Preston — A proposed RV park and campground has cleared its first hurdle with the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission approving the scaled-down but still controversial project on 65 acres owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation at the junction of Routes 2 and 164 and abutting Avery Pond.

The wetlands commission voted 3-2 Tuesday night on the RV park and campground resort proposed by Maryland-based Blue Water Development Corp. Blue Camp CT LLC would be located on three parcels at 451, 455 and 495 Route 2.

The Planning and Zoning Commission will continue its public hearing on the proposal April 26 at 7 p.m. at Preston Plains Middle School.

Wetlands commission Chairman John Moulson specified that he was not voting “in favor,” but voting to approve the project because it met wetlands regulations. The commission set several conditions, including requiring a $600,000 bond to be held by the town in case problems arise or the project becomes abandoned. Other conditions give town Wetlands Agent Len Johnson authority to issue a cease-and-desist order on all activities if violations are discovered.

Once the project is completed, the town wetlands agent will continue to have authority to inspect the property during business hours and with advance notice. If violations are found, the officer could issue notices of violation and cease-and-desist orders if necessary.

Commission members Doug Fox and Rebecca Hayes also voted in favor, and Commissioners Paul Andruskiewicz and Henry Wrigley voted against.

The project has been revised several times in response to concerns from residents and the town’s consulting engineers and was estimated in March to cost $18.5 million. The plan originally called for 304 campsites, a T-shaped dock in Avery Pond, an elevated boardwalk leading to tent camping sites along the pond, three bathhouses, paved roads and parking areas and several other amenities.

Blue Water has downsized the project to 280 campsites, eliminated the dock, boardwalk, tent sites along the pond and one bathhouse. All roadways and parking areas will be gravel-based, except at the main entrance and welcome center area.

Moulson said the revisions made a difference for him. When the project started, he said, activity was within 4 feet of wetlands, with potential for campers, especially kids, to trample wetlands plants and compact soils.

"At the beginning, Avery Pond was being invaded by the boardwalk and activity that was less than 50 feet from the pond," Moulson said. "Moving it to 100 feet, I think made a big difference, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's reached a point where I don't really like it, but I think it meets our requirements."

Earlier in the meeting, Andruskiewicz commented on the many revisions and said, "the place it ended was probably the place it should have started," with no dock, boardwalk or paved roads. He said the proposed use itself — with 1,000 people, 270 sites, campfires and propane tanks — poses the greatest threats to the wetlands.

The commission was short-handed for the review and vote on the RV park, with members Chuck Barnicki, Ian Stammel and Zach Turner all recusing themselves because they live in the vicinity of the proposed project. Commission member Jerry Grabarek abstained after he drew criticism from project attorney Harry Heller for allegedly seeking information regarding potential ground contamination outside the public hearing testimony.

Several residents who attended and spoke at public hearings said they were disappointed in the wetlands commission vote.

"I don't understand why they voted for it, so close to the wetlands," resident Tim Hotchkiss said, adding he was "a little surprised" at the vote.

He and Susan Hotchkiss, who live on Lynn Drive along the west shore of Avery Pond, obtained intervenor status in both the inland wetland and planning and zoning permit processes. Susan Hotchkiss said she, too, was surprised at the outcome. "I'm thinking it's a big job for a single wetlands enforcement officer, for such a big, big job," she said.

Susan Hotchkiss and other opponents of the project put their hopes on the pending review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, which has authority to review issues such as traffic and impacts to the neighborhood. She said she knew the wetlands commission had a more narrow regulatory review authority.

c.bessette@theday.com