Sandy Hook Center—

23-Unit Condo Complex

Heads To P&Z Public Hearings

By Andrew Gorosko

A controversial proposal to build a 23-unit mixed-income condominium complex in Sandy Hook Center is making its way through the town’s development review process, with various aspects of the Edona Commons project now under consideration by four town agencies.

Dauti Construction, LLC’s construction proposal is slated for a series of Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearings starting at 7:30 pm on Thursday, April 6, at the town offices at 31 Peck’s Lane.

The multipronged P&Z application requests the creation of a new land use zone, the rezoning of the site, the issuance of a site development plan approval, the granting of a special permit, and the issuance of an excavation permit.

Danbury developer Guri Dauti wants to construct five condo buildings containing a total 23 townhouse-style dwellings on a steep, rugged 4.04-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road. Seven of the dwellings would be reserved for moderate-income families. The project would contain a total 57 bedrooms. Construction would last 18 months.

Opponents of Edona Commons have been circulating petitions for submission to the P&Z that seek to thwart the developer’s proposed rezoning of the site from R-2 (Residential) to MIHD (Mixed Income Housing District). As part of the application, the developer proposes the creation of MIHD zoning, which is a set of proposed regulations that are tailored to allow him to build the project.

The opponents of Edona Commons list a variety of reasons why a 23-unit condo complex is unsuitable for the Church Hill Road site. They include heavy traffic, school bus safety, inadequate access to the site, the historic character of the neighborhood, the removal of trees, and aesthetic concerns. The opponents charge that condo complex construction would “ruin” Sandy Hook Center, which is undergoing a revitalization project.

The developer maintains that such development would “provide additional economic diversity in the [local] housing stock.” 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, according to the developer.

Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) members are awaiting technical information from the developer to determine whether such construction would qualify for a municipal sanitary sewer connection. Such high-density construction would require sewer service for wastewater disposal. The WSA is next scheduled to meet on April 27.

The Police Commission, acting as the local traffic authority, is scheduled to meet on April 4 to review a traffic study on Edona Commons that is being prepared for the developer. The developer initially did not have a traffic study performed for the project, seeking to have the P&Z waive that typical requirement. The P&Z, however, informed the developer that a traffic study is a necessary part of the application.

Police Commission members are gauging the project’s effect on traffic flow in Sandy Hook Center and are seeking to learn where a secondary access point would be provided for emergency purposes.

A 700-foot-long driveway would extend onto the site from 95 Church Hill Road. That address is on the north side of Church Hill Road to the west of Church Hill Road’s intersection with Dayton Street. The Edona Commons site abuts the 52-acre, 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condo complex.

 

Conservation Commission

The Conservation Commission is serving in two roles while reviewing the Edona Commons application.

The seven-member panel, acting as the town’s wetlands protection agency, is reviewing the developer’s request for a wetlands permit. The commission also is serving as the town’s aquifer protection review agency, and is considering the project’s potential effects on the underlying Pootatuck Aquifer.

On March 22, Conservation Commission members voted against endorsing the aquifer protection aspects of the project because the developer had failed to fulfill all requirements of an aquifer protection review.

The developer is expected to submit a new aquifer protection application for Conservation Commission review. A Conservation Commission aquifer protection endorsement would be subject to P&Z action.

Town Conservation Official Rob Sibley said last week the Conservation Commission voted against endorsing Mr Dauti’s aquifer protection application because it lacked two important documents.

One document is an “advisory letter” from the WSA stating that the WSA would negotiate with the developer to provide a sewer connection for the condo complex, provided that the developer receives all necessary approvals from other town agencies. The other document is a letter from United Water stating that it would provide public water service for a condo complex.

At the start of the March 22 Conservation Commission session, attorney Ryan McKain, representing the developer, presented a United Water approval letter to the commission. But that letter had not been submitted via proper channels or in a timely manner, Mr Sibley later said.

The developer has yet to receive an advisory letter from the WSA, Mr Sibley added.

Wetlands Permit

Following their receipt of a letter from the Candlewood Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited (TU), which posed many technical questions about the proposed condo complex’s effects on trout habitat in the nearby Pootatuck River, Conservation Commission members opted to continue their public hearing on the developer’s requested wetlands permit to a fourth session, which is scheduled for April 12.

TU is a private, nonprofit environmental protection group comprised of avid anglers, which seeks to preserve the coldwater habitat necessary for the survival of trout game fish. Stormwater runoff from the condo complex would drain into the nearby Pootatuck River.

TU member Joseph Hovious provided a letter to Conservation Commission members listing the group’s many concerns about potential environmental damage to Pootatuck River water quality stemming from the presence of a condo complex. 

TU was similarly involved at Conservation Commission public hearings in 2005, when Toll Brothers, Inc, sought to build a 54-unit age-restricted condo complex on 51 acres at 21 Oakview Road, known as Regency at Newtown, near Newtown High School. TU’s many concerns about Regency at Newtown resulted in Toll Brothers’ revising its application to address environmental issues affecting the nearby Pootatuck River. Regency at Newtown received P&Z approvals in February.

Mr Hovious told Conservation Commission members that the Pootatuck River is valuable natural resource that TU wants to protect as a coldwater trout fishery.

Edona Commons must not adversely affect the Pootatuck River or the Pootatuck Aquifer, he said.

Mr Hovious told commission members that the developer’s environmental analysis of stormwater runoff at the condo site is flawed. TU wants the developer to provide data about the temperature of stormwater runoff that would flow from the condo site and into the river, he said.

Mr Hovious asked how several stormwater retention ponds proposed for the site would be maintained.

Automotive fluids such as antifreeze/coolant and motor oil, as well as fertilizers and pesticides, might flow off the condo site with stormwater runoff, contaminating the river, Mr Hovious said.

In all, Mr Hovious listed eight environmental issues that TU wants the Conservation Commission to address in reviewing Edona Commons.

 Mr McKain told commission members that the developer has hired a scientific specialist to research hydrogeological aspects of the development project.

The project’s effect on the underlying Pootatuck Aquifer would be minimal, Mr McKain said. The property and its features, such as stormwater retention basins, would be maintained by a condominium association, he said.

Stormwater runoff from the site would not pose thermal pollution problems for the Pootatuck River, he said.

Mr McKain then asked that the commission close the public hearing on the wetlands permit application on March 22.

But panel members Donald Collier and Dr Philip Kotch said that the various environmental questions raised by TU should be formally answered by the developer’s project engineer, who was not present on March 22. The commission’s public hearing will thus resume April 12.   

It is the third time that Mr Dauti has attempted to develop the Church Hill Road site with high-density multifamily housing. Both previous proposals were thwarted by the 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.