Neighbor Files Court Challenge to Inland Wetlands Approval of School Sisters Redevelopment as P&Z Review Begins

Wilton resident Kari Roberts is appealing the recent decision by the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC) to grant a significant regulated activity permit to Hines SL Wilton Associates LP to redevelop the former School Sisters of Notre Dame property at ‌ 329-331-345 Belden Hill Rd. into a senior living community with 280 residential independent living, assisted living and memory care units. Roberts, an intervenor during the IWC’s public hearing process whose property abuts the School Sisters parcel, filed suit in Connecticut Superior Court on Jul. 1 arguing that the decision was “illegal, arbitrary, and in abuse of the discretion invested in the [IWC].”

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.

Hines, which in under contract to acquire the property, obtained approvals for the project from the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) before applying to the IWC seeking approval for its sediment, erosion control and stormwater management plans to restore the approximately 10 acres of wetland on the 38-acre property. After a lengthy public hearing process, the commission voted on Jun. 11 to approve the application, finding that the development would not adversely affect the wetland. Commissioner Janis Sposato abstained from the vote because of concerns over the wording of the resolution and the fact that the application’s public records did not include some internal staff emails.

Here’s a look at what we know so far about Roberts’ appeal:

What is the intervenor claiming?

Intervenor Kari Roberts, in her capacity as the trustee of the Kari Skilbred Roberts Revocable Trust, says the IWC’s decision violated its “procedures, standards, and requirements” and was not “reasonably based” on the record submitted to the IWC.

The complaint makes four specific claims regarding the IWC’s decision:

• It was not in accordance with the procedures, standards and requirements set forth in the [Town] Regulations and in the Connecticut General Statutes
• It was not reasonably based upon the record before the IWC
• The application from Hines was incomplete and failed to provide information necessary for issuance of the decision
• The IWC’s decision was incomplete.

Roberts argues that, as a result, she has been aggrieved in three ways: statutorily, as the owner of an adjacent property; by virtue of her status as an intervenor; and because the development will “negatively impact the use, enjoyment, and value” of her property.

What are the defendants claiming?

As of press time, neither the IWC nor Hines has filed a response to the complaint.

What is the current status of the Hines project?

On Jul. 10, following the IWC’s approval, Hines applied for a special permit and site plan approval, and a regulation change with the Wilton Planning & Zoning Department. Hines will have to obtain approval of these applications from the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) for the redevelopment project to continue.

Will P&Z have to pause its consideration of Hines’ applications until the case is decided?

Filing an administrative appeal does not automatically invalidate the commission’s approval, although it may affect how related approvals proceed while the litigation is pending.

During P&Z’s Jul. 13 meeting, Director of Planning and Land Use Management Michael Wrinn said the town will seek an opinion from legal counsel before proceeding with P&Z’s review of the applications. Furthermore, should P&Z proceed with the application review, counsel will be available throughout the public hearing process to provide the commissioners with legal advice as required.

UPDATE, Wednesday, Jul. 15: Wrinn emailed GOOD Morning Wilton with an update from the Town’s attorney, who said, “The fact that there is a pending court appeal of wetlands has no relevance to the P&Z. They need to proceed in accordance with the statutory timeframe.” Wrinn added that as a result, the town will move ahead with the application process, “as we normally do with any application.”

What factors will the court be considering?

The court will likely review the documents included in Hines’ application for a special activity permit — including its plans for sediment and erosion control and stormwater management, and the third-party review of the plans by the IWC’s independent expert, Tighe & Bond.

Also likely to be examined is the administrative record, including the application, any other reports from experts and Wilton’s land use department staff, any exhibits, correspondence that was made part of the record, hearing and meeting deliberation transcripts, the commission’s findings and the written resolution in order to establish whether the IWC’s decision was illegal, arbitrary or represented an abuse of its discretion in any of the four ways listed in the complaint.

How do courts typically evaluate wetlands appeals like this?

The court will consider whether the IWC followed the procedures required by law and properly considered all of the documentation submitted not just by Hines and Tighe & Bond in support of the application, but also by the outside experts brought in by the intervenor to challenge it. As for the claim that the application and decision were incomplete, those arguments will likely be developed in subsequent briefs filed with the court for the judge to assess.

Connecticut courts generally give local land use commissions considerable deference when there is substantial evidence supporting their decisions, though each appeal turns on the specific administrative record and legal claims presented.

Looking at past Superior Court cases involving Wilton’s Inland Wetlands Commission, the three cases heard by the Superior Court over the past five years have produced two rulings that were favorable to the IWC (one each as plaintiff and defendant) and a third that resulted in a negotiated settlement.

What happens next?

Roberts’ attorney, Joel Green, issued a summons to the Town of Wilton and Hines on Jul. 1. It specifies that the attorneys representing the defendants must file a written statement of appearance with the clerk of the Connecticut Superior Court in Stamford on Aug. 25. The clerk of the court will then schedule dates for events such as hearings and a trial.

GOOD Morning Wilton will continue to follow the case as it develops.

Correction: An earlier version of the story misidentified Hines SL Wilton Associates as the owner of the Belden Hill property. Hines does not own the property but is under contract to purchase it.

Editor’s note: The story has been updated with new information from the Planning and Zoning Department indicating that Town Counsel believes the appeal of the Inland Wetlands decision has no bearing on the application in front of the P&Z Commission.