That lawsuit seeks to have a judge order that the town provide sewer service for the project.

 On August 9, Morgen McLaughlin of Alberts Hill Road, who has strongly opposed Edona Commons, said she was pleased with the broadness of language that P&Z used in rejecting the condo complex application.

“We’re happy,” she said. But she added she expects Mr Dauti will file a court appeal challenging P&Z’s rejection of his project. “We’re expecting an appeal’s going to come,” she said.

Of P&Z’s rejection, she said, “It was responsive to the public voice … It encourages citizens of Newtown that you [should] make your voice heard and attend meetings … Acting as a cohesive group does pay off.”

Project opponents had presented several hundred petition signatures to P&Z in opposition to Edona Commons.

Megan Williams, of 82 Church Hill Road, who is another leader of the opposition, said, “This has been a long and arduous campaign … I’m thrilled that the P&Z disapproved [the application].”

Ms Williams said she is thankful to the many people who attended town agency meetings in opposition to Edona Commons. Ms Williams lives directly across Church Hill Road from the proposed development site.

 

Three Rejections

P&Z took three separate votes on various aspects of the multifaceted condo application. Those votes concerned the creation of a new zone called the Mixed Income Housing District (MIHD) zone; the rezoning of the site from its current R-2 (Residential) designation to MIHD zoning; and applications for a special permit and a construction permit for the project.

P&Z members stated many reasons why they chose to reject the developer’s proposal to create MIHD zoning regulations.

The town already has Affordable Housing Development (AHD) zoning regulations that allow such construction through the P&Z’s special permit process, according to P&Z. Those AHD regulations are consistent with the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act and with the town’s 2004 Plan of Conservation and Development, P&Z added. The proposed MIHD zoning regulations do not meet all state requirements concerning the incomes of residents living in affordable housing, it adds.

Also, P&Z members stated that the MIHD proposal to allow up to eight dwellings per acre in an MIHD complex exceeds current zoning rules, which limit multifamily developments to maximums of 4 units, 3.5 units, or 2 units per acre, depending upon the specific type of multifamily development involved. The proposed MIHD regulations are not consistent with the town plan concerning desired residential construction density and population density, P&Z decided.

The proposed MIHD regulations would result in higher construction densities in town, would lessen the visual buffering requirements for high-density development, and would change the character of local development, the commission decided.

P&Z members pointed to several proposed rule changes under MIHD zoning that would have negative effects, compared to the provisions of existing AHD zoning. These include: reducing rear setback and side setback distances; eliminating a requirement for open space on a site for passive and active recreation; increasing the height limit on buildings; allowing more housing units per building; and reducing the separation distances between buildings on the site.

Under the proposed MIHD regulations, 35 local sites could be eligible for development similar to Edona Commons, resulting in the potential for increased housing density that is inconsistent with the town plan, P&Z found. The presence of such high density complexes could create sewage treatment capacity issues for the municipal sewer system, it added.

Beyond creating MIHD zoning, Dauti had sought to convert the 4.04-acre from its current R-2 (Residential) to MIHD zoning. R-2 zoning would allow two single-family family houses to be built there.

Because creating MIHD zoning was not approved, P&Z consequently decided against converting the site from R-2 to MIHD. A change in zone would not be consistent with the town plan, P&Z decided.

“Furthermore, the applicant did not provide any evidence of how the proposed zone change would impact the property values of neighboring or adjacent properties,” P&Z added.

Permits Denied

P&Z members rejected granting Dauti Construction a special permit and also a construction permit for the project.

Building the complex would require the removal of an estimated 10,960 cubic yards of earth materials and excess topsoil from the site. 

The site development plan does not conform to the R-2 zoning regulations or to the existing AHD zoning regulations, plus the proposed MIHD zoning regulations were rejected, P&Z members noted.

P&Z members found that the high-density construction proposal was opposed by the Police Commission for reasons of traffic safety; by the fire marshal, unless a secondary accessway for emergency equipment is provide at the site; and by the WSA because the additional sewage treatment capacity required by such a condo complex was not planned for at the sewage treatment plant. 

Also, P&Z members found that the site is bounded on east side by a 30-foot-tall cliff, which would be a major hazard for children living at the complex. The P&Z also decided that traffic in the area is congested and that travel to and from the site would worsen local traffic flow.

Mr Mulholland noted that the development application drew heavy opposition from members of the public who spent much time seeking to defeat the project.

The developer has received a wetlands permit for the project from the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC), but was turned down by that agency when seeking an aquifer protection endorsement for the project.

Still pending before the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is the developer’s appeal of a ruling that was issued last spring by the town’s land use enforcement officer. That ruling revoked a lot line revision at the development site which the town had granted to the developer in 2003. The ZBA is expected to act on the appeal at an upcoming session.