Letter: Our Land, Our Legacy — What you're not being told about the CCW Master Plan

The former Country Club of Woodbridge (CCW) is a public asset that, if developed thoughtfully, can benefit Woodbridge residents and the entire region, serving as a lasting source of community pride and cohesion. Developing a plan for this property that aligns with community input was a primary reason for my Board of Selectmen candidacy in 2023. I am deeply disappointed by both the planning process and outcome and feel compelled to share my perspective. 

Don’t be misled by claims of “success.” A closer look reveals the following: (1) the Master Plan presented to the Board of Selectmen on September 10, 2025 does NOT have unanimous support from the Board; (2) the plan does not fully reflect public or Board of Selectmen input; (3) the plan lacks any firm commitment to permanently conserve what it calls “open space;” and, (4) the projected $2 million in annual revenue is highly questionable. Let me explain. 

Current First Selectman Cardozo is inaccurate when he claims that support for his September 2025 CCW Master Plan is unanimous among the Selectmen. In April 2025 the selectmen endorsed receiving information on the proposed land-use options so we could make informed decisions – with public input – on what to pursue. This is not how the September 2025 Master Plan is designed to function. When I, together with Selectmen McCreven and Vogel, asked for a vote to discuss this Master Plan and next steps at the October 8^th Board of Selectmen meeting, Cardozo cast a second, tie-breaking vote to shut down the conversation. 

I do not endorse this plan.

I DO endorse the portion of the Master Plan supported by the public’s feedback: the creation of a revenue-producing facility such as a boutique hotel/banquet/conference center at the clubhouse site. But I do not endorse the approximately 300 units of dense, market rate residential development, least of all the 100-unit Assisted Living facility which was added to the plan very late in the process at Cardozo’s request without public input. I believe this facility was added “on paper” to inflate the revenue figure currently being trumpeted.

Since 2009, when former First Selectman Ed Sheehy promoted the purchase of the CCW as an opportunity for open space -- resoundingly backed by the largest Town meeting in Woodbridge’s history -- residents have made abundantly clear their desire to protect most of the property as permanent open space. During the public-input portion of the 2024-25 CCW master planning process, residents reiterated their interest in open space, as evidenced by the dense dot placement covering open-space oriented land-use options (see photo above). Moreover, the Board of Selectmen repeatedly discussed this issue and various commission members (notably from the Conservation Commission) advocated for permanent legal protection of all “open space” acreage. Yet the September 2025 plan includes only vague language regarding a conservation easement - the only legal means to achieve permanent protection.  The plan does not guarantee an easement.  Instead, it calls on the town to “also consider a conservation easement” (page 31), to “explore a conservation easement” (page 48), and to “implement a potential conservation easement” (page 48). 

I feel strongly that any development proposal must simultaneously include an ironclad conservation easement. Without such legal protection this land could gradually be lost, a few acres at a time, to a sea of apartment buildings and dense housing.

If you think the proposed $2 million in annual revenue is worth compromising a conservation easement — think again. It’s highly unlikely that the proposed development will yield that amount. It’s also doubtful that the assisted living facility will ever be built — why would we compete with the two existing assisted living centers and one nursing home Woodbridge already has? Furthermore, the plan fails to account for the impact of new housing units on local schools, nor does the cost-benefit analysis consider the family homes that will become vacant — and soon reoccupied by new families — once those 55+ residents relocate to this site. To put it simply – the cost benefit analysis is not sophisticated or holistic enough to be relied upon. 

It is bewildering that Cardozo’s campaign attributes delays, indecision, and lack of progress on the CCW over the years to the minority party. They should look in the mirror.  Since the town’s purchase of the property in 2009, Woodbridge has been fully controlled by their Democratic administrations. In sixteen years, only one proposal (by Mr. Sheehy in 2011) has been brought to referendum and it was overwhelmingly defeated. Given this history, let us take a clear-eyed view of where responsibility lies and how to move forward constructively. 

I continue to believe that the CCW can be a unifying and transformative space for Woodbridge—one that balances responsible development with environmental stewardship, guided by community-driven priorities. While I cannot support the plan as currently proposed, I remain hopeful that by achieving A Common Ground and working together, we can shape a future for the CCW that reflects the will of the residents who own this land, for the benefit of future generations. 

Respectfully yours,

Andrea Urbano, Board of Selectmen member and candidate for re-election with A Common Ground for Woodbridge.