Estates at 100 Oakland Road
Proposal to build 69 new homes for residents over 55 years old.
New Development Seeks to Clear a Mature Forest to Build 69 New Homes for Residents Over 55
On Wednesday, July 16, the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency held a public hearing on an application submitted by 90 Oakland Road Associates, LLC. The developer is seeking permission to fill 1,350 square feet of wetlands and replace 94 feet of stream bed with an engineered channel to accommodate a new bridge that would provide access to their proposed 69-unit 55+ housing development. The 32 acre project would also involve clearing a forest to make way for the project.
The hearing drew a large turnout of South Windsor residents, the vast majority of whom voiced strong opposition. In fact, there were so many public comments—both in person and submitted in writing—that the Commission was unable to finish hearing them all. The hearing was continued until September 3rd to allow additional time for residents to speak.
Key Concerns Raised by the Public
Much of the opposition focused on the environmental impact of clearing a forest and filling wetlands, particularly on the wildlife that depends on this habitat for survival. In their application, the developer’s wetlands scientist claimed the forest is "degraded" due to invasive species and stated that no state-listed endangered species were found on or near the property. The report also argued that the project would "improve" the wetland corridor by adding landscaping, pollinator gardens, and engineered wetlands designed to support wildlife.
Neighbors who live alongside the forest challenged these claims with firsthand observations. Residents shared accounts of seeing black bears, bobcats, deer, foxes, coyotes, rabbits, turkeys, owls, hawks, bats, and at least 21 bird species, including Wood Thrush and Eastern Wood-Pewee—species widely recognized as indicators of healthy interior forest habitat, not degraded edges. As one resident put it,
“Wildlife don’t recognize property lines—the stream and forest are an active passage and breeding ground, not a backyard drainage ditch.”
Residents described the area as a wildlife corridor, allowing species to move safely between larger habitats. Wildlife corridors play a vital role in maintaining biodiversity by supporting feeding, breeding, and migration. Without them, animals are more likely to wander into roads or neighborhoods, increasing the risk of accidents and conflicts. Corridors also help maintain ecological balance by supporting pollination, seed dispersal, and pest control.
Several residents also raised concerns about stormwater management. Clearing this forest and replacing it with roads, driveways, and homes would increase impervious surfaces, leading to more runoff. Some neighbors expressed fears that a planned retaining wall between the development and their properties could trap water on their land, increasing the risk of backyard flooding. However, a Wetlands Commission member clarified that issues related to drainage on neighboring properties fall outside the Commission’s legal scope and are not part of their review process.
Another resident pointed out the broader community health impacts, noting that trees filter the air we breathe, and removing large areas of forest could affect air quality and the town’s natural character.
A Community Conversation About Open Space
It’s clear that this proposal has sparked a broader discussion about the need to preserve South Windsor’s natural spaces. A large and organized coalition of residents has formed to oppose the project, and it’s likely this issue will remain at the forefront of community debate in the months ahead.
Amidst the concerns, one idea shared at the hearing stood out as a potential win-win solution: the Town of South Windsor could consider purchasing the property as open space.
South Windsor has a history of preserving open space for passive recreation, community gathering, and wildlife refuge. The town has previously allocated funds for this purpose and recently formed an Open Space Task Force to prioritize these efforts. Additionally, there is a referendum question on the upcoming ballot asking residents whether they support setting aside additional funds to purchase open space.
If the town were to purchase the 100 Oakland Road property, it could avoid a lengthy and costly battle between the developer and neighbors. The developer would still receive fair compensation for the land—without the need to spend time and resources on development—and, as an abutter, could enjoy the benefits of preserved open space in his own backyard. Neighbors would protect the forest habitat behind their homes, and the broader community would benefit from maintaining the pastoral character of South Windsor for future generations.
Your Voice Matters
If you have thoughts on this issue, please leave a comment on this post and consider sharing your opinions directly with the Inland Wetlands Agency and Conservation Commission.
Update: Sept. 3rd Public Hearing Draws More Opposition
September 3, 2025 - Inland Wetlands Agency Public Hearing
On Sept. 3, 2025 the public hearing continued for the 100 Oakland Road Inland Wetlands permit application. The town council chambers were packed once again as the South Windsor Inland Wetlands Agency and Conservation Commission heard updates from the developer’s team as well as new comments from town residents.
