School Sisters Redevelopment Poised to Win Wetlands Approval After IWC Finds No Evidence of Harm

Wilton’s Inland Wetlands Commission indicated last Thursday that it sees no evidence the proposed redevelopment of the former School Sisters of Notre Dame property would adversely affect wetlands, clearing the way for approval after rejecting arguments from a neighboring property owner that the applicant should be required to consider alternatives.

In a straw poll taken after more than an hour of discussion at their May 28 meeting, all five commissioners signaled their intent to approve the application, agreeing that the proposed work at 329-331-345 Belden Hill Rd. by Hines SL Wilton Associates LP would have no adverse impacts on the approximately 10 acres of wetland located on the site.

Commissioners also agreed that legal and environmental experts representing third-party intervenor Kari Roberts — whose property at 9 New Canaan Rd. abuts the site’s northwest corner — had not submitted sufficient evidence to require Hines to present “feasible and prudent alternatives.”

Editor’s note: Roberts is a member of Wilton’s Board of Finance. She is participating in this proceeding as a private property owner.

“From what I’ve seen, there is ample evidence, the applicant has responded appropriately and I don’t think the intervenor has met the burden of proof,” IWC vice chair Frank Simone said.

Commissioners Agree to Include Independent Consultant’s Recommendations in Resolution

Hines is proposing to redevelop the 38-acre parcel — formerly a retirement community for the religious order and a 40-bed skilled nursing care facility — into a senior living community with 280 residential independent living, assisted living and memory care units. The Hines plan calls for preserving the facility’s distinctive chapel as a common-use space and constructing two underground parking garages to reduce the amount of impervious surface.

The plan also proposes to restore the site’s 18 acres of wooded land — which includes the 10 acres of wetland — by installing improved drainage, removing invasive vegetation, and reintroducing native plants.

Neighbors who oppose the proposed plans have expressed concern that the project could disrupt the groundwater replenishment of private wells and that the outdoor lighting could disrupt wildlife migration and mating patterns.

Experts from Tighe & Bond, the engineering firm hired by the IWC to independently review the plans submitted by Hines,
concluded that the project would not adversely affect the property’s undeveloped land. However, they did propose several recommendations for standard conditions of approval that Hines would have to meet, including:

• Filing the operations and maintenance plan for the sediment and erosion control and stormwater management systems with the Town of Wilton land records
• Ensuring maintenance records and inspection reports are maintained and made publicly available
• Monitoring the health of new plantings in the woodland and wetland areas for at least three years, providing annual reports to Wilton’s Director of Environmental Affairs Mike Conklin.

Requiring Alternatives Would Risk Appeal, Commissioner Told

During Thursday’s discussion, commissioner Janis Sposato expressed concern that the public record appeared to be “very thin on the question of feasible and prudent alternatives” due to the potential for risk of harm to the wetland ecosystem.”

“I still think there’s a risk,” Sposato said. And I still think that the public and the interveners have a right to expect us to look at alternatives.”

Several commissioners pushed back on Sposato’s suggestion, pointing out that if the commission finds that the proposed sediment, erosion control and stormwater management plans presented by Hines would not adversely affect the wetland, then the IWC has no grounds for requesting — and Hines has no obligation to present — alternatives.

IWC counsel Pete Gelderman explained that, because the public hearing was closed during the May 14 IWC meeting, the commission cannot introduce new information such as alternative designs unless Hines agrees to extend the process. For that to happen, Gelderman said, the commission would first have to conclude there would be an adverse impact on the wetlands — with scientific evidence as support — and deny the application.

The “threshold question” for the commission, Gelderman explained, is whether there is “evidence of an adverse impact that’s supported by that substantial evidence and that evidence is … neither speculative nor a mere possibility.”

“I’m not saying [the evidence] is or isn’t there, but if that’s not there, then the commission would vote to approve this based on the fact that there’s no adverse impact,” Gelderman said. “I’m not here to influence anybody’s vote, that’s for sure. I just want to make sure that everybody understands how this is going to be reviewed by a court.”

Intervenor’s Ecologist Did Not Provide Evidence of Adverse Impact

Commissioner Jay Rooney noted that George Logan, a senior ecologist with Rema Ecological Services representing the intervenor, identified 10 tests that neither Hines nor Tighe & Bond had performed — including groundwater monitoring, measurements drainage channel stability, and sedimentation measurement — and wondered whether the lack of those data might justify turning down the application.

“You’ll note, after those bullet points, [Logan] doesn’t make a conclusion,” Gelderman said. “It doesn’t conclude with a statement that, ‘Therefore, there’s an adverse impact.'”

“I don’t believe any of these — and Mike [Conklin] can correct me if I’m wrong here — are requirements on the applicant to provide for the application,” Terry said.

“Correct,” Conklin responded. “And if … there was something that jumped out at me earlier on in the process, I would have asked for it, especially if there were going to be some negative impacts.”

“Whose Fault is That?”

As Sposato pressed the commission to try and find a way to consider alternatives, the discussion occasionally grew tense as commissioners debated how that would work.

“If we deny this application, we are denying it because we as a commission believe there is no adverse impact based upon the record, including some alternatives that were presented, okay?” Simone said. “Because I don’t want an appeal coming in here that basically somehow questions that we didn’t make the right decision based upon some faulty thought of what the law was.”

“Well, I question that,” Sposato said. “Those alternatives were not analyzed or considered …”

“Whose fault is that?” Simone interrupted.

Later in the discussion, Sposato said she felt “boxed in” by her inability to require Hines to present alternatives, but acknowledged that this was the result of her unfamiliarity with the commission’s procedures.

“I’m a new commissioner,” she said. “Next time I’ll know better.”

“That’s okay, it’s fine,” IWC chair Jason Terry replied. “We’re all individuals here, right? And we’re all asking the right questions and doing our best in order to make sure this is properly evaluated, right? Which I think we’ve, frankly, as a commission, done a pretty good job of and had a really good discussion here.”

IWC to Review Resolution and Vote During Jun. 11 Meeting

With the IWC’s approval, Conklin and Gelderman will now draft a resolution to include the three sets of conditions proposed by Tighe & Bond, and to also stipulate that Hines should pay for the monitoring. The resolution will also include language proposed by Sposato, and agreed to by the other commissioners, that the operations and maintenance plans be transferred to subsequent owners in the event that the property is sold.

To ensure the permit application is voted on within the 35-day window following the closure of the public hearing, the IWC will have to vote on the resolution at its Jun. 11 meeting or seek approval from Hines for an extension.

Following the discussion, Gelderman praised the commissioners for their diligence in deliberating the complex and sometimes contentious application.

“I’m very impressed with this commission” Gelderman said. “I’m really impressed with everybody’s process, thought process, review process and comprehension of what you’re actually doing. I just don’t always see that, but it’s nice to see.”