Edona Commons—

Sandy Hook Condo Complex Draws Continuing Opposition

By Andrew Gorosko

A Danbury developer’s protracted and controversial effort to build a mixed-income condominium complex on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center continues to draw strong opposition from nearby residents, who charge that such high-density development is inappropriate for that area.

Those residents spoke January 18 at a Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing in opposition to Edona Commons, developer Guri Dauti’s proposal for a 26-unit townhouse-style complex in six buildings situated on a steep, rugged 4.5-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road. The complex would contain 66 bedrooms and hold 69 parking spaces. Each dwelling would have a one-bay garage.

The January 18 hearing, which was attended by about 25 people, lasted 4½ hours. An initial December 7 hearing, which drew more than 50 people, lasted 3¾ hours. The P&Z will have until late March to act on the development application, after reviewing the overall 8¼ hours of hearing testimony, plus numerous documents presented.

Doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, it is Mr Dauti’s fourth attempt to develop the site with multifamily housing. Eight of the 26 condos would be reserved for low-income and moderate-income families.

Last August, the P&Z rejected Dauti Construction’s proposal for a 23-unit version of Edona Commons on a 4.04-acre site at the same location. The P&Z listed a host of reasons for that rejection, including potential traffic problems and a high construction density.

In an initial 2003 attempt to develop the site, Dauti Construction sought to build 16 condo units. In a second failed attempt early in 2004, Dauti sought to build 12 condo units. The P&Z short-circuited both those efforts by rejecting the developer’s proposals for revisions to the town’s Affordable Housing Development (AHD) regulations.

On January 18, opponents of Edona Commons presented an intervention petition to the P&Z in pursuing legal standing as a third party to the development application.

Based on a legal review by Town Attorney David Grogins, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil granted intervenor status to the opponents.

Mr O’Neil explained that because the developer is seeking to build the complex under the provisions of the state’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act of 1989, the P&Z must focus its attention on public health issues and public safety issues when reviewing and acting on the application. Those issues include topics such as water supply, sewage disposal, traffic, and emergency access to the site, he said.

The affordable housing law provides developers with certain legal leverage in getting affordable housing projects approved by a judge, if the project is the subject of a court appeal following a rejection by a land use agency. The state law reduces a municipal land use agency’s latitude in its reasons for rejecting a construction proposal, focusing its decisionmaking on health and safety issues.

“We’re really on the defensive,” Mr O’Neil said of the P&Z’s reduced scope in its decisionmaking.

Last July, the Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) opted against allowing the then-proposed 23-unit version of the condo complex to discharge wastewater into the municipal sewer system. The developer then challenged that rejection in court. That lawsuit is pending.

Mr O’Neil told P&Z members that if the P&Z should reject a fourth application for a condo complex from the developer, and the developer then appeals that rejection in court, the P&Z would need expert testimony to support its objections to the project.

Mr O’Neil noted that the Police Commission has received a town endorsement to hire a traffic expert to advise it on traffic issues stemming from the Edona Commons proposal.

Last June, due to concerns about traffic problems posed by Edona Commons, the Police Commission, which also serves as the local traffic authority, recommended that the P&Z reject the then-proposed 23-unit version of the project. The Police Commission has taken no action on the current 26-unit version of the project.

Opposition

At the outset of the January 18 hearing, project opponents Morgen McLaughlin of Southbury and Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road presented a slide show illustrating their many concerns about the development proposal.

Issues included: sidewalks; a children’s play area; the presence of a cliff near the site; nighttime lighting; garbage removal; snow plowing and snow clearance; management of the condo complex; emergency vehicle travel at the site; signage; a traffic study; parking; the removal of earthen materials from the site; land contouring; blasting; sewage waste disposal; and the project’s potential adverse effects on area domestic water wells, on the underlying Pootatuck Aquifer, and on nearby properties.

The public interest outweighs the need for the affordable housing at the site, Ms McLaughlin said.

Other local land is available for such development, Ms Williams said.

Ida Candida lives at 155 Jennifer Lane in the adjacent Walnut Tree Village, a 189-unit age-restricted condo complex.

