Sandy Hook Center—

Opposition Persists To 23-Unit Condo Complex

By Andrew Gorosko

At a May 18 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) hearing, public protests continued over a Danbury developer’s proposal to construct a 23-unit mixed-income condominium complex in Sandy Hook Center.

At the session, P&Z members sought to untangle the complexities of developer Guri Dauti’s multifaceted proposal for Edona Commons, a five-building complex on a steep, rugged 4.04-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road, where seven of the 23 dwellings would be reserved for moderate-income families.

Edona Commons would contain 57 bedrooms and take 18 months to construct. The Edona Commons site abuts the 52-acre site of the 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condo complex.

Doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, Mr Dauti is seeking P&Z approvals for the creation of a new zoning designation known as the Mixed Income Housing District (MIHD), which would allow his project to be built; the rezoning of the site from its current R-2 (Residential) zoning designation to MIHD; the issuance of a special permit for the project; a construction permit, and an excavation permit.

All aspects of the application are under consideration simultaneously by the P&Z, as requested by Mr Dauti.

Opponents’ objections to Edona Commons include concerns about heavy traffic, school bus safety, emergency access to the site, the historic character of the neighborhood, the removal of trees, and general aesthetics.

About 20 residents attended the May 18 P&Z public hearing, compared to the about 75 people who attended an initial April 6 P&Z hearing on Edona Commons.

Public Comment

At the May 18 session, resident Ernestine Dillon of 110 Haley Lane in Walnut Tree Village asked whether there would be restrictions on the number of people who could live in units at Edona Commons. Ms Dillon said she would prefer that the complex be age-restricted to people over 55, like Walnut Tree Village, rather than open to people of all ages.

Attorney Ryan McKain, representing Dauti Construction, said the developer would not have control over the number of children or pets who could live in dwellings at Edona Commons. Such rules would be created by the complex’s condominium association, he said.

Megan Williams of 82 Church Hill Road disputed the developer’s claim that the complex would not be very visible from Church Hill Road.

She also questioned the methodology of a traffic study being performed by the developer, saying that it would not accurately reflect travel speeds in the area. Ms Williams said an independent traffic study should be performed.

The proposed MIHD zone would involve “significant changes” to the town’s zoning regulations, she said. “Don’t change the zone…This is going to change the town forever,” she said.

Instead of a 23-unit condo complex, the developer should construct on the site the two single-family houses that the current R-2 zoning designation would allow, she said.

Emily Cassidy of 157 Jennifer Lane in Walnut Tree Village urged that the P&Z reject the proposed MIHD zoning regulations. The construction of such a complex would translate into more children living in town, resulting in higher property taxation to cover the cost of those children’s public education, she said.

Bill Jensen of 171 Jennifer Lane posed several questions about fire safety at the proposed condo complex.

Tim Pelton, a fire safety consultant for the developer, said suitable firewalls would be constructed within the condo buildings to retard the spread of fire. The condo site is designed with adequate space for firefighting, he said.

Mr Pelton added he does not believe that a secondary access point is needed at the site for emergency vehicle access. The developer currently proposes a Church Hill Road boulevard-style accessway for the site, in which an entry lane and exit lane would separated by a median.

Agnes Jensen of 171 Jennifer Lane inquired about what visual screening would be provided between Walnut Tree Village and Edona Commons. She asked whether a chain-link fence would be installed between the two properties. She urged that the P&Z reject the proposed MIHD zone.

Linda Jones of 16 Walnut Tree Hill Road said that the Edona Commons site is so steep that in the past the P&Z rejected a proposal from the developers of Walnut Tree Village to build a road on the site to link Walnut Tree Village directly to Church Hill Road.

Constructing one or two houses on the site is a more appropriate use of the property than building 23 condos there, Ms Jones said.

Morgen McLaughlin of 14 Alberts Hill Road said that the MIHD zoning designation is more properly an abbreviation for “Maximum Income Housing Development,” rather than Mixed Income Housing District, in charging that the developer is seeking to maximize his profits by constructing 23 dwellings there. She urged that the P&Z reject the application.

Mary Fellows of 120 Walnut Tree Hill Road noted that the current proposal is Mr Dauti’s third effort to develop the site with multifamily housing.

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. The P&Z turned down both proposals.

Ms Fellows said she finds it “unbelievable” that Mr Dauti has persisted for as long as he has in seeking the develop the site with high-density housing.

The P&Z’s action on the current condo proposal will set the tone for development in Newtown for the next 20 years, she said. Ms Fellows urged the P&Z to reject the project.

Kevin Fitzgerald of 24 Old Farm Hill Road said that the development application has so many aspects that it is “confusing.” Mr Fitzgerald urged that a barn on the site be preserved, not demolished, as has been proposed by the developer.

Multiple Fronts

The Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) is considering a request from Mr Dauti for a sanitary sewer connection. The Police Commission, serving as the local traffic authority, is reviewing the traffic and site-access issues of the project. The Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) has granted the project a wetlands permit, but has turned down Mr Dauti’s initial request for an aquifer protection endorsement. The developer is expected to submit another application for an aquifer protection endorsement.

P&Z Chairman William O’Neil urged the developer to conclude his continuing project reviews with the Police Commission and the WSA before the June 15 P&Z session, when the P&Z plans to hold its third and last public hearing on Edona Commons. The Police Commission next meets on June 6; the WSA meets next on June 8.

Another issue has cropped up concerning the proposal. It concerns the zoning conformance of the Edona Commons site in relation to a building-lot boundary revision that the town granted in 2003.

The matter is scheduled for review by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) at a June 7 session.

Mr McKain told P&Z members that the boundary line issue is not a matter for P&Z consideration, but is under ZBA review.

Mr O’Neil said the issue might prevent the proposed development from occurring and must be resolved.

The issue will be resolved by the ZBA or will be settled in court, Mr McKain said.

If the issue cannot be resolved, the development proposal would either “disappear,” or Mr Dauti would return to the town with some new version of his multifamily project, Mr McKain said.