Edona Commons—

Appellate Court Supports Condo Construction Proposal

By Andrew Gorosko

Following lengthy review, the Connecticut Appellate Court has ordered two town agencies to approve a controversial proposal by a Danbury developer to build a 26-unit condominium complex containing eight units of “affordable housing” on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center.

In the decisions issued December 28, the court ruled that both the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) and the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) must approve, with suitable modifications, Dauti Construction, LLC’s, proposal to build the residential complex on a 4.5-acre site at 95 and 99 Church Hill Road.

In June 2009, both the Legislative Council and the Board of Selectmen endorsed the town pursuing appellate court appeals of New Britain Superior Court victories by the developer. Dauti had filed those appeals in New Britain Superior Court in 2007. In September 2007, the WSA had denied Dauti’s request for municipal sewer service for the proposed Edona Commons condo complex. The developer also challenged P&Z’s April 2007 rejection of his construction proposal.

Dauti wants to build the project on Church Hill Road, near Dayton Street. Eight of the condo units would be designated as affordable housing and be sold to eligible families at prices significantly lower than the market-rate condo units there. Sewer mains run alongside Church Hill Road adjacent to the development site.

On the WSA court case, the appellate court ruled that the lower court had correctly decided that the proposed condo complex should have the use of the local sanitary sewer system. The appellate court directs the WSA to provide sewer service to the proposed condo complex under the terms of the town’s sewer regulations.

On the P&Z court case, the appellate court ruled that the lower court had correctly decided that P&Z’s decision not to issue a zoning permit to Dauti because WSA had rejected providing sewer service to the complex is no longer a valid reason to deny the condo construction application.

Attorney Timothy Hollister, representing Dauti, said on December 29 that the appellate court decisions make clear that the town did not have the right to reject providing sewer service to the proposed condo complex.

The developer plans to make some minor changes to its plans and then submit them for town review and approval, he said. Changes would include some modified interior plans for the “affordable housing” units to make those units similar to the complex’s “market rate” units, he said.

“We are very pleased with the decisions,” Mr Hollister said. “We are looking forward to starting [construction] in the spring.”

First Selectman Pat Llodra said on December 30 that the town may seek to appeal the appellate court’s decisions to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The supreme court would decide whether to consider such appeals.

Attorneys for the town will closely review the texts of the two legal decisions, Mrs Llodra said.

The first selectman said she is not eager to have the town spend money on legal fees, but she wants to protect the interests of the town.

The appellate court decisions pose some “real issues,” she said. Those issues include the town’s right to allocate its sanitary sewer capacity, and also its right to use zoning regulations to support its sewer allocation decisions, she said.

Dauti had applied to the town for the Edona Commons project under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. Under that law, applicants for affordable housing projects that are later rejected by municipal agencies gain certain legal leverage in getting those projects approved through court appeals. Only public health issues and public safety issues are considered justifiable reasons for a land use agency to reject an affordable housing project.

Dauti’s various controversial proposals for developing the site with high-density housing, which date back to 2003, have drawn strong opposition from nearby residents who have criticized the proposals as being too intensive for the site.

P&Z members have generally criticized the Edona Commons proposal because the project would require many existing town zoning regulations on affordable housing to be modified to allow the construction of a much more densely built project on a physically rugged site than the rules would otherwise allow.