P&Z Poised To Reject Condo Complex Yet Again

By Andrew Gorosko

Based on comments made by Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members at a February 15 session, the land use agency appears poised to reject yet again a Danbury developer’s controversial proposal to construct a mixed-income condominium complex on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center.

Developer Guri Dauti, doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, proposes the 26-unit townhouse-style Edona Commons for six buildings on a steep, rugged 4.5-site at 95-99 Church Hill Road, near Dayton Street. The complex would contain 66 bedrooms and hold 69 vehicle parking spaces. Eight of the 26 condos would be reserved for low-income and moderate-income families.

The proposal, which has been pending before the P&Z since last October, represents the fourth time that Mr Dauti has attempted to gain P&Z approval for a multifamily affordable housing complex at the site.

Last August, the P&Z rejected a 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) zoning regulations.

The Edona Commons proposal has drawn continuing strong opposition from nearby residents who have protested the project for many reasons. They charge that the project would create increased traffic in a congested area. They add that the site is an inappropriate place for high-density development. The opponents have become legal intervenors to the application. 

On February 15, five P&Z members expressed many objections to the current version of Edona Commons, explaining why the project should be rejected. Formal action on the application is expected at an upcoming P&Z session.

As P&Z members spoke, a stenographer for the developer made a verbatim record of the proceedings.

If the application is rejected by the P&Z, the developer is expected to challenge the rejection in court under the provisions of the state’s 1989 Affordable Housing Appeals Act. The affordable housing law provides a developer with certain legal leverage in getting an affordable housing project 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 land use agency decisionmaking on public health and safety issues. The law holds that the only legitimate reasons for rejecting an affordable housing project would be issues such as water supply, sewage disposal, traffic, and emergency access to the site.

After the developer’s third proposal for Edona Commons was rejected last year, the developer filed court appeals against the P&Z and the Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) in seeking to overturn P&Z and WSA rejections.

Application

The current application for Edona Commons 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. The developer’s proposed zoning regulations would allow a complex that is more densely built than currently allowed. The buildings would be taller and nearer to one another than currently allowed.

On February 15, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil said the P&Z’s discussion of the application would form the basis for its motion for action on the application.

P&Z member Lilla Dean said the P&Z formulated its AHD regulations on affordable housing after much consideration.

The AHD regulations address the quality of life of people who would live in an affordable housing complex, said P&Z member Jane Brymer. The applicant’s proposal for MIHD zoning would diminish the quality of life that otherwise would be provided to those residents under the provisions of AHD zoning, she said.

The AHD rules require that open space land be provided on a site and also require that buildings have larger separation distances than those proposed by the developer.

P&Z member Robert Poulin said the town’s needs “affordable housing,” stressing that the P&Z had formulated its AHD regulations after much consideration.

It is wrong for an applicant to circumvent the existing AHD regulations in seeking to construct an affordable housing complex, Mr Poulin said.

“We have a very good chance of winning this thing,” he said of the P&Z’s prospects for prevailing in court if the developer mounts a court challenge against a P&Z rejection of the project. “Our [AHD] regulations are fair and thought out,” he said in urging P&Z members to back the AHD regulations.

P&Z member Robert Mulholland said P&Z members had asked the developer’s attorney to consider applying for a multifamily project under the provisions of the AHD rules, but the attorney rejected the proposal.

The site plan proposed by the developer exhibits a disregard for the resident children who would use the property for recreation, Mr Mulholland said. The site plan shows a general disregard for public health and safety issues, he added. “It’s a plan that I’m totally upset about,” he said.

The WSA has stated that it would not provide public sewer service for the project, Mr Poulin noted.

Mr O’Neil asked why the P&Z should create a MIHD zone, as proposed by the developer, when no P&Z member supports the requirements of such a zone. Such a zone could apply to approximately 30 other local properties.

“We don’t feel this [MIHD zone] is appropriate,” he said.

The applicant is seeking to circumvent the existing AHD zoning regulations that specify the local requirements for affordable housing complexes, Ms Brymer said.

Based on P&Z members’ comments, a motion to reject the creation of MIHD zoning would be formulated for upcoming action, Mr O’Neil said.

Consequently, if the creation of such a new zone is rejected by the P&Z, the developer’s proposal to convert the zoning designation for the site from R-2 to MIHD similarly would be rejected, he said.

Site Plan

Commenting on the specifics of the site plan for Edona Commons, Mr O’Neil said he had hoped the developer would have provided for a better quality of life for people living in the complex. The relatively small size of the parcel would prevent various site amenities from being provided, as are described in the AHD zoning regulations, he said.

Mr Mulholland said the complex proposed by the developer amounts to a “drastic departure” from the architecture and general design of Sandy Hook Center.

The Edona Commons proposal amounts to a cluster of bland buildings situated in a historic area, he said. The complex would not fit in with the area’s aesthetics, he added. The developer has not addressed the P&Z’s various concerns about the project’s design, he said.

Dauti Construction is seeking to “shoehorn” the complex onto the site, Ms Brymer said. Open issues remain about the control of stormwater runoff, she said.

The developer has failed to meet the requirements of certain applicable zoning regulations and has demonstrated an “inflexibility” when interacting with the P&Z, Ms Dean said.

Mr O’Neil pointed out that the proposed complex would be directly adjacent to a home which would remain in a R-2 zone and would lose value due to its proximity to the condo complex.

Zoning regulations are intended to protect people, Ms Dean stressed.

The developer’s proposal would pose traffic safety problems for Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center, Mr Mulholland said. The developer has shown an unwillingness to address certain traffic safety issues, he added. The site plan is inadequate in terms of parking and vehicular facilities, he said.

Mr Poulin said he does not support the Edona Commons proposal.

The P&Z will take formal action on Edona Commons at an upcoming session, Mr O’Neil said.