NewCanaanite.com recently received the following letter. Send letters to editor@newcanaanite.com to have them published here.
***
To the Editor of the New Canaanite,
I am writing this letter to the editor as a concerned New Canaan resident and not in my position as a member of the Waveny Life Care Network board.
I respect the free-speech rights of the opponents of building a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) for senior citizens on the site of the Town’s mulch pile known as Parcel E across the street from the main campus of Waveny Park. What is upsetting is their use of fake imagery and the mischaracterization of the proposed project as condominiums in the circulars the group is circulating throughout our community.
Regarding the image, the group has superimposed a picture of a 7-9 story high rise building behind Waveny’s architect’s design of the building as presented at the Town Council Meeting. Waveny’s plan, if approved, is for a three-story main building pictured here with two two-story wings:
Rendering of Waveny Senior Living Village. Image courtesy of WLN
The unnamed opponents also characterize the CCRC proposal as a “condo” development. This is not a condominium complex. This is a Life Plan Community, which is a residential campus that will provide senior care in one location for both New Canaan’s senior citizens and those of the surrounding communities.
Yes, the unnamed opponents have the right to express their opinions. Just please do it without using fear tactics, fake images, and emotionally charged language.
Thomas Berardino
And who are you and your cohorts to try and rob our park land ignoring the deed restrictions. Holding secret meetings with town insider past and present politicians. Elected officials also sitting on your board. Call it what it is : Disgusing your “For Profit Venture “ as a care facility.
Asking for a MOU from the town council before public input after secretive closed meetings.
Tried and rejected 2x. Stop wasting the towns resources and money. Leave our parkland alone and respect the restricted endowment.
Your Board and you are using no truth and fear tactics. Not we the majority of new Canaanites.
Thank you Roy encore un fois for your to the point insightfulness. Lack of transparency secret meetings are an insult to residents who pay high taxes but lack honest elected members
Mr. Berardino asks residents to “stick to the facts.” I agree.
Here they are.
1. This converts a public asset into a private, for-profit enterprise. Parcel E is public open space — a resource that is shrinking, not growing, in New Canaan. Leasing it for a commercial senior-living development operated for profit is a fundamental change in the character and use of that land, not a minor adjustment. This is a taking of public land for private, commercial use.
2. The proposal appears to trigger Connecticut’s park land replacement law. Under Connecticut General Statutes § 7-131n, a municipality that converts land acquired or dedicated for park, recreational, or open-space use to a non-park, non-open-space use must provide substitute land of equivalent value for the same purpose. Changing the “use” of Parcel E from open space to a commercial care facility triggers this requirement. To date, no substitute parkland has been identified or proposed. This is illegal.
3. The proposal appears to conflict with the 1967 Lapham Lloyd deed. Every parcel of the original Lapham Lloyd gift except Parcel A — Parcels B, C, D, and E — carries the same restrictive language limiting use of the land. Parcel C alone contains additional language authorizing the Town to “explore and develop uses for Parcel C,” including potential use as a site for public health, medical research, or hospital facilities — which is why Parcel C today hosts the Waveny Care Center and New Canaan High School. Mrs. Lloyd was specific and deliberate about that exception. Its existence makes clear that she intended narrower, more limited uses for Parcels B, D, and E. The Parcel E deed was examined in 2009, and her original intent was upheld at that time. Reopening that question now, to permit a use she did not authorize, dishonors her gift. This is a violation of the Lapham Lloyd deed.
4. This is not a condominium — but it is not a modest senior-living project either. Mr. Berardino is correct that this is not a condominium complex; residents would not own their units. It is a fee-based Life Plan Community, in which Waveny LifeCare Network would own the real estate and charge residents a one-time entrance fee of roughly $1.5 to $2.5 million, plus a monthly fee of $7,000 to $11,000. The site plan presented to the Town Council depicts a roughly 300,000-square-foot commercial facility with 200 underground parking spaces, including structures overlooking the Merritt Parkway. Underground parking of that scale requires excavating an estimated 55,000 cubic yards of earth — approximately 4,000 dump-truck loads — and roughly two acres of underground footprint per level. Parcel E contains significant wetlands connected to the Noroton River, and construction of this scope would require substantial tree clearing. This is a large commercial facility with a major environmental footprint, not a modest senior residence.
5. Alternative sites exist and have not been publicly ruled out. Waveny LifeCare Network already holds a permitted parcel within Waveny (the Parcel C footprint) and purchased additional land on Oenoke Ridge in 2021. Comparable parcels have also recently changed hands elsewhere in the region — for example, a 21-acre site in Stamford (Mosaic) for $21 million and a 51-acre property in Wilton (the Clark property) for $25 million. WLN has demonstrated it is capable of purchasing land for its own development. That raises a fair question: why should New Canaan taxpayers subsidize a private commercial enterprise through a long-term lease of public land, rather than WLN acquiring its own site? If a lease of Parcel E is genuinely under consideration, sound governance calls for a competitive RFP process to establish fair market value — not a negotiated arrangement with a single party. This is an unreasonable subsidy for New Canaan taxpayers to bear.
