McLean seeks zoning changes and approval for 40-unit ‘Meadow Homes’ at Simsbury campus; neighbors raise environmental and property‑value concerns

McLean Affiliates asked the Simsbury Zoning Commission on May 1 to approve zoning text amendments and a special‑exception site plan to build 40 duplex independent‑living units, called Meadow Homes, on the southern portion of the McLean campus at 75 Great Pond Road.

Attorney Joe Williams, representing McLean and Shipman & Goodwin, told the commission the project includes two access drives, landscape enhancements, a single wetlands crossing approved by the Inland Wetlands Agency and stormwater systems designed to meet new Connecticut DEP standards. “We believe McLean is proposing a reasonable extension of its campus,” Williams said, adding the design review board and wetlands peer review had cleared the application subject to conditions.

The applicant’s presentation included project details from a multidisciplinary team. Lisa Clark, president of McLean, outlined the organization’s history and said the Meadow Homes respond to rising demand for senior life‑plan housing: “There’s a tremendous need for more senior housing and health‑care capacity,” she said. SLR Consulting’s Michael Doherty described a planting strategy, meadow restoration and invasive‑species removal intended to expand meadow habitat and protect turtle nesting areas. Engineer Tom Daley said extensive soil testing and modeling at 13 analysis points showed no net increase in peak runoff and no increased water volume to Hop Brook under the proposed stormwater system.

Williams also requested three zoning regulation changes tied to the application: deleting a 300‑foot proximity requirement in section 4.6(b) that healthcare facilities be on or within 300 feet of an arterial road; clarifying section 8.7 to exempt certain nonresidential uses (including continuing care retirement communities) from the inclusionary‑housing formula; and amending section 3.7(c) to allow limited relaxation of a 50‑foot fairway‑to‑property‑line separation when golf course and adjoining property are in common or affiliated ownership while still requiring at least 50 feet between the fairway edge and any dwelling.

Supporters from the community and McLean’s board said the project would add senior housing options while generating municipal revenue and preserving many campus services. “This proposal really responds to the need for senior housing,” Linda Skillfield said, citing a long McLean waiting list.

But many abutters and interveners urged denial or further study. Opponents raised multiple concerns: that the plan would clear meadow and woodland, fragment habitat and imperil turtles and other wildlife; that the project’s western clusters require extensive roadway and utility extensions deep into open land; and that the requested text amendments would undermine existing safeguards in the zoning code. “There is no conceivable scenario where the Meadow Homes development would not have an adverse impact on surrounding property values,” said John Picot, who submitted a written guide to the commission.

Several residents pressed the commission on legal and regulatory points. Abutter David Pluta and others argued the 300‑foot arterial rule in section 4.6(b) is a site‑location restriction—not merely a traffic standard—and that removing it before approving the special exception would change the town’s long‑standing locational rule for healthcare facilities. Other commenters said the layout fragments the campus and questioned whether the western cluster operates as an integrated continuing‑care retirement community (CCRC) as required under town regulations.

On technical points, interveners and third‑party reviewers asked the applicant to justify the long roadway into the meadow, the location of a large stormwater retention basin close to property lines, and the adequacy of wildlife and habitat studies. McLean’s team said the wetlands crossing avoids direct wetland impact, that they worked with a herpetologist to preserve turtle nesting habitat, and that stormwater basins were designed to current DEP guidance and peer‑review comments.

No formal vote on either the text amendments or site plan appears in the transcript; the session moved through presentation and an extended public comment period. The commission heard both the applicant’s detailed technical materials and lengthy public testimony and did not record a final decision in the provided transcript.

Next steps: the commission will consider the record, including written materials and referrals, before scheduling deliberations and any possible vote (not recorded in the transcript).