The Simsbury Conservation Commission on Dec. 16 heard several hours of technical presentations, third‑party peer review commentary and public testimony on McLean Affiliates’ revised proposal to build 40 duplex‑style residences (20 buildings) on the McLean campus at 75 Great Pond Road (application CC‑25‑25). The commission accepted an intervener petition and voted to continue the public hearing to Jan. 20, 2026 to allow time for written responses and additional technical evaluation.

Applicant presentation and project changes

Joe Williams, land‑use counsel for McLean, said the new application responds to the commission's earlier May denial of a 52‑unit plan. He said McLean reduced the number of units to 40, consolidated two wetland crossings into a single crossing designed as a bridge and shifted development away from a central meadow to protect important habitat areas identified by consultant Dennis Quinn.

Tom Daley of SLR Consulting and other members of the technical team summarized the engineering, hydrology and phasing approach: expanded and reconfigured stormwater basins (including a retrofit of an older Burkholder basin to current standards), rain gardens and infiltration basins designed to treat water quality up to 100‑year events, and a multi‑phase construction sequencing intended to minimize exposed disturbed areas. Daley said the team ran hydrologic analyses at multiple points along wetland corridors and concluded there would be no net increase in runoff to adjacent wetlands and Hop Brook with the proposed design and BMPs.

SLR's landscape architect Michael Doherty described a 'layered mosaic' planting approach that limits lawn to about 0.14 acres per building (roughly 6,000 sq ft), increases native shrubs and trees, targets pollinator species and uses low‑mow mixes in stormwater basins. Senior wetland scientist Matt Sanford summarized biological and wetland surveys across the 110‑acre campus, characterized several small wetlands and intermittent watercourses (noting Wetland 8 as a 1.3‑acre finger wetland and smaller Wetlands 5 and 7), and said in his professional opinion the proposed development as designed will not have an adverse effect on wetlands and watercourses on the site, given the proposed avoidance, bridging and mitigation measures.

Third‑party review and requested clarifications

The commission retained Barton Le Judas (BNL) as peer reviewer. Johanna Duffy presented BNL’s Dec. 10 memorandum, which identified areas needing clarification before a final decision: precise utility installation methods at the wetland crossing; retaining wall locations and dimensions; planting stock types and installation methods; temporary stockpile and staging locations for boulders and cut trees; the exact data from Quinn Ecological regarding box turtle locations and which of Quinn's pre‑/during‑/post‑construction measures are incorporated; the need for additional test pits in some infiltration basins; and a demolition plan for structures to be removed. BNL also recommended confirmation that certain existing basins are not federally regulated resources and asked for maintenance and access clarifications for permanent basins and easements.

Intervener petition and public testimony

The commission agreed to accept an intervener petition; intervenors Andrew Grossman and Kevin Grigg argued the application remains incomplete and urged rejection rather than continuance. Their concerns centered on what they described as insufficient biological data, potential loss of roughly 19–20 acres of forest, increased impervious area adjacent to Hop Brook, and deviations from Connecticut stormwater BMPs.

More than a dozen members of the public then provided testimony both in support and opposition. Supporters (including current McLean residents and trustees) emphasized McLean's role in providing senior housing and services, the organization's stewardship mission and changes made in the revised plan to reduce impacts. Opponents focused on habitat loss, potential effects on groundwater/nearby wells, construction‑period disturbance, and the need for more granular data and engineering details. The staff noted 61 public comments on file with the town.

Next steps and procedural timeline

The applicant proposed and the record accepted a schedule to provide written responses and any plan updates by Jan. 2, 2026; peer reviewer BNL would evaluate the responses by Jan. 13; and the commission would resume the public hearing on Jan. 20. Commissioners voted unanimously to continue the hearing to Jan. 20, allowing staff, peer reviewers and the public time to review the applicant's responses.

No final permit decision was made on Dec. 16; the hearing remains open pending the technical responses and additional peer‑review comments.