Sandy Hook Center—

WSA Recommends Against Zone Change For Condo Complex

By Andrew Gorosko

The Water and Sewer Authority (WSA) has recommended in a 4-0 vote that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) not grant a Danbury developer the change of zone the developer is seeking in his controversial proposal to construct a 23-unit mixed-income townhouse-style condominium complex in Sandy Hook Center. The authority warned such a zone change would result in excessive construction density on the site.

The WSA made the recommendation on July 13, in response to an application for a sewer connection for the proposed condos from Dauti Construction, LLC.  Endorsing the recommendation were WSA Chairman Richard Zang, Carl Zencey, Marianne Brown, and Lillian Strickler.

The proposed zone change would alter the zoning designation for a 4.04-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road from R-2 (Residential) to MIHD (Mixed Income Housing District). The current R-2 zoning designation would allow two single-family houses to be built on the site, while the MIHD designation would allow 23 condos to be built there.

Developer Guri Dauti wants to build Edona Commons on the steep, rugged site. The property is adjacent to the 189-unit age-restricted Walnut Tree Village condo complex, which sits on 52 acres.

Edona Commons would include five buildings. Seven of the 23 dwellings would be reserved for moderate income families. Edona Commons would contain 57 bedrooms and take 18 months to construct. An essential component of such a 23-unit condo project would be municipal sanitary sewer service.

The zone change proposal would potentially allow more than ten times the volume of sewage being discharged from the site than is now allocated for that property by the WSA.

Mr Dauti is seeking P&Z approvals for the creation of a new land-use zone 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 has been requested by Mr Dauti.

The P&Z is slated to discuss and possibly act on the Edona Commons application on August 3.

On August 2, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) is scheduled to consider the zoning conformance of the Edona Commons site in relation to a building-lot boundary revision that the town granted in 2003.

The developer has obtained a wetlands permit for the project from the town’s wetlands agency. That wetlands permit, however, is contingent upon the developer receiving a sewer connection for the project. The developer has not yet received an aquifer protection endorsement from the town.

The Police Commission, acting as the town’s traffic authority, in June recommended against the P&Z supporting the Edona Commons project. The Police Commission decided that the traffic that the complex would generate would worsen existing difficult traffic conditions in Sandy Hook Center and pose public safety hazards.

Potential traffic problems have been among the major complaints lodged by nearby residents strongly opposed to Edona Commons. Other complaints involve school bus safety, emergency access to the site, the historic character of the neighborhood, the removal of trees, and general aesthetics.

Letter of Guidance

In a July 14 “letter of guidance” to town agencies that are reviewing the Edona Commons proposal, Mr Zang writes, “Because a zone change would allow sewer discharge greater than that allocated for this property, the WSA recommends that the application for zone change be denied.”

“There remain questions of buildability [of the plans submitted to the P&Z] and reportedly an uncertainty of actual lot size, which preclude further action or approval by the WSA,” it adds.

In the event that the developer does receive a change of zone for the property from the P&Z, the site’s boundary lines are suitably clarified by the ZBA, and the construction of the proposed buildings are shown to be practical in view of the site’s physical limitations, the WSA would be willing to consider providing a municipal sanitary sewer connection for multifamily development there.

At the July 13 WSA session, Public Works Director Fred Hurley stressed that the site’s current R-2 zoning designation does not allow as many as 23 dwellings to be constructed there. Mr Hurley termed the site’s zoning designation the “core issue” of the Edona Commons sewering application.

“There has been no zone change…You’ve got a dilemma,” he said.

In the past, when developers of multifamily projects sought approval for sanitary sewer connections from the WSA, those developers always had sites that had zoning designations that would allow the developers to construct the complexes they were proposing, Mr Hurley said. Such projects have included sites with EH-10 zoning designations for age-restricted condo complexes, such as Walnut Tree Village, The Homesteads at Newtown, Liberty at Newtown, Regency at Newtown, and The Woods at Newtown.

“I honestly don’t see how you can approve this…You’re risking ‘crystal balling’ this,” Mr Hurley said of the Edona Commons sewering application.

Dauti Construction could return to the WSA seeking a sewer connection for Edona Commons, if it receives a change of zone for the site from R-2 to MIHD, Mr Hurley said.

“In this case, the cart was way before the horse,” he said, adding that the developer should have obtained a change of zone for the site before seeking a sewer connection for the property.

“This is excessive development [density], way beyond anything that you’ve approved [for sewering elsewhere] in town,” Mr Hurley told WSA members.

Mr Zang responded that the WSA should recommend to the P&Z that the developer’s requested change of zone not be approved due to the increased construction density that would be allowed by such a zone change.

Sandy Hook Center property owner Ray Ruzek asked why the developer has submitted plans for a 23-unit condo complex for review when the lot lines of the site where the project would be built are in question and subject to review by the ZBA.

Mr Ruzek asked why the town should allocate sewage disposal capacity to a condo complex whose net financial effect on the town would represent a “revenue loss.”

Attorney Ryan McKain, representing the developer, said a sewer line runs past the site and the town has available the sewage disposal capacity that is required by the proposed complex.

Resident Morgen McLaughlin of Alberts Hill Road said that if the P&Z were to approve the developer’s proposal to create MIHD zoning, it would have broader implications for multifamily development in town.

The number of dwellings proposed for the Edona Commons site is “not realistic,” she said, adding that it amounts to “reaching for the stars.”

“It’s like opening Pandora’s box,” said Legislative Council member Joseph Borst.

It is the third time that Mr Dauti has attempted to develop the property with multifamily housing. Two past proposals from Mr Dauti for high-density, multifamily complexes at that site have met with stiff opposition from nearby property owners, who have criticized such development as inappropriate for the area.

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 thwarted both proposals, rejecting Mr Dauti’s various requested zoning rule changes.