At last week’s Greenwich P&Z commission meeting, Mead Point LLC sought modifications to their 2022 approval to develop land on the Mead Point peninsula in Long Island Sound with a large single-family dwelling, pool and cabana.
The property is composed of two parcels which surround a tidal pond and small tidal lake.
Parcel A is 8.00593-acres and Parcel B is 3.0756-acres.
The property is in the RA2 and Coastal Overlay zones.
The address is 618 Indian Field Road.
The dwelling, pool and cabana exceed a total building volume above 150,000 cubic feet, which required a special permit.
Rendering from applicant’s file in 2022.
618 Indian Field Road. Google Earth
In 2021, the P&Z commission had several discussions focusing on environmental concerns with the application.
In fact, during public comment Laura di Bonaventura, who spoke as a resident but at the time was an an alternate on the Conservation Commission, said she often kayaked around the property, and described it as an ecological treasure.
“It is what Greenwich Point would be had it been left undisturbed. In these eight acres, there is a diversity of coastal habitats that are almost unseen along the Greenwich coast. There are coastal forests, coastal grasslands, inner tidal flats, submerged aquatic vegetation beds, shellfish reefs and tidal wetlands.”
Last week, the applicant was represented by attorney Lisa Feinberg from Carmody Torrance.
Proposed modifications to approvals include addition of a child play area, landscaping changes, lighting changes, changes to the pool, site grading, relocated visitor/staff parking area and drainage improvements.
Attorney Feinberg, who was not involved during the initial approval process, said, “I know there is a lot of frustration with how the project has progressed, but I can’t undo what was already done.”
The commissioners noted that during construction, the applicant went out of compliance with their original decision and referred to a memo from Beth Evans, the town’s director of environmental affairs, elaborating on numerous environmental concerns.
Evans’ memo noted she and staff from town departments had conducted multiple site inspections over the previous nine months.
Stop Work Order
A stop work order was issued on April 8, 2025 due to zoning noncompliance, including unauthorized tree removal.
Evans’ memo said the proposed modifications included the removal of 106 additional trees, but she said it was unclear from their proposed restoration plan whether the request to remove additional trees included ones already removed.
She wrote that the applicant’s landscape narrative letter dated June 16, 2025 stated that many existing trees “either due to age, storm damage, poor health, or lack of maintenance do not carry the same value as the proposed landscape plan,” but went on to point out that poor health could stem from lack of tree protection.
She wrote that her staff had also asked for a topographic survey to be done to determine how much fill had been added outside the approved disturbance lines, and in response a survey from S.E. Minor was submitted, dated April 3, 2025.
Evans’ memo continued: “In reference to this survey, the applicant’s attorney Lisa Feinberg stated in her April 22, 2025 letter that ‘any changes in topography are temporary’ and that ‘the Property will be returned to approved conditions prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy.’ However based on review of the submitted plans, it is clear that the intent of the application is to retain the existing grades in order to achieve the improvements and modifications shown on the ‘proposed Site Plan’ submitted in June.”
As for the proposed lighting plan, Evans said it included accent lighting within both the Conservation Easement Area and tidal lake, presenting “an unnecessary disturbance to the ecosystem.”
Feinberg acknowledged trees were removed without permission from the town and, “the owner and development team had taken responsibility for that. I do not have an accurate number for that.”
She said plantings were in place and growing, and that the town still held about $128,000 as a surety to assure continued compliance.
“I know you came in late to the process and you’re trying to patch these up, but she (Evans) is seeing the changes in topography are not temporary,” P&Z chair Margarita Alban said.
Commissioner Peter Lowe said, “It seems that all of us are missing data here, including the attorney for the applicant…We need to go back to square one here and talk about clarity.”
Commissioner Mary Jenkins said she was particularly concerned about environmental effects.
“The lighting is basically covering the entire property. So there is no dark area,” Jenkins said. “It’s so critical because of its location and environmental sensitivity.”
“I was also particularly struck by Ms Evans’ mention of a safety fence which was, as she put it, ‘an eight foot deer fence.’ To the extent there is a fence around this property you’re basically saying you’re not going to have any wildlife. Is that really necessary?”
“The whole point of having a location like this is to protect it from an environmental point of view, not to wall it off.”
