Expansion plan for CT housing site draws opposition. Neighborhood will ‘glow like a Christmas tree’

The plan for a major expansion of a Connecticut senior housing site is drawing opposition.

Residents who live in the vicinity around the Duncaster “life plan” community have voiced an objection to the proposed expansion at the 40 Loeffler Road, Bloomfield, property and say they want their voices heard.

More than a dozen residents of Loeffler Road had signed a petition they planned to present to Bloomfield’s Planning and Zoning Commission at the monthly virtual meeting at 7 p.m. Thursday.

“We are the residents directly affected on Loeffler Road, and we stand together against the Duncaster expansion,” the petition says. “We do not support and request you to deny the application.”

Duncaster, which is marking its 40th anniversary this year, has said the goal of the expansion is to meet a growing need for senior housing in the state and the nonprofit continuing care retirement community hopes to break ground early next year.

The expansion would add 60 apartments and 32 cottages, expand the fitness and wellness program, update dining areas, add a new auditorium for the culture and arts center that could seat about 250, a movie theater, and make infrastructure changes to improve parking and the ability for all to maneuver around the 94-acre campus, officials have said.

“With this large population of Baby Boomers who we keep seeing every day, and now we have this opportunity to expand to serve them more,” Duncaster CEO Kelly Papa has said.

The project was passed by the Inland Wetlands Commission at a meeting on March 18. Papa said the facility has been a good neighbor and there is support for the project.

“Neighborhood is going to glow”

Among the complaints neighbors said they have against the expansion are that they believe it would be too dense and visible and would not be in harmony with the residential zoning designation there; and that the application would produce too much unnatural lighting and would have an adverse impact on the Loeffler Road residents’ privacy.

The petition also said the proposed cottages would be too tall on the new elevations and too close to the road even to use berms, vegetation and buffers to block them.

The petition also references 1982 Bloomfield TPZ meeting minutes that note a verbal agreement related to open space.

“The Environmental Protection and Conservation Plan and the Plan of Conservation and Development still apply today,” the petition states. “Please review both the 1982 minutes and current zoning sections to preserve the open space as both the town and applicant agreed verbally in 1982 as being a condition for approval.”

“We, as direct neighbors present this signed petition in that we do not support and request your consideration to deny this application as it is not in harmony with this scenic road and to our R30 (residential zoning designation) zone privacy and rights.”

Harry Bassilakis, who lives at 10 Kenmore Road and owns farmland on Loeffler Road, also known as Route 178, said he is concerned about the lighting and size of the proposed project.

“I own empty land across the street and the way they designed the expansion they are going to put their headlights on our houses every night,” Bassilakis said. “All of these houses are private and when this starts the neighborhood is going to glow like a Christmas tree in Times Square. These are cottages they are putting in, but they are 200,000 square feet apiece.”

Bassilakis maintains that 12.4 acres separated from the campus has been preserved as farmland and said that area would now be used in the expansion.

“One photo shows the general scope of the plan squeezed in small parcel that is currently farmland,” Bassilakis said of the Duncaster plans. “Also showing beside the “large homes referred to as cottages” some three-story large residential structures where they are requesting a variance for building above the max height allowed in the PEC (planned Elderly Housing 3/4 acre per residence) zone.”

He also expressed concern about buffers, raised land and visibility from the road.

Bloomfield resident Lois Hager also opposes the recent proposed expansion.

“I’ve been involved with Duncaster since it was permitted in 1982,” Hager said. “I’ve gone to various hearings, and I have no problem with Duncaster, and they have been good neighbors.”

But Hager maintain that the original plan included 50 houses on 71 acres, with about 21 acres that couldn’t be developed.

“They built the facility on interior space surrounded by trees to protect the neighbors to the north and to the south,” Hager said. “Now they are projecting four or five times of the original zoning. Duncaster has made use of that property and has done what they have promised to this point. But in the course of the original hearing, Duncaster said they wouldn’t develop on agricultural land to the east.”

Hager said she hopes the Planning and Zoning Commission continues to protect that land from development.

“During the meetings in 1982 we were repeatedly told by their architects and engineers that they didn’t have any intention of developing on that land to the east,” Hager said. “They are now doing what they said they weren’t going to do 42 years ago…town planning and zoning has to abide by the town plan and conservation development plan. Agricultural land isn’t intended to be developed. It’s supposed to remain open land for the neighborhood and community.”

According to a Feb. 25, 1982, TPZ public hearing, it was noted that “the wetlands area is well-defined and would not be touched. The developers intend to keep the eastern land area in its original state.”

Hager said she recommends Duncaster develop on the opposite side of the property, which she said would be less detrimental to the community.

Hager, a former member of the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission, presented to the wetland commission earlier this month. She said the Planning and Zoning Commission has a broader view of the project rather than protecting the wetlands.

“The Planning and Zoning Commission doesn’t have the obligation to do what Duncaster asks,” Hager said. “There are limits to the number of units Duncaster can build. There’s nothing on the plan to provide that maximum number. We hope that our neighborhood will be protected. We hope the town will honor the conservation and development. And protect our neighborhoods.”

Asked about the opposition, Papa said in a statement that the organization has been good neighbor for four decades.

“This expansion project, which addresses a serious need for more high-quality independent living homes for the current Baby Boomer generation of adults in our area, involved an extensive public outreach effort to our neighbors over the past eight months,” she said.

“While we respect the thoughts of these petitioning neighbors, the large majority of everyone we spoke to during this time expressed support for this project. We have done everything in strict adherence with Bloomfield land use regulations, which was one of the reasons we received unanimous approval from the Inland and Wetlands Commission last week,” Papa said. “We look forward to continuing to work in a cooperative manner with the town we have called our beloved home since 1984.”

Duncaster now serves about 350 residents, including in 188 independent apartments that house about 250 residents, according to Papa.

Planning & Zoning Interim Director Jonathan Colman said he does not comment publicly prior to speaking to the commission.

He did say as of Tuesday afternoon there were six sets of public comments scheduled regarding Duncaster for Thursday’s virtual meeting.

Colman said it’s possible the Duncaster matter to still be open for the April 18 meeting.