Preston — After four public hearing sessions, each lasting two or three hours, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission will begin its review next month of a permit application for the controversial RV park proposed at the junction of routes 2 and 164 abutting Avery Pond.

Following the final three-hour session late Tuesday, the commission closed the public hearing on the application by Maryland-based Blue Water Development Corp. for the RV park and campground resort on 65 acres of land owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.

The wetlands commission will begin deliberations on the wetlands permit application at its April 12 meeting at Preston Plains Middle School. The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold its second public hearing session March 22 at 7 p.m. at Preston Plains Middle School.

Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, project attorney Harry Heller submitted revised plans that backed work away from Avery Pond and nearby wetlands. The changes eliminated the proposed T-shaped floating dock in the pond, an elevated boardwalk near the pond and nine safari tent sites at the northwest portion of a peninsula abutting the pond. In total, 22 campsites and one of the three proposed bathhouses were eliminated, Heller said.

The project now would have 280 campsites, a welcome center, two bathhouses, a swimming pool and volleyball, tennis, squash and bocce areas. Roads and parking areas would be gravel-based, except near the welcome center, which would be paved.

Heller said the revision came in response to strong objections from residents in neighborhoods near the pond, who complained the dense development, proposed kayaking and other activities in and near the pond would destroy the habitat.

Blue Water also hired Carl D. Nielsen, a limnologist — a scientist who specializes in freshwater systems — and certified lake manager, to assist with revising plans to avoid potential adverse impacts to Avery Pond, Heller wrote in a letter submitted with the revised plans.

Nielsen told the commission Tuesday he was pleased that the developer "heard and they listened" to his recommendations to avoid the pond and its wetlands. He also proposed a future study of the Avery Pond ecosystem.

During public comment late Tuesday, residents said the last-minute revisions — what one resident called "due diligence on the fly" — showed that the original plans would not have protected the pond and wetlands. Several residents said the commission should require more revisions to scale down the project further.

Gary Piszczek, chairman of the Preston Conservation and Agricultural Commission, had submitted a letter to the commission at the Jan. 18 public hearing session urging the wetlands commission to deny the project. Piszczek said Tuesday the conservation commission did not receive the latest plans, but he was pleased work was removed from within 100 feet of Avery Pond and its adjacent wetlands.

He asked that the project also scale back work from within 100 feet of wetlands along Indiantown Brook, which snakes along the eastern border of the property. That would eliminate more campsites, but he called it “a good tradeoff” to preserve wetlands and wildlife along the brook.

“It is a wildlife corridor,” Piszczek said. “We look at this, not so much as just Avery Pond, but the entire watercourse all the way to the cove and the Thames River. So, we’re going to stick with our recommendation that the wetlands commission rejects any activity in the entire upland area, all the way through the whole project.”

Susan Hotchkiss of 20 Lynn Drive and Jennifer Hollstein of 12 Lynn Drive — Lynn Drive is located along the west shore of Avery Pond — obtained intervenor status and submitted scientific reports to the commission. One called the technical reports submitted by Blue Water incomplete. Attorney Michael Carey, representing the intervenors, on Tuesday asked the commission to continue the public hearing to allow his clients to review the revised plans.

The commission closed the hearing without discussing the request to extend the hearing again.

Heller said reports by experts submitted to the commission show that the project would not adversely impact Avery Pond and the wetlands. He repeatedly reminded the commission that its role did not include analysis of wildlife in the upland review area from wetlands and that state law does not prohibit development within 100 feet of a wetland.

“You as a wetlands commission have the right to regulate activities to determine if there is an adverse physical impact to the wetland or watercourse,” Heller said. “It is not a no-go zone. It is a site-specific determination.”

c.bessette@theday.com