Key Points
- The Inland Wetlands Commission approved a wetlands permit for the proposed redevelopment of the former School Sisters property.
- One commissioner abstained, citing concerns about resolution language and documents referenced in the record.
- The approval allows the proposal to move to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review.
Why It Matters: The vote marks a major milestone for one of Wilton’s largest proposed redevelopment projects, advancing plans for a 280-unit senior living community while leaving broader land-use approvals still to come.
The proposed redevelopment of the former School Sisters of Notre Dame property at 329-331-345 Belden Hill Rd. has cleared a major hurdle on the path to approval.
As expected, the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) voted 4-0-1 on Thursday, Jun. 11 to approve the inland wetlands permit for Hines SL Wilton Associates LP‘s proposed redevelopment of the 38-acre parcel into a 280-unit senior living community.
The plan includes restoration of approximately 18 acres of wooded land, including 10 acres of wetland, through the installation of modern drainage systems, removal of invasive vegetation, and reintroduction of native plants was strongly contested by intervenor Kari Roberts, whose attorney argued that Hines had not demonstrated that the proposed redevelopment would not disrupt the wetland’s ecosystem, and therefore the IWC was obligated to consider “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 whose property directly abuts the SSND parcels.
However, after weeks of debate and discussion, the IWC concluded that the proposed sediment, erosion control and stormwater management plans presented by Hines would not adversely affect the wetland.
Four of the five commissioners voted to approve the application. Commissioner Janis Sposato abstained from the vote due to concerns over the wording of the resolution and the fact that internal staff emails had not been included as part of the application’s public records.
“I Guess We Have to Vote on What We Have”
Sposato, who had pushed for the IWC to request alternative proposals from Hines during the commission’s May 28 meeting, expressed three specific concerns that she believed warranted further revision of the draft resolution, prepared by IWC counsel Pete Gelderman — who was not in attendance at the Jun. 11 meeting — and Wilton’s Director of Environmental Affairs Mike Conklin.
Sposato said that the draft resolution did not include language that she had requested that would require the project’s operations and maintenance plans to be filed with the property deed.
“One of the things that I said at the last meeting that was very important to me was that the language in the resolution ensured that the monitoring requirements would be placed in the land records in such a way that they would run with the land, meaning that if Hines were to sell the property to another entity, the other entity would be equally required to continue the monitoring,” Sposato said. “I don’t see that in the resolution.”
The text of the resolution specifies:
- Prior to the commencement of any on-site permit related activity, the applicant shall file the Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan on the land records and refer to the Inland Wetlands Permit WET#25-14 for further information. The property owner shall retain maintenance records of the stormwater system onsite for the previous 5 years, and produce such records upon request from the Town.
Sposato’s concern was that the language does not explicitly state that the plan would, in her words, “run with the land,” and the absence of that language left her “very uncomfortable.”
IWC vice chair Frank Simone disagreed with Sposato’s contention that the language in the draft was not what had been agreed upon.
“So, I guess we have to vote on what we have,” Simone said.
“I Find It Hard to Vote on Something I Haven’t Seen”
Her second concern was over the wording of the commission’s findings. The resolution states that the IWC found “no adverse impact to the wetland and watercourse,” but Sposato had expected the resolution to say that the IWC had found “no substantial evidence that there would be an adverse impact.”
Sposato’s final concern was that many of the over 800 documents listed in the resolution — the bulk of which are email correspondence with Town staff — are not included in the permit application records. Conklin explained that it is not standard practice to include all routine internal correspondence, but Sposato said that “it’s hard to assume that all of them are inconsequential.”
“Well, I disagree with that,” Simone replied. “I think that anything that is of any consequence has been either brought to our attention or it’s up to us to have seen in the file. So, I’m not concerned about it.”
“I would agree with Frank,” Conklin said. “Anything of substance has been forwarded to you.”
“Well, I find it hard to vote on something I haven’t seen,” Sposato said.
“Well, fine,” Simone replied. “I would like to see us vote on it tonight.”
The Jun. 11 meeting was the last opportunity for the IWC to vote on the resolution during a regular meeting prior to the expiration of the 35-day window following the closure of the public hearing on May 14, without requesting an extension from Hines.
The wetlands permit is one of several approvals required before the project can move forward. The proposal will next be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
