Clock Resets on Hines Application for School Sisters Property Redevelopment

The decision by Hines SL Wilton Associates LP’s to withdraw its applications to redevelop the former School Sisters of Notre Dame property from consideration by Wilton’s Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) now resets the clock for the controversial proposal that has mobilized significant public interest both for and against the plan. The pause presents an opportunity to review some of the key issues that will affect the decisions that will be made about the future of the property.

Hines’ decision to withdraw the applications came just one week after the commission voted to hold separate public hearings on Hines’ two applications — one for its proposed changes to the zoning regulations and the other for approval of a special permit and the proposed site construction plan.

In her Oct. 5 letter to Director of Planning and Land Use Management Michael Wrinn requesting the withdrawal, Hines’ attorney Lisa Feinberg explained that after initially requesting a two-week continuance, the developer “had time to reflect” and believed that it would be better to slow down the application process.

The letter proffered two reasons for the decision to reset the clock on the application:

• The “significant public comment” received prior to the meeting, which was overwhelmingly opposed to Hines’ proposal
• P&Z’s rationale for conducting a separate hearing for the proposed zoning text amendment, which P&Z Chair Ken Hoffman described as “unique enough” from other applications to warrant separate consideration

“We believe that slowing the process down and having an opportunity to hear from the Commission is important,” Feinberg wrote, noting that four of the eight current commissioners were not involved in P&Z’s pre-application review in May 2025.

In her letter, Feinberg also made a point of mentioning that P&Z had only notified Hines of its decision to hear each application separately on the same day that the public hearing was scheduled to begin — Sept. 28. At that meeting, Feinberg argued that the decision was “fundamentally unfair” because the developer had been led to understand that the two hearings would be held at the same time — a point she underscored in her letter to Wrinn.

However, Feinberg’s letter concluded on a conciliatory note. “The Applicants remain committed to providing the best possible project for the community and are hopeful that, by hearing from the Commission, without the pressure of a pending application and statutory timeline to process it, we can have a transparent dialogue and adjust accordingly,” she wrote.

Public Comments Cite Concerns About Traffic Impacts, POCD Compatibility

The issues raised by Feinberg in her letter are reflected in the public comments submitted to P&Z before and since the Sept. 28 meeting. Prior to the meeting, over 115 public comments had been posted to the commission’s website, approximately 95% of which were opposed to the application. Two of the most frequently cited concerns in the public comments were increases to traffic and incompatibility with the 2019 Wilton Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).

The traffic study submitted by Hines concluded that, at peak hours, the traffic generated by the proposed 280 residential independent living, assisted living and memory care units along Belden Hill Rd. at the New Canaan Rd./Wolfpit Rd. intersection would be less than a low-rise multifamily housing development and roughly equivalent to the existing facilities if they were fully occupied.

The Hines traffic report, prepared by SLR International, argues that the real issue is the current state of the intersection, which is to the northeast of the property. “The intersection … is currently operating at a poor [level of service] during peak hours and will continue to operate poorly regardless of this development,” the report states.

However, as noted in a peer review traffic study commissioned by the Planning and Zoning Department and carried out by the consulting firm NV5, the applicant’s study did not compare the hypothetical traffic generated by the proposed facility to existing traffic near the intersection. NV5 recommended that additional traffic studies be conducted along the three nearby intersections along Belden Hill Rd. SLR also did not analyze traffic into and out of the nearby Miller-Driscoll School, which many residents commented on.

Another issue raised by community members opposing the proposed continuing care retirement community (CCRC) is dueling interpretations of the POCD.

Throughout the pre-application review process and in its formal application to P&Z, Hines has claimed a CCRC meets the POCD’s goals of diversifying its housing stock and emphasis on providing opportunities for senior residents to “age in place.” However, opponents cite the POCD’s emphasis on “predominantly low-density residential neighborhoods” to help “preserve the natural environment and historic, rural and village design character of the community.” The property, they point out, is not currently zoned for a dense multifamily development.

Asked whether public opposition played a role in the decision to separate the hearings or withdraw the applications, Alissa Brady of the Wilton Neighbors Alliance (WNA), which opposes the proposal, distinguished comments about the development from comments about the hearing process.

“While there was an overwhelming public response to the proposed changes, there were few if any comments about the hearing process itself; you would need to ask P&Z about what they considered in their decision,” Brady wrote in response to questions from GOOD Morning Wilton.

The withdrawal has not changed the group’s position or its plans to continue informing residents about the proposal.

