Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sawmill Dam topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables decision on sawmill dam upgrades after engineering review and cost estimates
Summary
Commissioners reviewed two engineering concepts to protect the Ledyard sawmill dam — an auxiliary spillway and an articulated‑stone/granite armor — discussed costs and historic preservation tradeoffs, and tabled final action pending site visits and a further engineer briefing.
The Ledyard Historic District Commission reviewed engineering concepts to protect the dam at the Ledyard water‑powered sawmill and agreed to table a final decision pending further study and an engineer briefing.
Commission members examined two retrofit concepts presented in renderings: adding an auxiliary spillway (a proposed 37‑foot‑wide overflow channel to increase capacity) and installing articulated concrete or natural stone armor on the dam crest and downstream face to protect against overtopping and erosion. A separate option considered placing protective material over the top of the dam to reduce damage in overflow events.
Members discussed technical performance and aesthetic impact. One commissioner said the auxiliary spillway would require extending the length of the current spillway and might be less visually intrusive; another raised concern that hardened concrete or armor could alter the historic appearance. “Of course, the biggest thing is that we we don’t want to lose a dam and and especially we don’t want to lose Sawmill,” one commissioner said, stressing the need to preserve the site’s historic atmosphere.
Cost estimates were raised during debate: an engineering-design estimate of roughly $75,000 for permitting and design work was cited; at least one member described full-construction figures in the range of “about $300,000” as a rough order of magnitude. Commissioners also noted a graduate-student study scheduled for the fall that could inform preservation‑minded engineering solutions.
Safety and operations were discussed: the sawmill reported maintenance needs (a rotted post repair, gate work), and staff described limited cell service at the mill building, creating an emergency‑response concern. Members emphasized minimizing downstream risk while keeping interventions compatible with the mill’s historic character.
In the interest of conducting site visits and receiving more detailed cost and design information, Chair Anne Roberts Peterson moved to table the matter until next month and invite the consulting engineer (Doug Thompson) to present alternatives; the commission agreed to do so and to consider forming a smaller working team to refine options.
No construction decision was made; commissioners said they would pursue follow‑up engineering information, visit the site in person, and review the graduate student’s findings before committing funds or selecting a preferred retrofit.