You can watch the full hearing video here.
The developer’s team spoke, including Design Professional’s CEO, Project Manager, Director of Engineering, and two hired wetlands scientists. The wetlands scientists continued their campaign to convince the Inland Wetlands Agency members that this development would result in a net gain of wetlands and would leave the ecology of the wetlands in better shape than it is now. They focused on the proposed clearing of invasive species from the property including Japanese Knotweed, as well as improvements to the existing stream bed to prevent erosion as being improvements from the existing condition. They continued to minimize the value of the property by again asserting that the ecology of the property is “degraded” and of low value due to the invasive vegetation. Once again they repeated that there are no “state listed species” on the property, explaining that they only conducted a search of a state website to determine that. They admitted no wildlife inventory has been conducted on the property but that they will have a wildlife inventory done after receiving approval from the wetlands agency as part of their application to the state for a stormwater permit.
How can the Wetlands Agency determine the impact on the resident species if they don’t even know what species exist on the property?
And finally, one of the wetlands scientists tried to diminish the importance of this parcel as a wildlife corridor, testifying that adaptable suburban species such as deer, coyote, opossums, fox, raccoon, and fischer cats would continue to move through the area “in the dark of night when everyone is sleeping.” He concluded that as proposed, the plan does not create an adverse impact on wetlands or watercourses; further, if the enhanced knotweed-to-marsh conversion he is recommending and other measures are added, the site’s wetlands could end up “more valuable” than they are today.
It was clear the development team was making a coordinated effort to convince the Agency, and the public, that this development would actually be good for the environment. But we still fail to see how clearing 20 acres of forest and tearing up wetlands over the course of a few years of construction will be beneficial to the species that inhabit this parcel, because they certainly won’t live there once construction begins.
14 residents took the podium to speak in opposition to the project that night raising many concerns about the project.
In total, 61 comments were also submitted to the Inland Wetlands Agency prior to this meeting by residents, overwhelmingly in opposition. The savesouthwindsor.org petition asking the Wetlands Agency to deny this permit was also submitted as part of the record of this hearing, bearing the names of 522 South Windsor residents who are opposed to the project. You can read all the comments submitted to date here.
A resident presented an academic research study that showed created wetlands rarely reach the level of vitality of the natural wetlands they replace. Several residents raised concerns about the destruction of this important wildlife corridor in town. Another wondered why the developer was first planning to build a temporary bridge and then build a permanent bridge later in construction and why detailed plans about the bridge construction has not been presented.
A South Windsor resident currently pursuing a graduate degree in Ecology testified in strong opposition to the project stating he hasn’t heard anything about biodiversity assessments having been conducted on the property or numbers of flora and fauna now compared to what there would be post construction with the eradication of the invasive knotweed. He expressed great concern that 20 acres (2/3 of this parcel) were going to be developed, damage that can’t be offset by the eradication of invasive species. He testified that South Windsor is home to about 10,000 species of plants and fauna and the #1 driver of biodiversity loss is habitat loss - more than pollution or climate change- and in New Englance the main driver is urban sprawl. He added that projects like this cause fragmentation of habitat areas and that current economics and rules incentive clearing forests for greenfield development rather than re-using already developed land.
The commissioners had numerous questions for the developer and asked the developer to provide answers in writing. Some of the questions they raised were:
How many trees will be removed?
Are there any prudent and reasonable alternatives to this plan?
How will the temporary stream crossing be built? How much fill will be used? What will the slopes be? How will the site transition from the temporary bridge crossing to the permanent bridge crossing?
How will utilities be routed?
What are the specification for the proposed bridge abutments?
What will they height of the bridge be from the stream bed?
What level of bonding will be appropriate to ensure removal of the temporary fill if necessary?
Ultimately, the hearing was continued to Sept. 17 but then postponed until October 15, 2025 to give time for the developer to prepare answers to the Agency’s questions.
The next opportunity for in-person public comment will be October 15, 2025 in the South Windsor Town Council chambers. If you cannot attend the meeting but would like to make a written comment to the Inland Wetlands Agency, please visit the town website comment form here and select “Inland Wetlands Agency / Conservation Commission” in the Subject dropdown.