Simsbury wetlands agency approves permit for 40-unit McLean project with conditions

The Simsbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency on a unanimous voice vote approved application CC 25-25 from McLean Affiliates Inc. to construct 40 residential units at the Meadow Homes at McLean, subject to ten conditions addressing erosion control, wildlife protections and monitoring.

A commissioner reading the motion said the agency ‘‘finds the interveners did not meet the substantial evidence test’’ with respect to claims that the project would ‘‘unreasonably pollute, impair or destroy’’ state waters. The motion cites expert testimony from the applicant and an independent third‑party review by Barton and Longice in concluding the proposal will not adversely impact wetlands or watercourses.

The approval includes conditions the agency said are intended to limit short‑term construction impacts and ensure long‑term performance. Key conditions require adherence to the revised site plans (Meadow Homes at McLean, plan dates Oct. 7, 2025, revised Jan. 2 and Jan. 16, 2026); implementation of turtle‑protection measures described by Dennis Quinn; monthly or biweekly erosion‑control inspection reporting during construction and after major rain events; compliance with Connecticut erosion‑control guidance (CTDEP bulletin 34); and submission of a $273,358 erosion and sediment control bond prior to issuance of a building permit.

The motion also requires that ‘‘water quality of Hopbrook shall be monitored during the construction phase of the project and post construction, and results will be submitted to the IWWA,’’ language commissioners expressly added while finalizing the conditions.

Commissioners described the application as strengthened by an independent review and design revisions: the applicant reduced unit counts, consolidated vehicle access to a single bridged wetland crossing that avoids direct wetland soil disturbance, and provided more detailed phasing and construction controls. One commissioner said the third‑party review and revised plans had ‘‘really modified their plan significantly’’ to address habitat concerns.

At the same time, members raised conservation concerns outside the wetlands‑specific approval: several commissioners said the amount of forest clearing and effects on biological diversity and forest connectivity merit further attention. The commission agreed it would compile conservation‑related comments and recommendations to forward to the zoning commission before any site‑plan action there.

The motion was seconded and approved with no recorded nays or abstentions. Staff said they will compile the conservation items, consult absent commissioners as needed, and present the commission’s recommendation to the zoning commission.

Next steps: the applicant must post the erosion bond and comply with the stated conditions before building permits are issued; the commission will prepare a conservation comment package for zoning. No litigation or appeals were recorded in the meeting minutes provided.

(Reporting note: addresses and some place names in the motion text vary in the transcript; the agency and applicant were identified in the meeting record as the Simsbury Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency and McLean Affiliates Inc., and the watercourse named for monitoring is Hopbrook.)