Sandy Hook Center—

P&Z Questions Legality Of Fourth Condo Complex Proposal

By Andrew Gorosko

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) is seeking legal advice from its attorney on whether a Danbury developer’s latest proposal for a mixed-income condominium complex in Sandy Hook Center warrants a public hearing soon, or should instead be postponed for a year, in light of the P&Z’s recent rejection of a similar construction proposal from the developer.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil said October 18 the P&Z is awaiting a legal opinion from attorney Robert Fuller on whether the controversial condo complex proposal should be the subject of a public hearing, possibly as soon as November 16, or should instead be delayed for a year because the P&Z rejected a substantially similar proposal from the developer in August.

In his fourth proposal to develop a site at 95-99 Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center, Danbury developer Guri Dauti, doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, seeks to construct 26 townhouse-style condos in six buildings on a steep, rugged 4.5-acre site.

The project is known as Edona Commons. The P&Z has rejected three past proposals from Mr Dauti to build condos there. The Edona Commons site abuts the site of the 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condo complex.

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 and a high construction density. Mr Dauti then filed a court challenge against the P&Z in seeking to have a judge order that the project be approved. That lawsuit is pending in Danbury Superior Court.

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.

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 that 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 aesthetics. The current construction project would require the removal of 12,840 cubic yards of earthen materials.

Morgen McLaughlin, who strongly opposed Mr Dauti’s third proposal for a condo complex, said October 18 she expects that public opposition will form against the fourth proposal. The current proposal is very similar to the rejected third proposal, she said.

The current condo proposal raises issues involving sanitary sewer service and traffic, she said. Twenty-six condos would generate more traffic than the previously proposed 23 units, she said.

Resident Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road said, “We thought that the third time would be the last time,” concerning Mr Dauti’s continuing condo proposals. The current proposal includes even more condos than the previous one, she noted.

“The residents are geared up and ready for a fight on Number Four,” she said of the latest version of the condo complex.

Three Approvals Sought

The current condo application seeks three P&Z approvals — the creation of a new zone known as the Mixed Income Housing District (MIHD) zone; a change of zone for 4.5 acres from R-2 Residential to MIHD zoning, and also a site development plan endorsement.

Mr O’Neil said that the developer’s current proposal to create the MIHD zone is somewhat different than his previous failed application to create such a zone, but added that the proposed zoning rules appear to be substantially similar to the previous version.

Besides increasing the proposed condo complex by three dwellings, the developer would create two access points to the site extending from Church Hill Road. The recently rejected proposal’s lack of a second accessway was a stumbling block for the project.

Also, the latest version of the complex would house an economically broader range of mixed-income people than would the previous proposal, including people of lower incomes than previously proposed.

Mr Dauti’s current proposal for a MIHD zone would allow a higher construction density at the site than would be allowed by the P&Z’s existing Affordable Housing Development (AHD) regulations, Mr O’Neil said.

Mr O’Neil noted that Mr Dauti’s current application would be covered by the provisions of state law on “affordable housing.” That law provides developers with certain legal leverage in getting such projects approved.

The developer proposes setting aside eight of the 26 units as price-restricted dwellings for low-income and moderate-income families. In such high-density complexes, the lower prices of affordable housing units are subsidized by the higher prices of market-rate units.

Dauti Construction currently owns land at 95 Church Hill Road that would become part of the condo complex site. The company would purchase additional land at 99 Church Hill Road for the remainder of the site. A multifamily house at 99 Church Hill Road would be demolished to make way for the condo complex.

In an October 4 explanatory letter to the P&Z, attorney Ryan McKain, representing Mr Dauti, wrote that the applicant does not need to obtain a wetlands permit from the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) because he received a wetlands permit last May.

However, in an October 16 letter to Mr McKain, Conservation Official Robert Sibley states that the developer must formally seek a modified wetlands permit for the modified project.

In his October 4 letter, Mr McKain wrote that the developer’s proposed MIHD zoning regulations would exempt the application from the town’s aquifer impact review process. The previous proposal failed to receive an aquifer protection endorsement from the IWC.

“The exemption merely avoids the circular situation established by the town’s existing regulations, in which two town agencies would each deny an application because the other agency had not acted positively,” Mr McKain wrote.