Sandy Hook Center—

Developer Again Seeks To Build ‘Affordable Housing’

By Andrew Gorosko

A developer whose two past controversial proposals to build an affordable housing complex in Sandy Hook Center have been twice thwarted by the town, is now in talks with local land use officials in his third attempt to build such a project on a site at 95-99 Church Hill Road.

Developer Guri Dauti, accompanied by several representatives, met with three town officials on October 21 at Edmond Town Hall to discuss his latest ideas on creating an affordable housing complex near the westerly corner of Church Hill Road and Dayton Street.

A reporter, who had learned of the session and attended it to find out about Mr Dauti’s proposal, was told to leave because the meeting did not constitute a “public meeting” under the provisions of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act.

Mr Dauti later could not be reached for comment.

Attorney William Denlinger, who is one of the lawyers representing Mr Dauti, had no comment on his client’s current proposal for an affordable housing complex, other than to say the town has insufficient affordable housing, as defined by the state law.

The state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act provides developers with legal leverage in court appeals when they are seeking to build high-density housing complexes that contain affordable housing units. In such complexes, at least 30 percent of the units must be designated as “affordable housing.” Affordable units are either sold or rented out at below-market rates to families falling below certain annual income limits. The units in those complexes that are sold or rented out at market rates, in effect, subsidize the affordable units.

For example, in the case of family of four, under the provisions of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act, 15 percent of the units in a complex are reserved for families that earn no more than $42,960 annually, and another 15 percent of the units are reserved for families which earn no more than $57,280 annually, according to the state Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD). Those statistics are based on the statewide median annual family income of $71,600, not the higher local median annual family income. 

If a family is larger than four members, the income limits are higher; if the family is smaller than four, the income limits are lower.

It is the state-sanctioned “density bonus” for developing an affordable housing site with many more dwellings than would be otherwise allowed by zoning that drives the economics of such construction.

Uncertainty

It is unclear how many total units Mr Dauti is seeking to build on the 4.5-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road. One unconfirmed report has put the number as high as 32 units. The steep, rocky site’s proximity to public water lines and public sewer lines has resolved some of the technical issues for such high density development there.

In his initial failed attempt to develop the site in 2003, Mr Dauti sought to build 16 units. In a second failed attempt early this year, he sought to build 12 units.

In those cases, 5 of the 16 units, and 4 of the 12 units, respectively, would have been designated as “affordable housing,” and would have been sold or rented out at below-market rates to families falling below certain annual income limits. Typically, the “affordable” units within such complexes are simpler dwellings than the market-rate units.

Both of Mr Dauti’s past development proposals met with stiff opposition from people living in the neighborhood, who cited concerns about traffic, congestion, aesthetics, and decreased property values.

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) Chairman William O’Neil was among the three town land use officials who attended the closed-door October 21 session with Mr Dauti.

Mr O’Neil explained that Mr Dauti has conferred with an attorney who is an expert in affordable housing development to learn of the legal leverage that developers possess under state law in accomplishing such construction projects.

Mr O’Neil said Mr Dauti is seeking to build more than the 12 units for which he was turned down by the P&Z early this year. Mr O’Neil, however, declined to say how many dwellings Mr Dauti wants to construct.

Town land use officials are listening to Mr Dauti to learn about his ideas on developing the site, Mr O’Neil said.

Developing the site for affordable housing would require a change of zoning designation, a site plan approval, and possibly some zoning regulation changes.

Mr O’Neil stressed that Mr Dauti has filed no application with the P&Z. Such an application may be filed by early next year, Mr O’Neil said. 

If such a development is built, P&Z members would want a complex that is as attractive as possible, he added. It is unclear whether such a project would have units for sale or for rental, he said.

“There are many questions,” Mr O’Neil said, noting that people living in the neighborhood were strongly opposed to Mr Dauti’s two past attempts to develop the property.

Mr O’Neil said Mr Dauti is seeking to develop the site without the need to sue the town in court to gain an approval. The P&Z chairman added that town officials similarly want to avoid going to court over the matter. 

Mr O’Neil said the P&Z conducts preapplication meetings with developers such as the October 21 session to learn about development proposals before they reach the formal application stage. Through such sessions, the P&Z seeks to learn the content of applications before they are submitted, he said.

The P&Z will discuss Mr Dauti’s plans with the P&Z’s attorney, Mr O’Neil said.

“We’re trying to take it a step at a time…It’s a ticklish situation” in view of neighborhood opposition to such construction, he said.

First Selectman’s Reaction

Of Mr Dauti’s plans to seek an affordable housing complex for a third time, First Selectman Herb Rosenthal said, “That’s a tough parcel of land to develop.”

Mr Rosenthal said that if Mr Dauti pursues a project under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act, “The deck is stacked against the town.” The town would only be able to prevent such construction if it could show in court that the project poses overriding public health or safety concerns, he said.

Mr Rosenthal said it would be preferable not to have a large development located at 95-99 Church Hill Road.

If the P&Z rejects such a development and Mr Dauti files a lawsuit in court in seeking to win an approval, the town would defend itself in court, Mr Rosenthal said.

Opposition

Having learned of Mr Dauti’s intention to again pursue an affordable housing complex at 95-99 Church Hill Road, resident Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road said in a prepared statement, “Our neighborhood is already the most densely populated area of Newtown. With the current Toll Brothers’ request to build 104 condominium units at 79 Church Hill Road, and this developer’s ill-advised idea to build affordable housing at 95-99 Church Hill Road, it’s not only unacceptable, it’s unconscionable.”

The P&Z has already twice rejected similar proposals for the site due to the high construction density, high traffic volume, a poor quality site, and the historic neighborhood setting that it would disturb, Ms Williams added.

Ms Williams led neighbors’ opposition to Mr Dauti’s previous development applications.

In a statement, resident Julia Nable of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road said, the proposed development would be “drastically out of context with the single-family, historic homes along Church Hill Road.”

Ms Nable adds that plans are underway for a public beautification project in the Sandy Hook Center business district. “A high-density housing development will be counteractive to these imminent plans for the neighborhood,” she said.

The only private local “affordable housing” complex is Riverview Condominiums, which is located off Bryan Lane, behind Sand Hill Plaza. Of the 49 condominiums there, 13 units are designated as deed-restricted, affordable housing for people whose incomes fall below certain state-set limits. When the Riverview project was approved by the P&Z in the mid 1990s, 25 percent of the dwellings, not 30 percent, were required to be “affordable” units.