Sandy Hook Center –

Developer Again Seeks Sewers For Proposed Condo Complex

By Andrew Gorosko

A Danbury developer is again seeking town approval to extend sanitary sewers to a controversial proposed 26-unit mixed-income condominium complex, known as Edona Commons, on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center.

In an August 7 letter to the Water and Sewer Authority (WSA), developer Guri Dauti, doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, seeks WSA approval for a sanitary sewer connection for the 4.5-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road. The firm proposes the construction of six multifamily buildings on the steep, rugged site near Dayton Street.

The WSA was scheduled to address the sewering application at a meeting on the night of August 16, after the deadline for this edition of The Newtown Bee.

In an appeal now pending in New Britain Superior Court, Dauti Construction seeks to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) April 5 rejection of Edona Commons. That rejection marked the fourth time since 2003 that the P&Z had turned down multifamily development proposals for the site from the developer. That court appeal may be resolved by mid-2008.

In August 2006, the developer had filed an appeal in Danbury Superior Court seeking to overturn a July 2006 WSA decision, which effectively denied a sewer connection for an earlier 23-unit version of Edona Commons. The developer withdrew that lawsuit against the WSA last April.

Mr Dauti’s continuing efforts to develop the Sandy Hook Center site with multifamily housing have encountered stiff opposition from nearby property owners. They charge that the site is an inappropriate place for such construction that would overdevelop the property and generate excess traffic in a congested area. The site is adjacent to sanitary sewers and a public water supply.

In the 26-unit condo complex proposal that was rejected by the P&Z last April, Mr Dauti applied for the project under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act.

Under that law, applicants for affordable housing projects, which are rejected by municipal land use agencies, gain certain legal leverage in getting those projects approved through court appeals. Only public health issues and public safety issues are considered to be justifiable reasons for a land use agency rejecting an affordable housing project.

In its April decision to reject Edona Commons, P&Z members found that the interests for protecting the public health and safety outweighed the need for the eight “affordable housing” units that would be part of the 26-unit complex. Those eight condos would be set aside for purchase by low-income and moderate-income families. The sale prices of market-rate units in such high-density complexes subsidize the sale of lower-priced affordable housing units.

A major flaw in the 26-unit Edona Commons proposal was the applicant’s failure to describe the means of sewage disposal at the site, in view of the WSA’s preceding rejection of a municipal sewer system connection for the 23-unit version of the project, according to the P&Z. Also, the applicant failed to ensure that adequate steps would be taken to protect the underlying Pootatuck Aquifer, which is a public water supply source, the P&Z decided.

 

New Application

In Dauti’s August 7 WSA submission for sanitary sewer service, attorney Ryan McKain explains that the plans depict how the complex would be linked to the municipal sewer system.

The condo complex would discharge an estimated 5,525 gallons of sewage daily into the sewer system, based upon an estimated discharge rate of 212.5 gallons of sewage per condo unit.

Mr McKain writes, “This property is located within the sewer service area, as defined by the Newtown sewer use regulations, and the WSA has acknowledged this fact on several occasions… At its meeting on July 13, 2006, the WSA made a finding that adequate (sewage disposal) capacity exists at the Sandy Hook (sewage) pump station and at the (wastewater treatment plant).”

Mr McKain said on August 15 that although Mr Dauti has a court appeal pending against the P&Z over its April rejection of Edona Commons, that does not prevent the developer from seeking WSA approval for a sewer connection for the project.

Town Public Works Director Fred Hurley said August 14 that the current sewer application does not meet the criteria required to receive a municipal sewer system connection.

In an October 19, 2006, memorandum to the P&Z, Mr Hurley commented on the WSA’s July 2006 action against providing sewer service for the Church Hill Road site.

Mr Hurley wrote that the then-pending 26-unit condo complex application and the previously proposed 23-unit complex “do not meet any of the five priorities for allocation of available sewer capacity, as established in the (WSA’s) water pollution control plan first adopted on April 28, 1994. Development of a property within the sewer district may be given a priority only if it meets current zoning (regulations), among other requirements.”

“The WSA opposed the proposed zone change because it would allow overly intensive development, leading to a (sewage) discharge greater than that used in the design and construction of sewer capacity in the existing system,” he added.

To accomplish the Edona Commons project, the developer would need a change of zone for the site from its current R-2 (Residential) designation to MIHD (Mixed-Income Housing District). Mr Dauti proposes creation of MIHD zoning regulations to allow his high-density condo complex. The site’s current R-2 zoning allows the construction of single-family houses on minimum two-acre building lots.

The town has a set of land use rules and a zone designation concerning affordable housing known as the Affordable Housing Development (AHD) zone. The developer, however, has opted against pursuing his project under the terms of the AHD rules.

Mr Dauti’s proposed MIHD zone would increase the construction density allowed at affordable housing complexes compared to the P&Z’s existing AHD regulations.

Compared to the existing AHD rules, the proposed MIHD regulations would: double the maximum construction density; decrease the allowable minimum lot size by 25 percent; decrease required lot frontage; increase maximum building heights; increase maximum building lengths; increase the allowed number of dwellings per building; reduce site buffering requirements; eliminate the requirement for an aquifer impact review; eliminate a requirement for recreation areas on the site; reduce minimum setback distances from property lines; and allow MIHD complexes to be permitted as a “right” of the zone, rather than being subject to the P&Z’s special permit review process.