Simsbury agency finds McLean senior‑housing plan may significantly affect wetlands; orders third‑party review, schedules public hearing

The Simsbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Agency voted unanimously that McLean’s revised Meadow Homes application (CC‑25‑025) may have a significant impact on wetlands and watercourses, directed staff to solicit independent third‑party engineering and wetland reviews, and scheduled a public hearing for Dec. 16, 2025, at 7 p.m. at the Blueberry of Simsbury.

The Meadow Homes proposal, presented by attorneys and consultants for McLean, seeks to construct approximately 40 residential units at the existing retirement community at 75 Ray Pond Road. Attorney T.J. Donahue said the project was revised after earlier feedback and ecological study, and described it as “designed to meet a clear and pressing need for high quality homes that allow older adults to remain close to their families and support networks.”

Why it matters: the application requests work in regulated upland review areas adjacent to mapped wetlands, and the applicant’s materials describe 3.09 acres of upland review disturbance, zero direct wetland disturbance, and roughly 1,300 square feet of indirect wetland clearing tied to a single proposed wetland crossing. The commission’s motion places the project under a heightened review standard that will require the applicant and reviewers to evaluate feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed plan.

What the applicant presented: Joseph (Joe) Williams, attorney for McLean, and consultants from SLR Consulting outlined changes from the prior submission. The project was reduced from a previously proposed 52 units to about 40 units; one of two previously proposed wetland crossings was eliminated and the remaining crossing is proposed as a clear‑span structure intended to avoid excavation or fill within wetlands. SLR’s civil engineer Tom Daley described stormwater upgrades that the applicant says will bring a basin on site up to 2024 DEP standards, add rain gardens and low‑impact design features, and maintain the predevelopment water volume to the wetlands through a series of water‑balance calculations.

Environmental studies and species concerns: McLean submitted a biological assessment covering the entire property and a wetland impact assessment. Consultant Matt Samford (senior wetland scientist) summarized fauna and flora inventories and said the team worked with herpetologist Dennis Quinn after Quinn’s tracking data showed eastern box turtles nesting and hibernating in a central area of the site. Williams said McLean moved development out of that central area on Quinn’s recommendation. Samford told the commission the plan includes “best management practices for that species.”

Commission actions and next steps: The agency took three formal actions on the application during the meeting: - It voted that application CC‑25‑025 may have a significant impact on wetlands and watercourses (motion passed; vote recorded as unanimous “aye”). - It found the application met the town code criteria for a “large and complex” project and directed staff to develop a scope and solicit proposals from on‑call engineering and wetland consultants for independent peer review; the action passed unanimously. The applicant indicated it does not object to a third‑party review; the board of selectmen must later approve the peer‑review contract and the applicant will pay the cost per town practice. - It scheduled a public hearing on Dec. 16, 2025, at 7 p.m. at the Blueberry of Simsbury to receive public comment.

What remains to be resolved: Commissioners and staff discussed timing for selecting a peer‑review firm and noted constraints in scheduling: staff said it would present at least two proposals from on‑call firms for the agency to select and then ask the board of selectmen to approve the dollar amount before work begins. The agency chair and staff recommended a peer review before the public hearing so findings can inform the hearing record; staff indicated a December hearing date is likely given the time needed for review.

Quotes from the record: Williams told the agency that “McLean agrees that it’s in the public interest for the commission to hold a hearing,” and consultant Matt Samford said the project team had “provided that protection, that best management practices for that species.” T.J. Donahue described McLean’s conservation record and the Meadow Homes project as continuing “the tradition.”

Background and context: McLean is a long‑standing local retirement and elder‑care institution; presenters said McLean’s campus totals about 110 acres and that the Meadow Homes plan was reconfigured after prior commission review. The application package provided to the commission includes a site plan, alternative designs, a drainage report, a construction phasing plan (six phases), an integrated pest management plan, soil compaction and mitigation plans, and biological and wetland assessments.

The agency will receive peer‑review scopes and cost proposals from staff, select a reviewer, and hold the public hearing on Dec. 16. Further technical findings from the independent reviewer and public comments at the hearing will inform any final agency determination on significance and permit decisions.