6. The approval process appears structured to avoid a town-wide vote. This proposal should be reviewed by the Board of Finance, Parks and Recreation Commission, Conservation Commission, and Board of Selectmen before any action by the Town Council. Instead, the Town Council is being asked to approve a Memorandum of Understanding before pending charter revisions take effect — a sequence that, under the current charter, would not be subject to a town-wide referendum. After the charter changes take effect in November, a referendum would be possible. Sequencing the MOU ahead of that date denies New Canaan voters a direct say in a decision of this magnitude. This is a process built to avoid a town-wide vote.
Mr. Berardino objects to imagery and word choice. I would welcome that same scrutiny applied to the underlying transaction: a public park parcel, a private commercial operator, and a process that has so far unfolded through private, registration-only meetings rather than open ones. The originating deeds, the governing statutes, and the underlying facts are publicly available at http://www.handsoffwaveny.com for any resident who wants to read them directly. More than 400 residents have signed a petition asking for transparency.
I ask Waveny LifeCare Network to hold a single, open town meeting at the New Canaan Library — not a series of private, invitation-only sessions — where any resident can attend, ask questions, and receive direct answers about the project, its financing, and its timeline. If this proposal is as sound as its proponents believe, it should be able to withstand full public examination.
Excellent presentation of facts and clear analysis. Thank you.
When your first “fact” is wrong, it calls into question everything else. Waveny is a non-profit
Back to the facts: To be precise: nonprofit status doesn’t mean an organization can’t run a surplus — it just means that surplus can’t be distributed to owners or shareholders (there are none) and must be reinvested in the organization. What the 2023 Form 990 shows is exactly that: revenue of $16.65M against expenses of $16.36M, for a $284K operating surplus — down from 2022, when revenue was $19.4M against expenses of $15.36M, netting a $4.04M surplus. On top of that, the organization holds $35.3M in total assets, including $26M in publicly traded investments, and paid its CEO $563K in total compensation. So while it’s fair to call Waveny a properly registered 501(c)(3), it’s also a financially healthy one with substantial reserves and executive pay — not a struggling or purely charitable operation running at cost. Happy to share the tax returns
A bit of education. This venture of 150 units at $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 buy in plus $10,000+ month rent is not in line with the non profit status and non profit status of Waveny. It would void the non profit classification. This is a for profit venture plain and simple.
As you well know non profit means nothing. It clearly generates profits they just get funneled back into the business not distributed to investors. It doesn’t make the business any more or less legitimate.
Cannot even believe this town is wasting citizens time and energy making us protest paving over our parkland, and for gazillion dollar residences on top of it all. Horrifying this is even coming before town council. Just exhausting, but by design. Hands off our parks go build somewhere else. Don’t know how to say this more strongly. Let’s name some names here of those people trying to cut down our trees and steal our park.
Parkland ????? When was the last time you drove by that dump ?
The mulch field serves an important environmental role in town. And have you driven down Lapham at sunset? The sky is glorious over the open land. Losing that moment of awe to more buildings would be heart-breaking
The lack of esthetic appearances does not negate the fact that this is still nevertheless DEEDED park land. Retraining your focus on what the real issues are will help this process proceed coherently.
I’m with Toddy. I knew there was pushback but faking imagery to foment fear is not the way to dissent.
Sign the Petition https://www.handsoffwaveny.com/blank-1, attend the meetings this week September 10, 2026 Conservation Commission 12:00 PM
Town Hall Discussion – Waveny LifeCare Network proposal for Parcel E.
Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 829 4807 4397
Passcode: 694997
If the Conservation Commission draws a crowd, that itself would be a news item.
Who are the “Hands off Waveny” people? There are no names on the website. I have received two mailings containing materials from the website and asking me to write to town council. Neither envelope included the sender name or address, and no names inside.
I have made my view on the proposed site known in a letter to this editor two weeks ago but who is behind the website and who is asking me to write to town council? Names please.
Not many people in town would buy into this. It’s a bad investment unless you’re sitting on 10 to 20 million and have money to throw away.
You pay 1.5 to 2.5 million 10,000 a month and own no assets.
The average price of 80% of our homes
150 x say 2 million 300 million.
Is it going to cost 300 million to build?
The fact is most people who go into nursing homes have a life expectancy of 2 1/2 yrs
That’s the average.
So say the average for this complex is 7 yrs
Do they get to sell them over and over again?
Are we giving them a 99 yrs lease?
At what price?
That’s a lot of sales in 99 yrs.
And at what price after 99 yrs of inflation.
For some reason I don’t think this would benefit the people of New Canaan but somehow benefit people who are pushing it.
The First Selectman in her news letter this morning agreed that it is premature for the Town Council to consider a MOU with WCLN at its meeting next week. Therefore the topic must be removed from the TC agenda.
Secondly: Is WCLN going to claim that the Senior Apartment Development would be exempt from town real estate taxes ( approximately $4,000,000 to $5,000,000 a year in tax) under the 501(c)(3) umbrella? They would need to take that position in order to take a shot that the income therefrom is not taxable as unrelated business income subject to tax on IRS Form 990T.
A 501(c)(3) budget should be break even, applying excess income to functional expenses to support and further the charitable purpose, not enrich the entity, executives or investors.
In my opinion the venture would not fall under the purview of the 501(c)(3) regulations.