Sandy Hook Center Condos Draw Concern At Conservation Hearing

By Andrew Gorosko

Residents living the near the site proposed for a 23-unit mixed-income condominium complex in Sandy Hook Center, who are concerned about possible adverse effects of such growth, posed a range of questions on the construction proposal at a well-attended February 22 Conservation Commission public hearing.

Many of those concerns were aired by residents of Walnut Tree Village, a 189-unit age-restricted condo complex on Walnut Tree Hill Road, which overlooks the rugged 4.04-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road where Danbury developer Guri Dauti wants to build Edona Commons. The condo project would contain 57 bedrooms.

Repeatedly, during the Conservation Commission hearing, commission Chairman Sally O’Neil told members of the public to restrict their comments about Edona Commons to the topic of wetlands and watercourses. The Conservation Commission serves as the town’s wetlands protection agency.

Repeatedly, however, those speaking at the hearing veered off that topic to address the visual, aesthetic, financial, and social implications of the Edona Commons proposal.

The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has scheduled a public hearing on Dauti Construction, LLC’s, proposal for Edona Commons for April 6. (See related story.)

Besides a wetlands permit, the developer will require an aquifer protection review from the Conservation Commission because about two-thirds of the site lies within the town’s environmentally sensitive Aquifer Protection District (APD).

Attorney Ryan McKain, representing Dauti Construction, told Conservation Commission members that the development proposal is not an “affordable housing” complex as defined by state law, but that it would contain an “affordable housing” component that the town could apply toward its state quota of local affordable housing units. Seven of the 23 dwellings at Edona Commons would have price restrictions in place, thus serving a s moderate-income housing, Mr McKain said.

Engineer Steve Trinkaus of Trinkaus Engineering, LLC, representing Dauti Construction, explained the wetlands protection aspects of the development proposal to commission members. The developer is seeking to “fit” the condominium buildings onto the landscape when constructing the complex, he said. Stormwater control structures would be built on the property, he added.

Wetlands specialist Penelope Sharp, representing the developer, said she expects that after construction, the wetlands on the site would likely function as they now do. The property holds wildlife habitat typical for such terrain, she said.

Mr McKain stressed that the no development is proposed for wetland areas on the site, only for “upland review” areas on the property.

Conservation Commission member Donald Collier suggested that the developer create conservation easements on the site, where physical alteration of the terrain would be prohibited.

Mr McKain responded that the developer is willing to accept such restrictions.

Public Comment

Resident Ida Candida of Jennifer Lane in Walnut Tree Village asked whether blasting would be required as part of the developer’s plans to excavate 10,960 cubic yards of earthen materials on the site. Ms Candida wanted to know the distance between the proposed condos and her condominium home at Walnut Tree Village. The area is habitat is for deer and wild turkey, she said, adding that she would be saddened to see the loss of such habitat.

Ms Candida later told Mr Dauti that Edona Commons will draw strong opposition from nearby residents as it progresses through the town’s land use review process.

Resident Jay Topham of Jennifer Lane in Walnut Tree Village asked what type of visual screening would be in place between the two condo complexes.

Jennifer Lane is the private street within the Walnut Tree Village complex that is nearest the Edona Commons site.

Resident Mary Ann O’Donnell of 97 Church Hill Road said that she recently bought her house at that address. She asked whether such development would affect her domestic water well.

After a condo complex is constructed directly behind her property, her house will lose its value, Ms O’Donnell said. “The value of my house is going to be zero. I paid a lot for my house,” she said.

Mary Fellows of 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road said Edona Commons represents “a massive amount of development” on a small piece of property. The construction proposal reflects “no respect for residents in that neighborhood,” she said. The area has historic value, she added.

In response to questions raised at the hearing, Mr Trinkaus said that no blasting is expected on the site. Excavated materials that are not regraded and redeposited at the site would be removed from the premises, he said. The proposed construction would not affect Ms O’Donnell’s water well, he said.

Conservation Commission members will resume the public hearing on Edona Commons on March 8, after reviewing information on the project supplied by the developer.

Information under review includes the ecology of and functions of wetlands and watercourses on the site; potential conservation easements; planting and revegetation plans for the property; hydrological data; stormwater runoff; the characteristics of the site’s watershed; stormwater control devices; and accessways to the property, among other data.

After the February 22 hearing concluded, a group of about 25 residents concerned about the implications of Edona Commons gathered in a lobby near the public hearing meeting room to discuss the construction proposal.