Later, Ms Feinberg said the fence was actually proposed to be 6 ft, not 8 ft high.
“I’m also very concerned about the lack of a tree inventory,” Jenkins said. “We have a moving target in terms of tree protection and tree restoration.”
Commissioner Dennis Yeskey said he had visited the site twice.
“This is a very unique site. We were worried about the development. We made that clear. When they came through, we spent a lot of time on it, and and they’re not adhering to it. And I now learn they own the other lot there.”
The applicant owns both Parcel A (8.00593-acres) and Parcel B (3.0756-acres.)
(Two parcels at 000 Indian Field Rd sold on August 27, 2021 from Il Mandorlo LLC to Mead Point LLC for $36,750,000. Prior to that the parcels sold from Meads Point Land Co c/o Haebler to Il Mandorlo LLC on Nov 30, 2015 for $35,000,000.)
“We rely a lot on applicants to do what they say they’re going to do, and they haven’t in this case,” Yeskey said.
Commissioner Nick Macri said it was unclear whether the applicant had gone beyond the original approval.
“Things may have to be undone,” Macri said.
“Exactly,” Alban said
“I think what I’m seeing is the applicant may have stepped over the approval a lot, but I can’t tell for sure. We really need to clarify that in a format we can see apples to apples in comparison,” Macri said.
“Ms Evans nailed it on the head,” Macri said. “You’ve got lighting everywhere. It’ll become a navigational beacon. It’s a path that goes through a natural area that’s over-lit.”
Ms Alban said the special permit was originally approved based on what the landscaping plan did to mitigate environmental impact in a very sensitive area.
“I’m wondering if our special permit approval is valid at this point,” Alban said.
Mr. Macri noted, “There had been 2 parcels and the development was limited to one parcel. Now I’m seeing development spreading to both parcels.”
Commissioner Arn Welles said, “This is basically a whole new application….We’re really starting from scratch here.”
“Is our special permit valid?” Alban asked, noting the environmental impact had changed.
Alban cited the town’s municipal code special permit standards, 6-17-(5) (page 17): “preserve and enhance important open space and other features of the natural environment and protect against deterioration of the quality of the environment, and support environmental sustainability.”
“The special permit decision was based on factors that have been removed by the applicant,” she added. “Unless the applicant fully restores back to what their original proposal was, they have removed the basis on which we approved the special permit. I’m asking a legal question.”
Footbridge
Mr. Welles brought up the issue of the footbridge that crosses over the tidal pond, which had been a concern during the original approval process.
He said the applicant appealed the commission’s condition that the footbridge be removed, but the commission had only just learned superior court ruled on the appeal and the applicant would not be required to remove the bridge.
“I would like to propose or get maybe get legal advice, now that we have the landscape plan, things are happening on both sides of the bridge. There’s going to be downlighting proposed that highlights the bridge. This proposed modification, or I would almost say, new application, is pertinent to the bridge and we should bring that up in our discussions and considerations. Probably the quickest way would be to consult with town counsel to see if she agrees with that assessment.”
P&Z director Pat LaRow apologized for not alerting the commission about the earlier court decision on the foot bridge.
“I agree with Mr. Welles also that the site work, with the pathway and lighting, I think it does come back into play,” LaRow said. “But the state does believe that that bridge was properly permitted and we have memos back and forth that support that.”
Commissioner Lowe said, “Vegetation and trees have been removed seemingly wildly outside the scope of what was approved. That’s really disturbing. If you’re not getting that message, please get it in spades. No one is happy about what seems to have been done and we need greater clarity on exactly what has been done and how it compares with what was approved.”
Feinberg said a site visit would be welcome.
“When you get out there you will see the site has in no regard been clear cut. There is still a tremendous amount of foliage,” Feinberg said.
A site visit will likely be scheduled before the next meeting, tentatively on the Sept 16 agenda.
GIS image from applicant’s file in 2022.
See also:
P&Z Watch: Proposed Development at Tip of Mead Point Threatens “An Ecological Treasure”
December 30, 2021
More reporting on the Sept 3, 2025 P&Z meeting:
Byram Neighbors, P&Z Skeptical about Proposed 2-Family on “Severely Undersized Lot”