23-Unit Housing Complex Proposed For Sandy Hook Center

By Andrew Gorosko

A Danbury developer is seeking town approval to build a 23-unit multifamily condominium complex on four rugged acres in Sandy Hook Center, at which seven dwellings would be reserved for “moderate-income” households.

Guri Dauti of Danbury, doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, proposes Edona Commons for 95-99 Church Hill Road. The site is on the north side of Church Hill Road, west of the intersection of Church Hill Road and Dayton Street.

The developer is seeking approval from the Conservation Commission, serving as the town’s wetlands agency, for proposed construction in regulated areas. The site contains wetlands in its northeast and northwest corners. Approximately 4,000 square feet of regulated areas would be altered by the development project.

The Conservation Commission may conduct a public hearing on the wetlands application. It has not yet scheduled such a hearing.

Two past proposals from Mr Dauti for high-density, multifamily, “affordable housing” complexes at that site have met with stiff opposition from nearby property owners, who have criticized such development as inappropriate for the area. The two past development proposals from Mr Dauti have been thwarted by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z).

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.

In October 2004, Mr Dauti initiated closed-session talks with town land use officials on his prospects for accomplishing the housing project.

On learning of Mr Dauti’s current housing proposal, resident Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road, who had marshaled opposition to Mr Dauti’s previous housing proposals, vowed to oppose the current project. Past opponents cited concerns about traffic, congestion, aesthetics, and decreased property values.

Ms Williams said such a housing complex would generate too much traffic for the area, adding that the proposal involves too high a construction density for poor-quality land. The site has extensive exposed steep rock ledge.

“We’re just very disappointed that this [development] is still being considered,” she said. The site lies in a historic neighborhood, Ms Williams said.

“It’s just unconscionable,” she said, adding that a 23-unit housing complex would create an “eyesore” in the neighborhood.

Ms Williams said it would be acceptable for Mr Dauti to construct two single-family houses on the site. 

Besides wetlands approvals from the Conservation Commission, Mr Dauti would need various approvals from the P&Z for his proposed complex.

The site has R-1 and R-2 zoning, which earmarks it for the construction of single-family houses on minimum one-acre and two-acre lots, respectively. Consequently, a change of zone would be required for the proposed multifamily development. The zoning regulations also may need to be amended for such development. Also, a site plan approval and a special permit would be needed.   

Design drawings on file at the town land use office indicate that Mr Dauti proposes constructing 23 dwellings in five buildings on the site. Two buildings would have six units; two buildings would contain four units, and one building would have three units. Overall, the five buildings would contain 57 bedrooms. Individual dwellings would have either two bedrooms or three bedrooms. The construction project would require 18 months to complete.

The dwellings designated for moderate-income families would be interspersed throughout the complex. The developer proposes that seven of the 23 units, or 30 percent, be set aside for “moderate-income” families.

The moderate-income units would be sold at lower prices than the market-rate units. The high construction density of such a complex would generate market-rate sales proceeds that would, in effect, subsidize the sale of moderate-income units.

The development proposal would require that an old barn on the site be demolished to make way for new construction. Also, extensive rock ledge outcroppings would need to be removed.

The property would be served by public water and public sanitary sewer lines. The site has approximately 130 feet of street frontage on Church Hill Road, from which residents would enter and exit the site via a driveway.

The land at 95 Church Hill Road is owned by Dauti Construction. Three acres at 99 Church Hill Road would be sold to Dauti Construction by current owners Richard and Elena Haight.

After the firm receives all required land use approvals, 95 and 99 Church Hill Road would be merged into one lot.

There are 229 individual properties lying within 500 feet of the site. All of those property owners must be formally notified by mail of a public hearing on the wetlands aspects of the project. Many of those property owners live at Walnut Tree Village, a 189-unit age-restricted condominium complex on Walnut Tree Hill Road. Walnut Tree Village abuts the Edona Commons site.

Explanatory Letter

In a letter to the Conservation Commission, attorney Timothy Hollister, representing Mr Dauti, states that the site plan for the project evolved as a result of a series of talks with town officials.

Mr Hollister terms the project “a sensible cluster development.”

“This application will not constitute an ‘affordable housing’ application under [Section] 8-30g [of the state’s general statutes] but will provide mixed-income development built by a private developer without public funds, and will provide additional economic diversity in the town of Newtown’s housing stock,” the lawyer writes.

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.

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.