Sandy Hook Center—

Condo Complex Issues Aired At P&Z Hearing

By Andrew Gorosko

At the third and final Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing on a Danbury developer’s proposal to construct a controversial 23-unit mixed-income townhouse condominium complex in Sandy Hook Center, the applicant’s agents stressed why the project is a workable plan, but the project’s opponents questioned why the complex should be built.

On June 15, P&Z members conducted the hearing on Dauti Construction, LLC’s, proposal for Edona Commons at 95-99 Church Hill Road. The condo complex would include five buildings on a steep, rugged 4.04-acre site, just west of Dayton Street, where seven of the 23 dwellings would be reserved for moderate income families.

Edona Commons would contain 57 bedrooms and take 18 months to construct. The Edona Commons site abuts the 52-acre site of the 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village, which was the first condo complex built locally, starting in 1995.

P&Z members are expected to act on developer Guri Dauti’s multifaceted Edona Commons application at an upcoming session, possibly on August 3.

An essential component of the 23-unit project would be municipal sanitary sewer service. The Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) is expected to act on the developer’s request for sewer service at a July 13 session. The project’s site plan is based upon the complex having sanitary sewer service.

Architect Robert Aldridge, representing Dauti Construction, displayed a three-dimensional scale model of Edona Commons to P&Z members on June 15, explaining how the proposed construction would be situated on a hillside lying between Church Hill Road and Walnut Tree Village.

“I don’t think there’s going to be a visual impact,” Mr Aldridge said of the complex’s positioning on the slope overlooking Church Hill Road.

Mr Aldridge noted that the exterior appearance of moderate income condos at the complex would be indistinguishable from that of market-rate condos there. Based on the project’s high construction density, the sale of lower-priced moderate income condos would be subsidized by the sale of the higher-priced market rate condos.

Traffic engineer Don Tone told P&Z members that the applicant has performed the various requested traffic flow and site access analyses for the project.

Mr Tone told P&Z members that the traffic generated by the residents of Edona Commons would amount to “an insignificant impact to traffic operations along Church Hill Road.”

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil, however, pointed out that the Police Commission, acting as the town’s traffic authority, on June 6 had recommended against P&Z supporting the Edona Commons project. The Police Commission decided that the traffic that the complex would generate would worsen existing difficult traffic conditions in Sandy Hook Center and pose public safety hazards.

Mr Tone said he was “disappointed” by the Police Commission’s recommendation, saying he was “surprised” by its members’ viewpoint. The developer was responsive to the Police Commission’s requests for information about traffic, Mr Tone said.

Attorney Ryan McKain, representing the developer, stressed that Edona Commons is proposed for construction on a hillside, adding that that the project would not be built on a hilltop or on a ridgeline. The project would be well screened from view, he said. The stormwater control plan for the site is a good plan, the lawyer said.

Public Comments

Resident Bill Jensen of 171 Jennifer Lane at Walnut Tree Village asked whether the external lighting fixtures at Edona Commons would have an illumination impact on Jennifer Lane.

Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road challenged a statement from the applicants’ representatives that the visual impact of the condo complex’s presence would be minimal. Ms Williams asked about the height of trees that would be planted near the condos.

Ray Ruzek of 10 Glen Road told P&Z members, “I just don’t understand why this [condo complex proposal] would be considered.”

Mr Ruzek noted that the current R-2 (Residential) zoning for the site would allow a maximum of two single-family houses to be built there, but stressed that the developer’s proposal for a new land use zone and a rezoning of the site would allow 23 condos containing a total of 57 bedrooms to be built there.

Mr Dauti is seeking P&Z approvals for the creation of a new land use zone known as the Mixed Income Housing District (MIHD), which would allow his project to be built; the rezoning of the site from its current R-2 (Residential) zoning designation to MIHD; the issuance of a special permit for the project; a construction permit; and an excavation permit. All aspects of the application are under consideration simultaneously by the P&Z, as has been requested by Mr Dauti.

Morgen McLaughlin of 14 Alberts Hill Road urged that the developer explain to the P&Z what specific benefits the creation of MIHD zoning would provide to the town-at-large versus the Church Hill Road site in his proposal. Ms McLaughlin noted that the MIHD zone would not constitute an “affordable housing” zone, as described by state law

Ms McLaughlin then urged that the P&Z reject the Edona Commons application.

Ms McLaughlin and Ms Williams have spearheaded opposition to Edona Commons, marshaling opposition to the project by nearby residents and posting signs in the area that read: “Stop the Condos.” 

Potential traffic problems have been among the major complaints against Edona Commons by nearby residents. Other complaints focus on school bus safety, emergency access to the site, the historic character of the neighborhood, the removal of trees, and issues of general aesthetics.

Pending Issues

On August 2, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to consider the zoning conformance of the Edona Commons site in relation to a building-lot boundary revision that the town granted in 2003. Mr O’Neil has said that the lot boundary issue the might prevent the proposed development from occurring and it must be resolved.

The developer has obtained a wetlands permit for the project from the town’s wetlands agency. That wetlands permit, however, is contingent upon the developer receiving a sewer connection for the project.

The developer has not yet received an aquifer protection endorsement from the town.

Engineer Steven Trinkaus, representing the developer, said that revised plans would be submitted to the WSA before its July 13 session. Then, WSA members would decide on Mr Dauti’s request for a municipal sanitary sewer connection for Edona Commons.

Lilla Dean, a P&Z member, noted that design plans for the condo complex do not indicate any common areas on the grounds where children who live there would be able to play. The dwellings would have tiny backyards, she noted.

“This is an isolated area where nobody is going to walk to the nearest park…It seems kind of sad,” she said. The nearest town park would be Treadwell Park on Philo Curtis Road, which is about 1.4 miles away.

Mr Trinkaus said that the Edona Commons site would not contain an athletic field.

Ms Dean pointed out that the 49-unit Riverview Condominiums complex on Bryan Lane has a large open grassy field situated above that project’s large-scale septic system, which can be used for recreation by children there.

Ms Dean said Edona Commons should have some type of recreation area for resident children, suggesting one of the five proposed buildings at Edona Commons be eliminated to create space for a recreation area.

Riverview Condominiums is not age-restricted. Edona Commons would not be age-restricted. Most   local condo complexes are restricted to residents above age 55.

Another P&Z member, Robert Mulholland, asked why the developer has not proposed sidewalks for the project. Mr Trinkaus responded saying sidewalks could be constructed, if such a feature is required by the P&Z.

The project could have a sidewalk running along its road frontage, Mr McKain added. 

The developer has presented testimonies representing many experts to the P&Z seeking to convince the panel the complex should be approved, Mr McKain reminded the panel.

It is the third time that Mr Dauti has attempted to develop the property with multifamily housing. Two past proposals from Mr Dauti for high-density, multifamily complexes at that site have met with stiff opposition from nearby property owners, who have criticized such development as inappropriate for the area.

In a 2003 attempt to develop the site, Mr Dauti sought to build 16 units. In a second failed attempt early in 2004, he sought to build 12 units. The P&Z thwarted both proposals, rejecting Mr Dauti’s various requested zoning rule changes.