Ms Candida asked P&Z members how much earthen vibration would by caused by Edona Commons’ construction. Nearby residents need assurances that no blasting would be done to develop the site, she said.

Ms Candida asked how parking would be organized on the site. She said that physical hazards would be posed by the presence of retaining walls on the property.

“It doesn’t seem like a safe situation for children trying to get a school bus,” she said of the Edona Commons’ resident children who would be taking school buses to and from school.

James Belden of 3 Oak Ridge Drive spoke at the P&Z hearing representing two private environmental groups, the Pootatuck Watershed Association and Trout Unlimited.

While “affordable housing” is needed locally, the Church Hill Road site proposed for Edona Commons is an inappropriate place for such development, he said. Mr Belden offered to help the developer find an appropriate local site for such a complex.

Mr Belden urged that the P&Z reject the Edona Commons application. Such construction would environmentally damage the area, he said. The public’s health and safety would be diminished by the presence of such a project, he said.

Mr Belden questioned the workability of the stormwater control plan proposed for the site. He urged that the P&Z enlist the services of an independent soil scientist to review the hydrogeological aspects of the development proposal.

Wendy Davenson of 88 Church Hill Road raised issues about possible stormwater runoff from the site, about visitor parking, and about the need for Edona Commons’ children to wait for morning school buses in the dark in the wintertime.

Applicant

The application seeks three P&Z approvals — the creation of a new zone known as the Mixed Income Housing District (MIHD) zone; a change of zone for the 4.5-acre site from R-2 Residential to MIHD zoning; and also a site development plan endorsement.

The developer’s proposed zoning regulations would allow construction of a complex that is on a smaller site than allowed by the existing AHD zoning regulations. Also, the developer’s proposed zoning regulations would allow a complex that is more densely built than currently allowed. Also, the buildings would be taller and nearer to one another than currently allowed.

Market-rate units would sell from between $325,000 and $375,000. The affordable housing units would sell at prices of approximately $128,000; $148,000; $181,000; and $209,000, depending upon the income of the family buying the unit and the number of bedrooms in the unit. Two-bedroom units would enclose approximately 1,200 square feet; three-bedroom units would hold about 1,500 square feet of space.

In response to many questions on the condo complex posed by P&Z members, attorney Ryan McKain, representing the developer, described how the development proposal has changed.

Although the rugged site does not have sufficient suitable areas for athletic fields or a sports court, the developer is willing to build a playground on the site for resident children, Mr McKain said.

The developer also is willing to build internal sidewalks at the complex and a sidewalk along Church Hill Road, he added.

Mr McKain said the developer is willing to install fencing along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The northern boundary abuts Walnut Tree Village; the eastern boundary is near a cliff alongside Dayton Street.

In response to queries from Mr O’Neil, Mr McKain said the developer is unwilling to reduce the number of dwellings proposed for the complex.

Mr O’Neil told Mr McKain that the applicant’s proposal to exempt the project from the town’s aquifer protection regulations is “unacceptable.”

“Aquifer protection is extremely critical,” Mr O’Neil said.

Part of the site is within the town’s Aquifer Protection District (APD), which lies above the Pootatuck Aquifer.

Hydrogeologist Russell Slayback, representing the developer, said that the complex’s access to a public water supply and public sewers would serve as environmental protection measures for the underlying aquifer.

The proposed removal of an estimated 14,000 cubic yards of earthen materials from the site should not have adverse effects on the aquifer, he said.

Engineer Steve Trinkaus, representing the developer, said the project could be constructed without the need for blasting.

Site lighting would be minimal with light fixtures installed on the sides of the condo buildings, Mr McKain said.

Traffic engineer Michael Galante, representing the developer, described a revised traffic report on the project submitted to the P&Z. No school buses would enter the site. All school bus stops would be made on the north side of Church Hill Road, he said.

The developer’s traffic study found that the condo complex “will have an insignificant impact on the overall operation of vehicular activities along Church Hill Road and nearby intersections.”

Mr O’Neil said that remaining open issues about the development proposal include concerns about the stability of soil on the development site and the control of stormwater runoff on the property.