Sandy Hook Condo Opposition Continues

By Andrew Gorosko

A Danbury developer’s fourth attempt to build a controversial mixed-income condominium complex in Sandy Hook Center has met with stiff opposition from residents living in the area, as had his previous three attempts to develop the Church Hill Road site with multifamily housing.

More than 50 people attended a lengthy December 7 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing on the development proposal, many of whom registered their opposition to Dauti Construction, LLC’s, proposal for the 26-unit, townhouse-style Edona Commons at 95-99 Church Hill Road. The public hearing is scheduled to resume on January 18.

The Edona Commons site abuts the 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condo complex.

Many of those speaking in opposition to the project acknowledged that there is a local need for “affordable housing,” but stressed that the steep, rugged 4.5-acre site is an inappropriate place to construct such a complex.

Unlike his previous applications, developer Guri Dauti’s current proposal was submitted to the P&Z under the provisions of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act, a 1989 law that provides developers with certain legal leverage in getting affordable housing projects approved by a judge, if the project is the subject of a court appeal following a rejection by a land use agency. The state law reduces a municipal land use agency’s latitude in its reasons for rejecting a construction proposal.

In August, the P&Z rejected Dauti Construction’s proposal for a 23-unit version of Edona Commons on a 4.04-acre site at the same location. The P&Z listed a host of reasons for that rejection, including potential traffic problems and a high construction density.

The developer has appealed that rejection in Danbury Superior Court, but not under the terms of the state law on affordable housing.

Notably, at the December 7 hearing, the developer had a stenographer at work to create a verbatim transcript of the session, which would be used in the event the developer files a court appeal of a potential fourth rejection of the project by the P&Z.

In an initial 2003 attempt to develop the site, Dauti Construction sought to build 16 condo units. In a second failed attempt early in 2004, Dauti sought to build 12 condo units. The P&Z short-circuited both those efforts by rejecting the developer’s proposals for revisions to the town’s Affordable Housing Development (AHD) regulations.

Construction Proposal

At the December 7 session, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil asked why Dauti Construction does not simply apply for the project under the terms of the town’s existing AHD regulations.

Attorney Ryan McKain, representing the developer, responded that the existing AHD rules would not allow Mr Dauti to construct the complex he is now proposing for the site.

 Those stricter AHD rules would require a minimum six-acre site for an affordable housing complex; would require more road frontage than exists at the site; would allow fewer condo units per acre than the developer proposes; would require an open space area on the site; and also would pose stricter requirements on building dimensions and building separation distances.

 Mr O’Neil observed that the new zoning regulations, which the developer proposes to allow the complex to be built, appear to create a “spot zoning” situation.

“We tailored it to the site,” Mr McKain responded.

The lawyer urged that when deciding on the Edona Commons application, the P&Z vote separately on each of the three aspects of the construction proposal.

The 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 the 4.5-acre site from R-2 Residential to MIHD zoning; and also a site development plan endorsement.

Because the proposed complex is considered an “affordable housing” project under state law, the purchase price of the condo units would vary based on the owners’ annual incomes.

The developer proposes setting aside 8 of the 26 units as price-restricted dwellings for low-income and for 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.

The units intended for low-income and moderate-income families would have long-term restrictions placed on their resale prices to preserve their affordability.

The complex would include two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The price-restricted units would be interspersed with the market-rate units among the six buildings on the site.

Market-rate units would sell from between $325,000 and $375,000. The affordable housing units would sell at prices of approximately $128,000; $148,000; $181,000; and $209,000, depending upon the income of the family buying the unit and the number of bedrooms in the unit. Two-bedroom units would enclose approximately 1,200 square feet; three-bedroom units would hold about 1,500 square feet of space.

The developer is seeking a revised wetlands permit for the project from the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC). The applicant also is seeking permission from the Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) to connect the complex to the municipal sewer system. The developer has a lawsuit pending against the WSA over its decision against providing sewer service for the previous 23-unit version of Edona Commons.

Basic differences in the latest application include increasing the number of condos from 23 to 26, increasing the size of the site by approximately one-half acre, and providing two entry-exit driveways instead of one. The current plans would require the demolition of an existing house at 99 Church Hill Road.

Mr McKain told P&Z members that the Edona Commons project would aid local economic growth, adding that such development does not damage nearby property values.

“This application provides quality housing at a price range that’s not currently available,” he said. If the P&Z rejects such an “affordable housing” application, it must explain the reasons why its objections outweigh the local need for affordable housing, he said.

Architect Robert Aldridge, representing the developer, said the project would have a “New England charm,” adding that building heights would be restricted to diminish the visibility of the complex from Church Hill Road. The Edona Commons complex would not be visible from the adjacent Walnut Tree Village condo complex, he said.

