Simsbury commission continues McLean redevelopment hearing after residents, experts raise water-quality and habitat concerns

The Simsbury Inland Wetlands Commission on a continued public hearing took public and expert testimony on McLean Affiliates’ application (CC‑25‑02) to add roughly 52 residential units at its Meadow/Meadow Village campus at 75 Great Pond Road, and voted to grant intervenor status to a group of residents pending town‑attorney review and to continue the hearing to April 1 for further submissions and responses.

The proposed project covers McLean’s campus area and, as presented by the applicant team, would build 50–52 new units clustered on the site, add a road system and two wetland crossings. TJ Donahue, counsel for the applicant, and an SLR Consulting team described design revisions they say reduce impacts: moving several buildings out of the town’s 100‑foot upland review area, compressing building footprints, reducing clearing and lawn extent, and enlarging the proposed culverts. Tom Daley, a professional engineer with SLR, said the revised layout removes all buildings from the upland review area and reduces clearing by about 2.4 acres; Mike Doherty, SLR landscape architect, said proposed planting and “layered” meadow and woodland buffers would shrink lawn area by a bit more than an acre and increase native plantings.

The applicant and its consultants also described technical mitigation. Matthew Sanford, professional wetland scientist for SLR, said the two wetland crossings were placed to minimize grading and that the proposed culverts are oversized relative to the small contributing watershed “to promote small wildlife crossing under the road.” The application packet and staff presentation list about 0.15 acres of direct soil impacts at the two crossing locations in earlier materials; the applicant said it had reduced clearing and grading around the crossings and maintained a wetland restoration/enhancement area totaling roughly 17,000 square feet (about 0.44 acres).

Residents and hired experts strongly challenged the sufficiency of the revisions and the project’s downstream impacts. Jessica Franks, one of the interveners, told the commission she had submitted a letter with photos documenting eastern box turtles in the meadow and said the application’s wetland functions statement did not address “specific destruction that will occur to the wildlife habitat.” Christopher Pelsar and other neighbors said the proposal would fragment long‑standing meadow and forest habitat that residents use for walking and birding.

Independent experts called by the interveners focused on stormwater, water‑quality, and habitat risk. Engineer Steven Trinkaus said he reviewed the applicant’s stormwater materials and concluded the proposed practices “as proposed by the applicant really consist of what we consider secondary practices” and do not meet current state guidance for pollutant removal without additional testing and design changes. Trinkaus and other reviewers noted the submission used Rawls (published) infiltration rates for preliminary sizing but lacked on‑site infiltration testing and that several basins’ bottoms may be above or near glacial till or weathered bedrock; they recommended field infiltration testing now so the commission can confirm whether on‑site infiltration basins will function as claimed. Trinkaus also raised concerns that the collection/forebay details as drawn could resuspend settled sediment and that the proposed practices, without verified infiltration, may not meet the Connecticut DEP 2024 stormwater guidance or MS4 expectations for phosphorus and suspended‑solids reductions.

RIMA Ecological Services and Carrier Ecological Services (whom the interveners retained) performed a site walk and a rapid biological assessment. George Logan (RIMA) and Sigrun Gadwa (Carrier) told the commission they found evidence of an active box‑turtle population and other wildlife and described the lower portion of Wetland 8 as a wet, poorly drained system with a richer understory and moss carpets than the applicant’s materials imply. Logan summarized the interveners’ engineering and ecological concern as a likely change in watershed routing: the applicant’s revised drainage directs runoff away from a section of Wetland 8 that currently receives upland flow; the experts warned that bypassing or reducing base inflow can “dewater” wetland areas, altering vegetation, nutrient processing and wildlife use.

Commission action and next steps: The commission voted to accept the intervenor petition and grant intervenor status pending town‑attorney review. The applicant verbally agreed to extend the hearing; the commission then voted to continue the public hearing to April 1 at 7 p.m. at the library to allow time for follow‑up technical submittals, additional infiltration testing, and responses to the interveners’ expert reports. No final approval or denial was taken at this meeting.

Why it matters: The project would add tens of thousands of square feet of new impervious surface in the Hop Brook watershed, a mapped cold‑water trout fishery. Neighbors and outside experts told the commission the present record lacks the field testing and detailed pollutant‑loading analysis necessary to verify that the proposed stormwater measures will (a) capture and treat the water quality volume required by state guidance and (b) avoid adverse changes to wetlands and downstream stream channels and habitat. The commission’s acceptance of intervenor status and the continued hearing leave those technical questions open for resolution at the next session.

The commission requested—and the applicant agreed to—additional documentation including on‑site infiltration test results, clarified stormwater calculations and pollutant‑loading analysis, and a more complete functions‑and‑values (floristic/wildlife) inventory for the wetlands and adjacent buffers. The hearing will reconvene April 1 at 7 p.m. at the Simsbury Public Library.