P&Z Postpones Action On Condo Complex

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: Mar 09, 2007 12:00 am

By Andrew Gorosko

Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) members appeared ready to act March 1 on a developerâs controversial proposal to construct 26 condominium units on a 4.5-acre site at 95-99 Church Hill Road in Sandy Hook Center, but postponed action on the P&Z application because the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) had not acted on February 28 on the developerâs application for a revised wetlands permit for the project.

P&Z Chairman William OâNeil announced at a March 1 session that the IWC had not acted on the wetlands permit application at a session held the night before.

âIâm tabling that. We do not have feedback yet from the [IWC],â he said.

In the townâs land use review process, the IWC typically acts on applications before the P&Z acts on them. That sequence is followed so that the P&Zâs action does not conflict with the IWCâs action on applications.

Mr OâNeil said the P&Z would again consider the condo complex application on March 15, which would be the night after the IWC would ostensibly act on the wetlands application. The next regular IWC session is slated for March 14.

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.

Based on comments made by P&Z members at a February 15 session, the land use agency appears poised to reject yet again the proposal to construct the mixed-income condo complex.

Danbury developer Guri Dauti, doing business as Dauti Construction, LLC, proposes the 26-unit townhouse-style Edona Commons for six buildings on a steep, rugged site. 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 developerâs proposals for revisions to the townâs Affordable Housing Development (AHD) zoning regulations.

Conservation Official Rob Sibley said March 2, he expects that the IWC would act on the developerâs requested wetlands permit revision on March 14.

Last May, the developer received a wetlands permit from the IWC for the then-proposed 23-unit version of Edona Commons on a 4.04-acre site at the same location. The pending application for a wetlands permit revision, which is relatively narrow in scope, involves the addition of three condos to the development proposal, plus related driveways.

Mr Sibley said that the IWC on February 28 again rejected the developerâs requested endorsement of the aquifer protection plan for the Edona Commons application. The past 23-unit version of Edona Commons also did not receive an aquifer protection endorsement last year.

A section of the Edona Commons site is within the Aquifer Protection District (APD), a land use zone above the Pootatuck Aquifer where restrictions are in force for aquifer protection.

As the townâs aquifer protection agency, the IWC makes recommendations to the P&Z on whether development applications within the APD would have significant adverse effects on the underlying aquifer. The P&Z then acts on those recommendations.

Mr Sibley said that the IWC did not endorse the Edona Commons aquifer protection plan because the developer failed to explain how septic waste disposal systems could be used on the site in light of the Water and Sewer Authorityâs (WSA) decision not to provide a municipal sewer system connection for the project.

Specifying such alternative waste disposal measures would be necessary to gain an aquifer protection endorsement from the IWC, Mr Sibley said.

Top Of The Mountain

My Brother’s Band Planning ‘Mixed Bag’ Set List For Summer Concert Series Gig

Theater Review: A Very Happy Homecoming For ‘All Shook Up’

Theater Review: ‘Camelot’ Given The Royal Treatment In Neighboring Brookfield

David Ober Retires After 24 Years Of Service To Town

It’s important to clarify the tone and context of Derek Pisani’s remarks, particularly the satirical line about suing Newtown for "Gross Stupidity." This was clearly a tongue-in-cheek jab at the exhausting culture of legal threats that’s become a staple on the local Facebook Group forums. It was a reflection of frustration over endless regulatory hurdles and obstructionism, and the desire to avoid common sense solutions not an insult aimed at residents. Satire, is meant to provoke thought and highlight the absurdities. If we are unable to distinguish between satire and literal threats, perhaps the comment hit closer to the truth than we’d like to admit. Rather than focusing on Pisanis style, we should be discussing the substance of what he’s pointing out: that Newtown’s progress is being routinely blocked by a small but vocal contingent who seem intent on saying “no” at every turn. They are saying no to any development, no to common sense solutions to crowd control, etc. Newtown deserves leaders who are willing to call things as they see them, even if their language ruffles feathers. That doesn’t mean they lack respect for constituents—it means they care enough to challenge the Mob and push for solutions. Isn't that what we elect people to do? I applaud Pisani's dedication, he certainly has earned my vote. Regardless, let’s not reduce conversation to tone-policing and outrage. Let’s focus on the issues that matter.