P&Z member Robert Mulholland sharply criticized the architect’s presentation of construction plans.

“This is the worst presentation I’ve seen of any complex…This presentation isn’t telling us anything. We have to ask, and we shouldn’t have to ask,” Mr Mulholland said.

Traffic engineer Michael Galante, representing the developer, described his study of traffic patterns in the area. The traffic study found that the condo complex “will have an insignificant impact on the overall operation of vehicular activities along Church Hill Road and nearby intersections.”

Public Comment

As they have at other public hearings on previous versions of Edona Commons, project opponents stressed on December 7 that the high-density project is inappropriate for the steep, rocky site, which has a cliff on its eastern flank.

Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road, which lies across the street from the site, termed the proposal “astonishing and disgraceful,” criticizing the developer for plans that would include demolishing an existing historic house at 99 Church Hill Road. Ms Williams characterized Mr Dauti’s pursuit of developing the site as “strong-arm” tactics.

The construction proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development, she said. Ms Williams stressed that people who live on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center have a difficult time exiting their driveways due to heavy traffic in the area.

Ms Williams asked why the town’s zoning regulations should be modified to allow construction of such a condo complex. The construction proposal poses “quality of life” issues for Sandy Hook center residents, she said.

“I urge you to deny it,” she told P&Z members, adding that the site would better be used for the construction of one or two single-family houses.

Emily Cassidy of 157 Jennifer Lane in Walnut Tree Village said the site is inappropriate for a condo complex, adding that its presence would damage Sandy Hook Center. “Why do we have to keep going over this (proposal) over and over and over,” she asked.

Bill Jensen of 171 Jennifer Lane asked who would cover the costs for physical damage caused to nearby residences as a result of blasting needed to develop the rocky site.

 Walnut Tree Village residents want to live in a peaceful environment, he said, adding that he expects that children who would live at Edona Commons would play on the grounds of Walnut Tree Village due to a lack of play facilities at Edona Commons.

Traffic conditions are difficult in Sandy Hook Center, he said. “It’s a shame we have to go through this (application) all over again,” he said. He urged the P&Z to reject the project.

Mary Ann O’Donnell of 97 Church Hill Road told P&Z members she has been fighting the condo complex proposal for the past four years. The presence of the adjacent Edona Commons would damage her property’s value, she said. The developer has provided no compelling reasons to create new zoning regulations for his project, she said. She asked who would be held accountable for damage to adjacent properties caused by construction work. “He (Dauti) has a lot of nerve, and I hope he just goes away,” Ms O’Donnell said.

 Ida Candida of 155 Jennifer Lane spoke against the project, citing traffic problems in the area and the lack of play areas for children. “I hope you turn this (proposal) down because I see too many flaws in it,” she said. “I don’t know what part of ‘No’ he does not understand,” Ms Candida said of the P&Z’s three previous rejections of Mr Dauti’s condo proposals for the site.

Morgen McLaughlin of Southbury, an opponent of the project, said the developer’s use of the state’s affordable housing law in seeking to build on the site would focus the P&Z’s consideration of the proposal on public health and safety issues. Ms McLaughlin stressed that the site has a sizable cliff along its eastern side.

The presence of a 26-unit condo complex would make for difficult traffic conditions in the area, she said.

Through its application, Dauti Construction is seeking to circumvent the town’s existing AHD zoning regulations, she said. Many unanswered questions remain about the impact that such development would have on the underlying Pootatuck Aquifer, she said.

Lincoln Sander of 211 Walnut Tree Hill Road, who heads the Newtown Historical Society, said the project is inappropriate for the historic Sandy Hook Center. The proposed excavation of the site would require about 500 trips by dump trucks, he said.

Wendy Davenson of 88 Church Hill Road said the geometry of Church Hill Road poses traffic sight line problems for motorists. “I’m totally opposed to this (application),” she said.

Christopher Breault of 13 Washington Avenue said the presence of Edona Commons would detract from the area’s character.

Joyce DeWolfe of Boggs Hill Road said, “It’s such an ill-conceived plan…It’s just terrible.”

P&Z member Lilla Dean questioned the wisdom of the developer’s proposal to remove 12,840 cubic yards of earthen materials from the site in order to develop it. The P&Z does not allow developers to greatly alter the contours of the landscape in order to develop land, she said. “This is an environmentally difficult area,” she added.

Ms Dean said that the P&Z has experienced many problems with blasters whose work has physically damaged properties adjacent to blast sites.

Mr Mulholland said that plans for the project would benefit from the presence of a children’s play area and an internal sidewalk for pedestrians. Without such a sidewalk, the site would be unsafe for people who live there, he said.

P&Z member Philip Cruz urged that the developer limit the nighttime illumination at the site to prevent it from being overly bright.