“Our position hasn’t changed: Wilton needs more senior housing, but not the way Hines proposed it,” Brady wrote. “Wilton’s zoning regulations should not be rewritten for one developer and one property.”

She said WNA believes dense development belongs on Danbury Rd., Westport Rd. and River Rd., where the group says P&Z has identified appropriate locations for greater housing density.

“We will continue to educate residents with facts taken directly from the application materials and public material such as Wilton’s Zoning Regulations, Wilton’s POCD and meeting minutes of various Commissions,” Brady wrote.

GMW also sought comment from Support the Sisters, which supports the proposed redevelopment, but had not received a response by publication time.

UPDATE — Thursday, Oct. 8, 11 a.m.: GMW spoke with Support the Sisters founder David Rintoul, who believes that Hines’ decision to withdraw the applications under the circumstances was the right call.

“I think it’s an intelligent reaction to this difficult situation,” he said. “This is like not just changing the rules at half time, but telling you about the change in rules as you’re walking out on the field.”

Rintoul said that despite it causing a delay in P&Z reaching a conclusion, the step back will provide Hines the opportunity to explain the proposal to the commissioners who were not involved in the last pre-application review. However, he argued that separating the proposed text amendment changes from the site plan application risked losing important context.

That being said, Rintoul said he sees the benefit of an extended period of public discussion about the proposal now that there is widespread awareness about it.

“I fully expect by the time decisions are made, there is going to be real evidence of a real groundswell of opinion in favor of the project,” Rintoul said. “If you’re counting noses, as we’ve discussed before, the party of no change is always going to have more people than the party for smart change. But I think it will become increasingly evident the support the project has.”

Proposed Changes to the Zoning Regulations Concern P&Z

The question of the property’s zoning is the other main point raised in Feinberg’s letter. During the Sept. 28 P&Z meeting, Hoffman cited the “unique” nature of Hines’ proposed changes to the town’s zoning regulations as the reason for holding a separate public hearing for those changes first, followed by a hearing on the actual special permit and site plan application for the CCRC itself.

Many development proposals that come before P&Z include a request related to zoning, typically for the town to rezone the property for a different use. What Hines has proposed, however, is more substantial, with a change to the text of the zoning regulations rather than a rezoning of the property — adding a new property use for CCRCs and also proposing a new method of assessing building height for buildings constructed on “large sloping sites with dramatic grade changes [that make] it difficult or impracticable to measure building height” using the definitions in the existing regulations.

Hines’ proposed amendments would allow CCRCs to be constructed in R2A and R-1A residential zones through the granting of a special permit by P&Z. CCRCs would be limited to sites of at least 30 acres — including wetlands and watercourses — and with a minimum frontage of 150 feet from roads. The proposal also outlines area and bulk requirements for the new CCRC use, while aligning its architectural design, outdoor recreational amenities, and utility placement requirements with the existing regulations for senior housing. It also calls for deed restricting at least 10% of the total number of non-memory care units as affordable housing.

There is also a timing factor to consider: Wilton is in the early stages of a 16-month comprehensive rewrite of its zoning regulations, expected to be completed in October 2027. Any substantive changes made to the regulations now would have to be considered in the updated version as well.

Property Valuation Questions

In addition to the above issues, there are challenges to the valuation of the 38-acre property that remain unresolved as its proposed redevelopment moves forward.

As GOOD Morning Wilton previously reported, in April the property’s owner, SSND Real Estate Trust filed a lawsuit against the town challenging the valuation of the property by the Town Assessor’s Office and its decision to revoke property’s tax-exempt status for portions of it.

The Wilton Assessor’s Office declined to continue extending the tax-exempt status of two of the property’s three parcels after determining that their buildings were vacant and not being used for qualifying purposes. The assessor did however grant a partial exemption for the largest parcel because some office and server space was still being used.

The case is currently in the discovery phase, meaning that the town and the property owners are in the process of responding to the others’ requests to produce relevant documents.

Different development scenarios also have potential tax revenue implications for the Town: Should the property be subdivided and developed as single-family homes under R-2A zoning’s two-acre minimum lot requirement, would the combined assessed value of the individual parcels differ significantly from the assessed value of the property developed as a senior living community?

Questions About the Deed Restriction

A separate question concerns the deed restriction on the property and what rights the town may have to enforce it.

