The president of nonprofit McLean Affiliates Inc., which operates a retirement community in Simsbury, says the town’s denial of a wetlands permit for its proposed 52-unit expansion is a “minor setback.”
On Wednesday night, the town’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission unanimously denied McLean’s application, citing insufficient evidence to prove the project would not unreasonably pollute wetlands and watercourses.
Commissioners’ key concerns included the impact on wetland hydrology and the need for a revised construction phasing plan.
McLean proposed adding up to 52 two-bedroom duplexes – ranging from 1,400 square feet to 2,200 square feet – to the southernmost portion of its sprawling campus at 75 Great Pond Road.
The north and central parts of the 110-acre property are developed, while the southern portion remains undeveloped meadow and woodlands.
The property is surrounded by single-family homes and the Hop Meadow Country Club, which McLean also owns.
McLean’s existing senior living community, which underwent an expansion in 2020, contains 131 independent living units, including apartments, villas and cottages. The site also features 71 assisted living units and 89 skilled nursing beds.
The new units, called McLean Meadow Homes, would be built on a project site that covers about 22 acres.
Lisa Clark, president of McLean, said the group still wants to pursue the project and is exploring its options.
“While we were certainly hoping for a different outcome, we understand and respect the commission’s responsibility to thoroughly review every aspect of our application,” Clark said. “We view this decision as a minor setback in what is a complex and important process.”
She believes there continues to be high demand for the project.
“We have no question in our mind that there is demand for homes like ours,” Clark said. “We have over 130 people on our waiting list, anxiously waiting to have this new community built for them.”
But the proposal faced strong opposition from neighbors of the surrounding area.
Also, a group of environmentalists filed an intervention petition opposing the project, citing disruptions to the habitats of wildlife, including the eastern box turtle.
The commission began hearing testimony on the proposal in February, and continued the public hearing several times. After closing the hearing on May 7, it scheduled a special meeting on May 28 to vote before the June 11 deadline.
On Wednesday, Town Attorney Robert DeCrescenzo told the commission the petitioners’ burden was “to prove that the proposed activity was likely to unreasonably pollute the air, water and natural resources.”
“It can’t be mere speculation,” he said. “It has to be based on expert testimony and documents submitted by experts in the area.”
Commissioners denied the petition, finding that the interveners’ concerns were speculative.
However, the commission found that the application itself did not meet the standards for approval.
Commissioners said that the project was likely to adversely impact the wetlands and watercourses, could harm the hydrology of the wetlands by changing infiltration and runoff characteristics, and that the applicant’s biological assessment was unsatisfactory.
Specifically, commissioners said that pollutants, particularly salt, could discharge downstream and pollute wetlands.
The town’s wetlands regulations require an applicant to present “reasonable and prudent alternatives” – a burden some commissioners thought the applicant did not meet.
“There are other potential, feasible and prudent alternatives which may have … less impact on the wetlands and watercourse,” said Commission Chair Margery C.B. Winters. “The applicant focused their reasonable and prudent discussion on engineering alternatives to (wetlands) crossing, but did not expand to the commission satisfaction consideration of alternative layouts which would have reduced grading impacts on wetlands.”
The commission also suggested that the units could be clustered to reduce the overall footprint of the project.
In denying the application, the commission requested the following changes if the applicant files a new application:
- A more comprehensive hydrologic study, including existing and post project, water quality and flow expectations within the project area;
- Consideration of alternative methods, including a lower-impact development design in the stormwater management plan;
- Revised construction phasing plan that would result in lower adverse impacts;
- More comprehensive integrated pest management plan;
- Comprehensive biological assessment of the entire site area.
