Simsbury commission approves zoning text changes and McLean’s 40-unit Meadow Homes plan despite neighborhood objections

The Simsbury Zoning Commission voted unanimously Tuesday to approve zoning text amendments sought by McLean Affiliates and to grant site-plan and special-exception approval for Meadow Homes, a proposed expansion of the McLean health-care campus that would add 40 independent-living units.

The commission approved the text amendments — which remove a 300-foot arterial-road placement requirement for health-care facilities, clarify inclusionary-housing language for certain nonresidential uses, and modify a golf-course setback rule — before voting to approve McLean’s special exception and site plan, all by 6-0 margins.

Why it matters: Neighbors and conservation advocates said the plan would introduce higher density into an R40 area, remove meadow and woodland, alter drainage near Hot Brook and create traffic, light and noise impacts. Supporters, including health professionals and a petition of 159 signers submitted into the record, said the project would allow older residents to remain in town and that McLean has long provided subsidized care.

During public comment, Alex Rose, a property owner on Shady Lane, urged denial of both the requested zoning changes and the Meadow Homes plan, arguing the project’s “proposed density far exceeds the surrounding R40 neighborhoods” and warning of “potential flooding and pollution risk” from altered drainage near Hot Brook. Engineer Steven Trinkas, retained by neighbors, told the commission he believes the applicant’s stormwater plans do not comply with zoning section 11.1(c) and the state Department of Environmental Protection infiltration-test requirements, and he handed in a marked, technical letter for the record.

The applicant’s technical team and counsel disputed those claims. Tom Daley of SLR Consulting, the project’s civil engineer, told the commission that buildable-area calculations cited by opponents do not apply to this special-exception review and that peer review, the Inland Wetlands report and the town deputy engineer concluded the stormwater plan met quantity and quality standards. “There was not a single technical comment on the traffic study that we’ve submitted,” Daley said. Attorney Joe Williams, representing McLean, said the wetlands agency, conservation commission and town staff have provided recommendations and that the revised plan reduced unit count after wetlands feedback.

Commissioners weighed competing concerns. Some members said the 300-foot arterial rule had not been enforced for decades around the McLean campus and that the proposed changes are reasonable; others urged careful monitoring of buffer plantings. In their motion approving ZC26-07, commissioners included conditions requiring substantial conformance with the site plan dated 10/07/2025 (revised 05/04/2026), compliance with the McLean Homes design-review submission, all Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency (IWWA) modifications, tree-protection and invasive-species specifications, and prior to building permit issuance an erosion and sediment-control bond in the amount of $273,358.

The commission also recorded the factual record on other contested points: opponents presented viewshed images and a property-value analysis; the applicant submitted an 80-page biological assessment and third-party peer reviews. The commission closed the public hearing after the applicant’s rebuttal and moved to deliberations, then took the two votes in sequence.

What’s next: The approvals carry specific conditions and require the applicant to meet the IWWA and town engineering requirements and post the bond before permits are issued. Several commissioners suggested exploring conservation easements for undeveloped portions of the site to protect long-term open space; no final conservation easement was required in the motion. The commission adjourned at about 8:28 p.m.