It’s a question that Wilton resident Eric Fanwick raised in a public comment during the Oct. 5 meeting of the Board of Selectmen (BOS), when he urged the BOS to enforce a deed restriction on development that Fanwick says the School Sisters negotiated with the town in 2013 in exchange for access to the town’s sewer system.

The deed restriction, which dates to 2013, stipulates that for the next 50 years the site could not be expanded by more than 10% of existing gross floor area, and that it can only be used in a manner already allowed by R-2A zoning. (While current R-2A zoning provides for certain senior housing and care uses, subject to approvals and specific requirements, Hines sought a new CCRC provision to accommodate its proposed combination of uses.) The square footage of the proposed Hines development would significantly exceed that expansion limit.

“The School Sisters of Notre Dame made a promise to the town of Wilton to forgo any additional development in exchange for access to city sewers,” testified Fanwick, who was a member of the Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) at the time the agreement was made, and has also served on the Zoning Board of Appeals and P&Z. “This promise took the form of a deed restriction on the property, and I believe they need to negotiate with Wilton if they want to have it developed.”

“It is a sad day when you can’t trust the word of a religious organization,” he added.

[Editor’s note: Fanwick is a member of Wilton’s Board of Finance. He was also a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission when the pre-application was heard. Although he identified himself as a former member of the WPCA, he did not identify his other board/commission affiliations or whether he was speaking as an individual.]

During P&Z’s pre-application hearing last May, Feinberg said that the School Sisters were prepared to release the restriction, but it was unclear whether they could do so unilaterally or if the town would need to sign off on the release as well.

Fanwick explained that the School Sisters requested permission from the town to connect with a planned extension of the sewer system to the nearby Miller-Driscoll School, which would be less expensive than constructing a private septic system.

“At the time, the WPCA was concerned that if the facility was to ever be closed and sold, that development would far exceed the two-acre zoning that now existed for the property,” Fanwick said. “Toward that end, the town, agreed to the easement on the condition that no development beyond what is currently on the property would take place for a period of 50 years except for the 10%.” Fanwick said that this assurance was what persuaded him to vote in favor of the extension.

Fanwick said that he neither opposed nor supported Hines’ proposal to construct a CCRC on the property, “but it seems to me that the town owns the development rights to this property and the difference in the value of the property between what is now being proposing and what is allowed under current deed and zoning regulation should accrue to the Town Of Wilton.”

“Nobody seems concerned that we exercise our property rights,” he added.

Fanwick called on P&Z to delay action on the application and refer the question to the BOS to consider the Town’s rights in the matter, and encouraged the BOS “to communicate with both the School Sisters of Notre Dame and Hines our intention to enforce that deed restriction.”

What Will Happen to the Steps Already Completed?

Since Hines submitted its proposal, the developer, the Town of Wilton, intervenor Kari Roberts, and community members both in favor of an opposed to the proposal have invested significant time in making their cases on the best use of the former School Sisters property. How much of that work done on behalf of the original application will be allowed to carry over to the new one? GMW asked Director of Planning and Land Use Management Michael Wrinn for more information.

Will the intervenor will have standing to participate in the pre-application review process, or is their involvement limited to the public hearing stage? And should the new pre-application reach the formal application stage, will the intervenor have to petition again for intervenor status, or will their current intervenor status automatically “carry over” to the new application?

Wrinn said a petition to intervene would likely not be appropriate to a non-binding, informational pre-application because it does not involve public comment. If Hines submits a new application, his staff will confer with Town Counsel as to whether the previously submitted intervenor petition could be applied to the new application.

Once Hines submits a request for a pre-application review, are there time limits within which a pre-application review must be held, as there are for regular applications? Or are they scheduled at P&Z’s discretion?

Wrinn explained that the pre-application can be scheduled at P&Z’s discretion. The Oct. 13 meeting had already been reserved for the public hearing for the now-withdrawn applications, and Wrinn called it “the natural spot” to hear Hines’ pre-application if it is ready in time.

Will Hines have to proceed through the review processes of other commissions — WPCA, the Inland Wetlands Commission (IWC), the Historic District & Historical Property Commission (HDHPC), and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) — again as well? Or will those previous opinions remain binding? Or will that all depend on the scale and scope of changes in the new proposal?

Wrinn said that if the new application has no changes from the previous, withdrawn application, the earlier reviews will be sufficient. If there are changes, the application may need to be returned for review to the relevant commission based on their extent.

The story has been updated to include comments received after publication from Support the Sisters, the group in favor of the proposed redevelopment of the SSND property.