Multifamily Housing Proposal

Encounters Opposition In Sandy Hook

By Andrew Gorosko

A developer, who is seeking preliminary zoning rule changes that would allow him to proceed with site planning for a proposed 16-unit multifamily housing complex in Sandy Hook Center, has encountered early opposition to the project from nearby property owners.

The property owners have expressed concerns about the architectural character of such a project and its relatively high construction density.

Developer Guri Dauti wants to build a multifamily complex on approximately five acres at 95 and 99 Church Hill Road. The site is on the north side of Church Hill Road, west of Church Hill Road’s intersection with Dayton Street.

Mr Dauti is seeking zoning rule changes that would reduce the required lot area and also reduce the required street frontage for “affordable housing” complexes, in places where public water supplies and sanitary sewers are available. The Church Hill Road site has access to both public utilities.

Mr Dauti also is seeking P&Z approval to rezone 1.3 acres of the five acres from EH-10 zoning to FR-2 zoning. EH-10 zoning is designated for elderly housing. FR-2 zoning is intended for general residential use.

Attorney William Denlinger, representing Mr Dauti an at April 3 public hearing, told Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members, that if the requested regulatory changes are approved, Mr Dauti would later seek a “special exception” to the zoning regulations to create a multifamily housing complex, including some “affordable housing.” Under the terms of the town’s zoning regulations, at least 30 percent of the units would be designated as “affordable housing” for people meeting certain income limits. If a 16-unit complex were proposed, five of those units would be designated as affordable housing.

The town’s land use regulations allow housing complexes that include affordable housing to be built at higher construction densities than typical single-family housing.

Mr Denlinger said Mr Dauti is considering constructing a 16-unit complex, or possibly a 15-unit complex, in view of the development limitations imposed by the nature of the site. The land contains steep slopes and wetlands.

“The town would be well served by a smaller affordable housing complex [rather] than by a larger affordable housing complex. The smaller [complex], I think, is better,” Mr Denlinger said. Such a smaller complex, such as the envisioned 16-unit facility, would better fit into a neighborhood than a larger complex, he said. It is unclear if the proposed housing units would be for sale or for rent.

The demand for local affordable housing is now at a premium, Mr Denlinger said.

Opposition

Virginia Zimmerman-Gutbrod of 4 Walnut Tree Hill Road said it would set a dangerous precedent for the P&Z to approve Mr Gauti’s request to reduce the minimum lot size for affordable housing developments from the current six acres to three acres. Such a rule change would affect many properties in town, she said.

Jimmy Emerito of 96 Haley Lane in Walnut Tree Village spoke in opposition to Mr Dauti’s proposal, saying it would pose traffic problems in the area.

Zoltan Csillag of 10 Walnut Tree Hill Road said the proposed complex would be out of architectural context with the buildings that exist in the area, in urging that the P&Z deny Mr Dauti’s requests.

The presence of a multifamily complex would run counter to a planned Sandy Hook Center improvement project, Mr Csillag said. The presence of a complex would pose a hardship on its neighbors and would damage nearby property values, Mr Csillag said.

“Preserve what is left of the beautiful, quaint streetscape of Sandy Hook Center,” Mr Csillag told P&Z members. The site has insufficient land for the proposed complex, he added. The site should hold no more than two single-family houses, he said.

Jack Bestor of 24 Walnut Tree Hill Road said, “The biggest problem to my way of thinking is the [construction] density.” Mr Bestor lives next door to Walnut Tree Village, a condominium complex for people over 55, which will have 189 units when completed.

 The area already has heavy traffic volume, Mr Bestor said, adding that the town’s infrastructure cannot tolerate such additional development. The Walnut Tree Hill Road area “has been grossly overdeveloped in the last ten years,” he said.

Linda Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road opposed the requested zoning rule changes, saying that the proposed multifamily complex would not be appropriate for the site and would developmentally overburden the area, diminishing the area’s charm.

In the past, the P&Z turned down Walnut Tree Developers’ request to use the Dauti site as the location for a road that would link Walnut Tree Village to Church Hill Road, due to the extensive earth moving that would be needed to build such a road, Ms Jones said. Similar extensive earth moving would be needed to develop the property for Mr Dauti’s proposed multifamily housing, she said.

 Ms Jones urged that the P&Z deny Mr Dauti’s requested zoning rule changes, saying that constructing two new single-family houses on the property would be a more appropriate use for the site than building a multifamily complex.

Faith Gulick of 68 Church Hill Road said allowing multifamily development on the site would be “out of kilter” with existing development in the area, in urging the P&Z to reject the proposal.

Potential Scope

Following the public comments, P&Z members closed the public hearing on Mr Dauti’s requested zone change from EH-10 zoning to FR-2 zoning.

The P&Z, however, continued the other public hearing on the developer’s request to decrease the minimum lot size and street frontage required for affordable housing complexes.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil asked Mr Denlinger to research how many properties in the town could potentially become the sites of affordable housing complexes, based on the requested minimum lot size and frontage reductions.

In an analysis of Mr Dauti’s zoning rule change request, Community Development Director Elizabeth Stocker wrote, “The proposed amendments will increase the number of potential sites where affordable housing developments may be located.”

Studying the town’s sewer service area map, its public water supply map, and its road classification map, in relation to lot sizes, would provide the number of lots in town that potentially would be eligible for affordable housing development, she wrote.

Such research would include properties that would meet the proposed relaxed development criteria that already have structures on them. The structures on such properties could be razed to make way for affordable housing complexes.

Because the borough has its own set of zoning regulations, such potential sites would not be located within the borough, Ms Stocker noted.

Also, Mr Dauti’s proposed rule changes would reduce the smallest potential affordable housing complex in town from 24 units to 12 units, which might make for an attractive size alternative in terms of encouraging local affordable housing, she added.

Mr O’Neil suggested that the P&Z strengthen its landscaping requirements and architectural requirements for affordable housing complexes, in light of the potential for more such sites becoming available locally.