WSA Reviewing Condo Complex Sewering Request

By Andrew Gorosko

A Danbury developer, who wants to build a controversial 26-unit mixed-income condominium complex on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center, has submitted an application for sanitary sewer service for the project to the Water and Sewer Authority (WSA).

Attorney Ryan McKain and engineer Steve Trinkaus, both representing Dauti Construction, LLC, attended an August 16 WSA session in seeking permission to connect the proposed Edona Commons complex to the town’s adjacent central sewer system.

In August 2006, the developer had filed an appeal in Danbury Superior Court seeking to overturn a July 2006 WSA decision, which effectively denied a sewer connection for an earlier 23-unit version of Edona Commons. The developer withdrew that lawsuit against the WSA last April.

Developer Guri Dauti has repeatedly attempted to build multifamily housing at 95-99 Church Hill Road.

In an appeal now pending in New Britain Superior Court, Dauti Construction seeks to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) April 5 rejection of Edona Commons. That rejection marked the fourth time since 2003 that the P&Z had turned down multifamily development proposals for the site from the developer. The pending court appeal may be resolved by mid-2008.

On August 16, Messrs McKain and Trinkaus explained to WSA members that the current sewering application involves 26 condos because the developer has acquired added acreage, bringing the site’s size up to 4.5 acres. The firm proposes the construction of six multifamily buildings on the steep, rugged site near Dayton Street. The proposed condo complex would discharge an estimated 5,525 gallons of sewage daily into the sewer system, based upon an estimated discharge rate of 212.5 gallons of sewage per condo unit.

Mr Dauti’s continuing efforts to develop the Sandy Hook Center site with multifamily housing have encountered stiff opposition from nearby property owners. They charge that the site is an inappropriate place for such construction that would overdevelop the property and generate excess traffic in a congested area.

In response to the developer’s current application for sewer service, Town Public Works Director Fred Hurley contacted Town Attorney David Grogins for legal advice.

The lawyer recommended that the WSA accept the application for review, although the developer has a lawsuit pending against the P&Z over its April rejection of the condo complex construction proposal.

Mr Grogins is expected to submit a legal opinion to the WSA on the current sewering application, after which the WSA would discuss and possibly act on the application at a September 20 session.

In his monthly report to the WSA, Mr Hurley recommended that the WSA reject the developer’s application for sewer service because the project does not meet the various criteria specified for receiving sewer service listed in the municipal sewering plan.

In the 26-unit condo complex proposal that was rejected by the P&Z last April, Mr Dauti applied for the project under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act.

Under that law, applicants for affordable housing projects that 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 as justifiable reasons for a land use agency rejecting an affordable housing project.

In its April decision to reject Edona Commons, P&Z members found that the interests 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. Those eight condos would be set aside for purchase by low-income and moderate-income families. The sale prices of market-rate units in such high-density complexes subsidize the sale of lower-priced affordable housing units.

A major flaw in the 26-unit Edona Commons proposal was the applicant’s failure to describe the means of sewage disposal at the site, 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.