Simsbury conservation hearing on McLean ‘Meadow Homes’ focuses on two wetland crossings, stormwater mitigation and landscape plan

The Simsbury Conservation Commission held a public hearing on an application from McLean Retirement (75 Grapevine Road) for a wetlands permit tied to a 52‑unit expansion called “Meadow Homes,” project planners said.

Planning Director George McGregor opened the presentation, saying the application was deemed potentially significant at the commission’s Jan. 21 meeting and noting the sequence of reviews: wetlands commission action must precede any zoning special‑exception or site‑plan review. “Wetlands review has to happen first,” McGregor said.

Tom Naley, a professional engineer with SLR Consulting, described the proposal as 26 duplex buildings (52 units) on the roughly 110‑acre McLean campus. Naley said the team located two roadway crossings at the narrowest points in the on‑site wetland corridor and described the crossings as box culverts set into native material. “Both crossings are going to be completed, accomplished with a box culvert,” Naley said, adding each culvert is proposed at 3 feet high by 6 feet wide.

SLR’s wetlands scientist, Marilee Antal, described the site’s wetlands as roughly 13 acres across the campus and said the application affects primarily three smaller wetland features in the southern parcel. Antal summarized the permit request: 6,600 square feet (about 0.15 acres) of direct wetland impact from the two culvert crossings and roughly five acres of disturbance within the town’s 100‑foot upland review area; she said about one acre would become new impervious surface. Antal said the team will provide approximately 0.4 acres of native wetland planting as mitigation and that, in her professional opinion, the plan “does not have, at first, impacts to the wetlands on‑site” when considered with the proposed mitigation.

Naley and the civil team also presented a detailed stormwater analysis. Using NOAA rainfall data and Connecticut design standards, Naley said the proposed basins were sized to provide water‑quality treatment and to control peak discharge through the 2‑ to 100‑year storms. He told the commission the analysis shows a net decrease in peak runoff to Hopbrook under proposed conditions — “a slight decrease in runoff for all storm events,” with modeled reductions in peak discharge to Hopbrook in the range the team reports as about 4.5% to 11% depending on storm magnitude. He also said the area that drains toward an adjacent neighborhood (WS‑42/Country Club area) would be reduced from about 5.66 acres under existing conditions to 3.8 acres under the proposal, and that modeled peak flows to that watershed would drop by roughly 11%–21%.

Michael Doherty, SLR’s landscape architect, presented a multilayered planting and habitat plan intended to speed revegetation and offset construction disturbance. Doherty described dense, layered plantings — native trees, shrubs and meadow species — around the crossings and in stormwater basins; he said the plan will use a mix of plant sizes (from plugs to 3–3.5‑inch caliper trees) and will retain woody debris in undisturbed areas to support wildlife.

Several neighbors and residents spoke during public comment, expressing concerns about water, wildlife, tree clearing and long‑term impacts. Jim Montocchio, a longtime neighbor, described recurring basement watermarks on his property and said water movement is his principal concern. “I have 4 in my basement, 4, watermarks,” Montocchio said. Another resident said the meadow and wetlands are critical wildlife habitat and warned that development “is gone for good” once open land is built. Jessica Franks, a resident who said she moved to Country Club Drive in 2021, told the commission she chose her home because of the area’s open water and wildlife and urged care in review: “We moved into our home in the summer of 2021, in large part because of the magnificent active voice of water behind our home.”

Members of the applicant team addressed construction‑phase details during the hearing: Naley described retaining walls near the crossings to reduce grading, deep sediment zones in catch basins, water‑quality chambers ahead of basin discharge and the use of level spreaders and vegetated basins to reduce concentrated outflows. Antal said the wetlands in the crossing areas are seasonally saturated, groundwater‑supported features with limited surface flow and relatively sparse understory; she said invasive species were present but not widespread. Doherty said invasive plants would be removed as part of construction and ongoing landscape maintenance.

The hearing record contains multiple requests from residents for additional information and for sediment/erosion protections that avoid plastic netting. The applicant said erosion control would use wood‑fiber spray mats and straw that break down over time rather than plastic netting, and that timing and seed choices would be selected according to season and site stability.

No formal wetlands permit decision or zoning action was made at the Conservation Commission hearing. The commission will consider the public record and regulatory standards for wetlands and upland review area impacts; any wetlands decision must be resolved before the project moves to zoning for special‑exception and site‑plan review.

Questions and requests from commissioners and residents at the hearing focused on stormwater modeling inputs and outputs, the precise limits of clearing, long‑term maintenance of mitigation plantings and whether the crossings and adjacent grading would create barriers to wildlife movement. The applicant provided site‑specific modeling claims and a mitigation plan but did not commit to specific changes beyond the materials presented during the hearing. The public record for the application includes a packet of technical reports and neighborhood correspondence provided to the commission in advance.

The Conservation Commission hearing is an advisory regulatory step; the application will return as required through wetlands and then zoning review. The town’s wetlands regulations and the zoning code will guide the commission’s permit decision, and the applicant said changes had been made in response to early comments from the town engineer prior to the hearing.