Who is Calling Newtowners Stupid?

Thank you for pointing out the trail access provisions included in the BOS motion—it’s an important clarification that deserves more attention in this conversation. If the development is, in fact, required to provide permanent free public access and commit to ongoing maintenance of this section of the Rochambeau Trail, that is a remarkably beneficial outcome for the town. oIt’s not every day that a private project shoulders the long-term burden of preserving and caring for a public historical corridor at no taxpayer cost—especially one that previously had no formal access, upkeep, or visibility. Let’s be honest: the idea that the only way to protect history is by preventing any development nearby is a rigid and unworkable standard. What’s being proposed here appears to strike a rare balance—historic preservation, public access, and smart development all rolled into one. That’s not a loss its a win. So rather than allowing a handful of voices to derail progress under the banner of “historic purity,” maybe it’s time to acknowledge the reality: this trail is better off with structured stewardship and visibility than remaining an overgrown ghost on old maps. Let’s move forward. Bring in the easement, bring in the public access—and yes, bring in the bulldozers!!! Progress and preservation can coexist. Let’s not let the NIMBY use fear or nostalgia keep us stuck in the past.

Discusses Rochambeau Trail And 6 Commerce Road

I've heard that several people are under the impression that the public might be banned from the Rochambeau Trail. Points 2 and 3 from the BOS motion (included in full below) make it clear that public access to the trail is part of the requirements for the developer. From what I understand, it requires free public access to the trail in perpetuity. Technically, this could be argued to be a "payment-in-kind," that attempts to balance public good with overall town growth. We can argue about weather that balance is acceptable and how the trail may be affected, but with the understanding that the trail is expected to be maintained as a publicly accessible trail regardless. July 15, 2024 Board of Selectmen approved motion: Discontinuance of Reservoir Road: Selectman Cruson moved the resolution: Resolved, that the Newtown Board of Selectmen, in accordance with Section 2-115(d)(8) of the Town Charter and Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-49, and subject to the conditions set forth below, hereby discontinues an unimproved portion of Reservoir Road described as “Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued “on that certain survey map which will be recorded on the Newtown Land Records titled “Map Showing Portion of Reservoir Road to be Discontinued” dated August, 2023 and revised September 15, 2023, and certified substantially correct by Gregory Szyszowski of SLR (the “Survey Map”), said discontinuance contingent and effective only upon the completion of the following: 1. The approval of an application for the development of land in the manner described in a letter from Attorney Thomas W. Beecher to First Selectman A. Jeffrey Capeci and Members of the Board of Selectmen dated May 30, 2024, pursuant to the “Residential Open Space Development” regulations of the Borough of Newtown by the Borough of Newtown Zoning Commission, and construction of that approval project within the timeframes required for special exception approval; 2. The inclusion of the discontinued portion of the road as part of the final Declaration of Conservation Restriction; 3. The conveyance of a mutually agreeable public easement to the Town of Newtown for pedestrian, bicycling, equestrian, and all other passive recreational uses (to exclude the use of motorized vehicles except as may be necessary by the Town or its designee to effectuate the purpose of the easement), and for municipal utility purposes; Be it further resolved, that Castle Hill Real Estate Holdings, LLC., its successors and assigns, shall not use any portion of the discontinued road as a vehicular road or access way to and from any developed portions of the property. Be it further finally resolved, that should any of the foregoing contingencies not occur, then the discontinuance contemplated herein shall not become effective and this resolution will become null and void. From: https://www.newtown-ct.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif12216/f/minutes/bos_7-15-24_min-_att_final.pdf

Is this paper road (roads that only exist on paper map but not in reality) even owned by the Town? Many roads that predate the Town's road standards are privately owned and were never accepted by the Town, such as many of the nonconforming roads around the lake communities where the property owners own right to the center line. That is something we had to deal with when working on the Roads Ordinance a few years back. We also had to deal with a private road to run the utilities to the new SHS.

For anyone who wants to know, I cant post a link here, but Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority has an entire website. Look up "HRRA whats in whats out"

I Get It!

<< Jul 2025 >>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
29	30	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31	1	2

Log In

P&Z Postpones Action On Condo Complex

Leave a Reply Cancel reply