Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meadowood Development Refendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meadowood site visit cut short by storm; work group member says 24‑acre carve‑out was omitted from referendum materials
Summary
A site visit to a 24‑acre Meadowood area was paused after a thunderstorm; at the meeting a selectman reported that referendum materials did not show the town’s previously discussed 24‑acre carve‑out, prompting concerns and a temporary withdrawal from a related CROG study until legal clarity is reached.
Get email alerts on the Meadowood Development Refendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Open Space and Stewardship Policies Work Group and members of the conservation commission visited the Meadowood site recently but ended the field visit early because of threatening weather. Work group members resumed discussion of Meadowood at the July 2 meeting and raised concerns about how the 24‑acre carve‑out for the town property was presented to voters.
One attendee said the conservation commission and selectmen viewed part of the property, but a thunderstorm forced the group to stop the site visit. The meeting chair said the commission will resume the site inspection and encouraged members to view the sandy area from County Line Road.
Wendy, the First Selectman, told the work group she had found a discrepancy between maps and the referendum materials: while presentations and earlier maps showed a 24‑acre carve‑out labeled for town interest (often shown as sports fields in earlier materials), the referendum description and its map did not reflect that carve‑out. “The referendum letter ... just didn't mention it, and the map in that document did not show the carve out, which it was shown in every other map,” she said, adding that she has shared the omission with the Board of Selectmen and is tracking documents to determine what voters were shown.
Because of the discrepancy, Wendy said she would step back from participating in the CROG study’s initial rounds until the town clarifies what the public was shown. Other members said the site has a different character in the area she identified (a sandy area, aquifer recharge concerns were noted) and urged a careful review at the next site visit. No formal policy action was taken at the July 2 work group meeting; members plan to continue the site inspection at an upcoming conservation commission meeting and to follow up on document review.

