A group of homeowners this week resumed the campaign to block an upscale senior living complex from clearing woodlands to build 40 more homes, and the local conservation commission could decide by early February whether the controversial plan goes forward.
The not-for-profit McLean facility contends that it can responsibly build on a small part of its 125-acre property near the Massacoe State Forest, and argues that Simsbury has a strong demand for more senior housing.
Many current McLean residents support its proposal, saying medical care and general service at the campus are both outstanding.
But nearby homeowners contend the proposal would be an environmental disaster, create flooding nearby and continue what they see as a trend toward overdevelopment of the once-rural town.
Last year McLean asked for permission to build 52 new homes duplex homes that would range from 1,600 to 2,200 square feet. They would be marketed to seniors seeking independent living facilities in a community setting; McLean already has about 130 independent living units along with roughly 70 assisted-living spaces and 90 nursing care beds.
That plan was rejected last May when the conservation commission decided it could risk damage to wetlands, and McLean Associates Inc. has since returned with a downsized version. It proposes 40 duplexes, and hoped that scaling back its original proposal would satisfy opponent.
But at a hearing this week, neighbor John Bunn said still called it a “reckless” proposal risking “irreversible consequences” for neighbors and the ecosystem around Great Pond.
“We recognize the need in town for senior housing, we want McLeans to be successful and we want the town’s grand list to increase,” he said. “However, that needs to be done with integrity and care for the environment in a way that prioritizes those most in need. This plan does none of that.”
But current McLean resident Larry Schmitt questioned whether any variation of the plan would be enough to satisfy opponents.
“They seem to prefer the status quo. The problem with the status quo is that it doesn’t move Simsbury forward,” Schmitt said.
“These units will be built somewhere. Why not Simsbury? When they are built and occupied, Simsbury will benefit from the tax revenue with no impact on the education system,” Schmitt said. “And there will be 40 beautiful residences for seniors who may want to move to Simsbury or stay in Simsbury to live out their final years.”
Schmitt also called McLean a good steward of the environment, noting that it has extensive landscaping and trees on its property and maintains a 1,400-acre wildlife preserve.
Bunn offered a different account, urging commissioners to focus on environmental protection.
“You have to contend with a continual onslaught of PR from the McLean PR machine and pressure from town officials only interested in increasing the grand list,” Bunn told them. “Given McLean’s stellar reputation, it is shocking to see them put forth such a reckless proposal.”
Opponents said McLean’s plan would cut down 17 acres of trees and add 7 acres of impervious surfaces, worsening the periodic flooding that’s already a concern.
“It will destroy a natural system that currently provides drainage and habitat,” Bunn said.
Residents from both sides of the issue have submitted extensive written testimony to the commission.
Joe Williams, McLean’s attorney, said the revised proposal won’t damage wetlands. He noted that state law requires wetlands agencies to consider the intent of any proposal they review, and said there are good reasons to authorize McLean’s plan.
“It advances McLean’s mission, there’s a tremendous need for more housing, and McLean needs it to survive and thrive as nonprofit in a competitive industry,” Williams said.
He said 40 is the minimum number of homes that McClean needs for the project to be financially viable.
Commissioners unanimously agreed to deliberate on the proposal at their Feb. 3 meeting.