Sandy Hook Center—

Court Again OK’s Condo Complex Construction

By Andrew Gorosko

The Connecticut Supreme Court has decided against allowing the town to appeal a recent Connecticut Appellate Court decision, in effect, permitting a Danbury land developer to proceed with its controversial plans to construct a condominium complex on Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center.

The 26-unit project proposed by Dauti Construction, LLC, known as Edona Commons, would include eight units of “affordable housing.” Dauti plans the residential complex for a steep, rugged 4.5-acre site at 95 and 99 Church Hill Road.

The town had sought to have the Connecticut Supreme Court consider an appeal of a Connecticut Appellate Court decision, but the Supreme Court on March 24 decided against hearing such an appeal, in effect, letting stand the Appellate Court’s decision on the case. That Appellate Court decision supported a preceding Superior Court decision that Dauti had won against the town.

Commenting on the matter, Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) Chairman Lilla Dean said that Dauti’s zoning application for Edona Commons did not meet the P&Z’s Affordable Housing Development (AHD) zoning regulations, so Dauti proposed many changes to those regulations, which the P&Z did not approve.

Ms Dean spoke at a heavily attended April 7 P&Z public hearing at which the topic was a P&Z proposal to revise the zoning regulations to allow Cochran House at Fairfield Hills to be converted into an apartment building in which ten percent of the dwellings would be affordable housing. (See related story.)

“The state is not joking about affordable housing. They’re dead serious,” Ms Dean said of the Dauti court case.

“The Dauti [construction] proposal won’t be heard by the Supreme Court. It’s out of our hands now,” she noted.

George Benson, town director of planning and land use, pointed out that Dauti will be required to apply to the P&Z, as required by the Appellate Court, to make certain changes to the plans for Edona Commons, so that physical features of the affordable dwellings are similar to the features of the market-rate dwellings.

Last December following lengthy review, the Appellate Court ordered the P&Z and the Water & Sewer Authority (WSA) to approve the Dauti proposal to build the condo complex, provided that suitable modifications are made to the plans.

In June 2009, both the Legislative Council and the Board of Selectmen had endorsed the town pursuing state Appellate Court appeals of preceding Superior Court victories by the developer. Dauti had filed those initial appeals in 2007, after both the P&Z and WSA had rejected the Edona Commons development proposal.

In September 2007, the WSA had denied Dauti’s request for municipal sewer service for the proposed Edona Commons. In April 2007, the P&Z also had rejected the construction proposal.

Attorney Timothy Hollister, representing Dauti, said this week, “We’re happy that the lawsuits are over.”

The construction firm is looking forward to working with the town in getting the Edona Commons project built, Mr Hollister said. The attorney said he expects that the firm will submit revised plans to the town for the project by May. Those revisions would include some design changes to bathrooms and closets, he said.

Considering that the economic climate has changed considerably since Dauti initially proposed the project, Dauti will be taking a “fresh look” at Edona Commons in terms of pricing, Mr Hollister said.

Mr Hollister said he expects there will be market demand for such housing when considering that only 26 units are planned for the project.

First Selectman Pat Llodra said that the town “will need to carefully consider the ramifications of this [court] decision as we refine our plan of development.”

The P&Z is amid the decennial revision of the Town Plan of Conservation and Development, aiming to complete the update by the end of 2012.

“The state is very serious about holding every municipality accountable for meeting the affordable housing regulation,” she said. The state has set a goal of having each municipality in Connecticut have ten percent of its housing stock available as deed-restricted affordable housing.

“Newtown falls way short of the [10 percent] standard and we may increasingly be subject to the ‘whims’ of developers if we do not act in a more ‘planful’ way to meet the state’s expectations,” Mrs Llodra said.

 

Affordable Units

In the 26-unit project, eight of the condo units would be designated as affordable housing and be sold to eligible families at prices significantly lower than the market-rate condo units in the complex.

On the WSA court case, the Appellate Court ruled that a lower court had correctly decided that the proposed condo complex should have the use of the local sanitary sewer system. The Appellate Court directed the WSA to provide sewer service to the proposed condo complex under the terms of the town’s sewer regulations. Sewer mains run along Church Hill Road adjacent to the development site.

On the P&Z court case, the Appellate Court ruled that a lower court had correctly decided that P&Z’s decision not to issue a zoning permit to Dauti because WSA had rejected providing sewer service to the complex was no longer a valid reason to deny the condo construction application.

Dauti had applied to the town for the Edona Commons project under the terms of the state’s Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Act. Under that law, applicants for affordable housing projects which are later rejected by municipal agencies gain certain legal leverage in getting those projects approved through court appeals. Only public health issues and public safety issues are considered justifiable reasons for a land use agency to reject an affordable housing project.

Dauti’s various controversial proposals for developing the site with high-density housing, which date back to 2003, have drawn strong opposition from nearby residents who have criticized the proposals as being too intensive for the site.

Nearby residents have objected to the complex, charging that it would be too dense a development, which would be unattractive and would generate much traffic in a congested area.

P&Z members have generally criticized the Edona Commons proposal because the project would require many existing town zoning regulations on affordable housing to be modified to allow the construction of a much more densely developed project than the zoning rules would otherwise allow.