Multiple Applications Submitted For Condos In Sandy Hook Center

By Andrew Gorosko

The developer of a mixed-income 23-unit condominium complex proposed for 4.04 rugged acres on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center now has five separate applications pending before town land use agencies for his project known as Edona Commons, at which seven dwellings would be reserved for moderate-income families.

Developer Guri Dauti of Danbury, doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, on February 1 submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) four development applications concerning various aspects of the project.

Mr Dauti already has an application for a wetlands permit for the site pending before the Conservation Commission, which serves as the town’s wetlands protection agency. The Conservation Commission has scheduled a public hearing on the wetlands aspects of the project for 7:30 pm Wednesday, February 22, at the town offices at 31 Peck’s Lane.

The site contains wetlands at its northeast and northwest corners. The Conservation Commission’s review of such projects is limited in scope, focusing on how the proposed development would affect wetlands. The agency seeks to prevent environmental damage to wetlands, or at least to limit such damage.

P&Z public hearings would focus on Mr Dauti’s other development applications for Edona Commons. Those hearings have not yet been scheduled.

In his applications to the P&Z, Mr Dauti is seeking:

éA zoning amendment that would create a new land-use zone known as a Mixed-Income Housing District (MIHD) zone.

éThe rezoning of the 4.04-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road from R-2 (Residential) to MIHD.

éApproval of a site development plan for the condo project.

éApproval of a construction permit/special permit for excavation work.

Mr Dauti also may need an aquifer protection review by the Conservation Commission and P&Z, if it is determined that any part of his site lies within the town’s environmentally sensitive Aquifer Protection District (APD).

It is the third time that Mr Dauti has attempted to develop the property with multifamily housing. Two past proposals from Mr Dauti for high-density, multifamily complexes at that site have met with stiff opposition from nearby property owners, who have criticized such development as inappropriate for the area. Past opponents cited concerns about traffic, congestion, aesthetics, and decreased property values.

The two past development proposals from Mr Dauti were thwarted by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), which turned down his requested zoning rule changes.

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. Both proposals involved the creation of “affordable housing” at the site.

In October 2004, Mr Dauti initiated closed-session talks with P&Z members on his prospects for accomplishing a housing project on the property.

The site is on the north side of Church Hill Road, west of the intersection of Church Hill Road and Dayton Street. The site abuts the 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condominium complex. 

In a February 1 letter to the P&Z, attorney Ryan K. McKain, of the Hartford law firm Shipman and Goodwin, LLP, representing Dauti Construction, LLC, wrote that except for a barn that stands on the site, the property is undeveloped. The barn would be demolished to make way for the project.  The site has access to public sewer and public water service.

A 24-foot-wide driveway would enter the site from a 130-foot-wide strip of frontage along Church Hill Road, Mr McKain wrote.

Mr McKain states that the project “will not have any significant effect on existing traffic conditions,” adding that “the applicant requests the [P&Z] waive the requirement to submit a traffic study.” The P&Z typically requires traffic studies for such special permit applications.

Police Commission

After a cursory review of design drawings for the project, Police Commission members on February 7 decided they want to discuss the traffic safety implications of Edona Commons with the developer at their March 7 meeting.

The P&Z had referred the development application to the Police Commission for its comments on traffic aspects of the project. The Police Commission is the local traffic authority.

Police Commission members gathered around the many engineering drawings for the project and posed various questions on the traffic aspects of the development, which they said would need to be answered by the developer.

Looking at topographic contour lines on the maps, Police Commission Chairman Carol Mattegat said of the site, “This is a cliff.” Ms Mattegat noted that the spot where the developer proposes to extend a driveway onto the site from Church Hill Road formerly held a driveway for a house that no longer exists.

Ms Mattegat asked how the developer would provide a secondary emergency accessway at the site. Such secondary accessways provide emergency crews with an alternate way to enter a site if the main accessway is blocked.

The chairman noted that the commission had required such a secondary accessway to a 51-acre  Oakview Road site where Toll Brothers Inc, has proposed a 54-unit age-restricted condo complex known as Regency at Newtown.

“There’s too many unanswered questions here,” said commission member Richard Simon. The developer must meet with commission members to answer their questions, he said.

Police Chief Michael Kehoe said he would seek to have the developer attend the March 7 Police Commission session.   

Project Specifics

Mr Dauti proposes constructing 23 townhouse-style dwellings in five buildings. 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 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.

Mr McKain writes to the P&Z, “The site plan has evolved through extensive discussions informally held over the past 18 months with town officials and staff, and we believe represents a sensible cluster development.”

Such development would “provide additional economic diversity in the [local] housing stock,” he adds. It would help the town meet its stated goal of providing “a more balanced supply of housing types that will accommodate the housing needs of Newtown residents and those working in Newtown,” as reflected by the 2004 Town Plan of Conservation and Development, he adds.

The Edona Commons project would not constitute an “affordable housing” project as specified by state law, according to Mr McKain. Consequently, the P&Z’s Affordable Housing Development (AHD) zoning regulations would not apply to the project, Mr McKain adds.

Instead, Mr Dauti proposes the creation of MIHD zoning rules to regulate such mixed-income development.

The specific site plan that Mr Dauti proposes for 95-99 Church Hill Road would be allowed under the provisions of his proposed MIHD zoning regulations, Mr McKain states.

A primary difference between the town’s existing AHD zoning regulations and the proposed MIHD zoning regulations would be that the minimum lot size for such development would be cut from six acres to four acres.

Also, Mr Dauti’s proposed MIHD zoning regulations would drop the AHD zoning rules’  requirements that 15 percent of the units in a complex be reserved for households that earn less than 60 percent of the area’s annual median income, and that another 15 percent of the units be reserved for households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area’s annual median income.

Instead, Mr Dauti’s proposed MIHD regulations would specifically require that 30 percent of the units in the complex be reserved for household earning less than 80 percent of the area’s median annual income.

In effect, such a 23-unit complex would then have 30 percent of its units, or seven dwellings, reserved for “moderate-income” households, and none of its dwellings reserved for “low-income” households.

The proposed construction at 95-99 Church Hill Road would require the removal of approximately 10,960 cubic yards of earth materials from the site, according to Mr McKain.

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.