Sandy Hook Center—

Developer Makes Fourth Proposal For Condo Complex

By Andrew Gorosko

A Danbury developer whose controversial proposals for a mixed-income condominium complex on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center have been rejected three times by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), has submitted a fourth application for a condo complex, this time seeking a total of 26 units in six buildings on 4.5 acres.

Developer Guri Dauti, doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, on October 4 submitted to the P&Z his latest proposal for a townhouse-style condo complex, known as Edona Commons at 95-99 Church Hill Road.

The site is on the north side of Church Hill Road, west of Church Hill Road’s intersection with Dayton Street.

On August 3, the P&Z rejected Mr Dauti’s proposal for a 23-unit condo complex on a 4.04-acre site, citing a host of reasons, including potential traffic problems in the area. Mr Dauti then filed a court challenge against the P&Z in seeking to have a judge order that the project be approved.

Since 2003, Mr Dauti’s several condo proposals for Sandy Hook Center have 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 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. In an initial 2003 attempt to develop the site, Dauti sought to build 16 units. In a second failed attempt early in 2004, he sought to build 12 units.

The P&Z is expected to conduct a public hearing on Mr Dauti’s latest application in mid-November.

Attorney Ryan McKain, representing Mr Dauti, in a letter to the P&Z, wrote that the current application seeks three P&Z approvals — the creation of a new zone known as the Mixed Income Housing District (MIHD); a change of zone for 4.5 acres from R-2 Residential to MIHD zoning, and also a site development plan endorsement.

In the letter, Mr McKain states that the new application addresses the various issues raised by the P&Z when it rejected the 23-unit version of the project in August.

To make space for a 26-unit condo complex, an existing multifamily dwelling would be demolished at 99 Church Hill Road, according to Mr McKain. A public water supply would serve the site.

Under the current proposal, the condo complex would be divided into two sections, each of which would be served by a separate private driveway. One driveway would serve 23 units. The other driveway would serve three units. The project’s layout would include a looped driveway that has two access points on Church Hill Road.

“Neither driveway will have any significant effect on existing traffic conditions,” according to Mr McKain.

The developer proposes setting aside eight of the 26 units as price-restricted dwellings for low- and moderate-income families. The project would thus qualify as an “affordable housing” complex under the provisions of state law. In such high-density complexes, the lower prices of affordable housing units are subsidized by the market-rate units.

Developing the steep, rugged site would require the removal of 12,840 cubic yards of earthen materials.

Among their many reasons for rejecting the 23-unit version of Edona Commons, the P&Z noted that the town already has a set of Affordable Housing Development (AHD) zoning regulations that allow such development, but that the applicant opted against using those regulations.