By Andrew Gorosko

The fire marshal is raising public safety concerns about a proposal to redesign the driveway layout of a controversial 26-unit condominium complex planned for Sandy Hook Center to eliminate a separate secondary access point at the Church Hill Road site.

“I just really have a problem that on a heavily traveled road, we’d only have one way in and out,” Fire Marshal Bill Halstead said on May 26 of the planned Edona Commons condo complex. There could be as many as 100 people living at such a complex, he said.

From a public safety standpoint, such a facility needs two separate ways to enter and exit the site, Mr Halstead said. If for some reason, a single access point to the site was blocked to traffic, it would pose problems for emergency crews needing to get onto the property, he said.

“We need two ways to get in and out of there,” he said. Mr Halstead also is the Sandy Hook fire chief.

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members met on May 19 with representatives of Dauti Construction, LLC, of Danbury, the firm that has gained court approval to build the complex, which would include eight units of “affordable housing.”

The developer prevailed in court appeals, following 2007 rejections of the proposal by the P&Z and the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA).

The project would be built on a steep, rugged 4.5-acre site at 95 and 99 Church Hill Road. It was largely the high density of the project, which would be constructed on difficult terrain, that posed concerns for P&Z members before they rejected the project in 2007.  The P&Z rejected the project because it did not have approval for a sanitary sewer connection from the WSA.   

But through the provisions of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act, the developer overrode those objections to gain court approval for the project.

Under the proposed site revisions for Edona Commons, a previously proposed secondary accessway to the property near the eastern end of the site would be eliminated and a proposed primary accessway nearer  the western end of the property would be widened to physically compensate for eliminating the secondary accessway.

Mr Halstead said he has had talks with George Benson, the town director of planning and land use, about the proposed site layout changes. Mr Halstead said he has not yet formally responded to the P&Z concerning the proposed site revisions.

Eliminating the secondary accessway from the condo complex plans has been proposed as a way to limit the physical disturbance of the site through less earthmoving, less grading, and less tree removal. Reducing the physical disturbance of the site also would translate into the condo units being less visible from Church Hill Road.

Attorney Timothy Hollister, representing Dauti, told P&Z members May 19 that the proposed layout changes for the site would allow some vegetation to remain in place and serve as visual shielding for the project as viewed from Church Hill Road.

Mr Hollister said Dauti will submit its architectural/landscaping plans for the project to the town’s Design Advisory Board (DAB) for review. The DAB makes recommendations on certain proposed development to the P&Z.

Mr Hollister said that Dauti will seek a time extension for an existing wetlands permit for the project from the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC).

Also, Dauti will need to obtain a sewer permit from the WSA, he said.

Additionally, the developer will need to gain P&Z approvals for the developer’s proposed set of zoning regulations, which would allow the specific condo complex proposed, the rezoning of the site, and the site development plans, Mr Hollister said.

Because state courts have ordered the town to approve Edona Commons, the P&Z review process will not include public hearings.

The developer intends to present plans to the P&Z that contain architectural improvements compared to the plans that were rejected by the town in 2007, Mr Hollister said.

Eliminating a secondary accessway to the site would be subject to the fire marshal’s review, said P&Z member Jane Brymer.

P&Z member Michael Porco, Sr, said the secondary accessway should be kept in the development plans.

Mr Porco and P&Z member Dennis Bloom urged that the developer extend a sidewalk from the project toward Sandy Hook Center as a pedestrian amenity for people in the area.

In March, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided against allowing the town to appeal a recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision favoring Dauti, in effect, permitting Dauti to proceed with its plans to construct the complex. Last December, following lengthy review, the Appellate Court ordered P&Z and the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) to approve the Dauti proposal to build the condo complex, provided that suitable modifications are made to the plans.

Dauti had filed Superior Court appeals against the P&Z and the WSA in 2007, after both those agencies had rejected the Edona Commons development proposal.

In the 26-unit project, eight of the dwellings would be designated as affordable housing and would be sold to eligible families at prices significantly lower than the market-rate condo units in the complex.

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.

Nearby residents have objected to the complex, charging that it would be too dense a development, it would be unattractive, and it would generate much traffic in an already congested area.