Preston ― A state Appellate Court order appears to have finally dashed the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe’s hope of developing an RV park on tribe-owned land at the intersection of Routes 2 and 164.

Late last week, the appeals court denied a petition filed by the tribe and Blue Camp CT LLC, the RV park developer, who had sought to appeal a Superior Court decision upholding the Planning and Zoning Commission’s 2022 denial of a special permit for the project.

No further court action is available to the plaintiffs.

“We’re incredibly disappointed in the outcome,” Jason Guyot, president and chief executive officer of the tribe’s Foxwoods Resort Casino, said Tuesday in a phone interview.

The proposed development site is just north of the casino, which was expected to benefit from the RV park.

“We’ve been working in good faith with the town and Blue Water for eight years on this project,” Guyot said. “We’re very disappointed. We still believe it’s the best and greatest use of that land. It would have been a revenue driver for the town and created an experience for people to visit and stay in this area ― a world-class RV resort.”

He said it was too early to speculate about other development options the tribe might consider pursuing at the site.

The attorney for the town, Kenneth Slater, emailed a statement Monday on his client’s behalf.

“The Town of Preston and its Planning and Zoning Commission are pleased that the Appellate Court found no reason for further review of the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decision that the Commission legally denied the Blue Camp campground proposal,” Slater wrote.

The tribe and Blue Camp CT, a subsidiary of Blue Water Development Corp. of Ocean City, Md., had sued in New London Superior Court over the Planning and Zoning Commission’s 4-3 denial of a permit for the RV park plan.

The appeal focused, in part, on commission member Denise Beale, who voted against the project after stating prior to the vote that Blue Camp’s applications for a zoning permit and site plan approval were consistent with the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development and met regulations regarding recreation campgrounds.

Beale, the plaintiffs argued, had no alternative but to vote in a way consistent with the “factual determinations” she had made. Had she voted for the project, it would have been approved rather than rejected.

In May, Superior Court Judge Josephine Graff found the commission was justified in ruling that Blue Camp CT’s plan to locate 304 camping sites and 21 “glamping tents” on the 65-acre site it planned to lease from the tribe was “incompatible” with the surrounding neighborhood. Graff rejected the argument that Beale should have voted for the project.

In petitioning the Appellate Court, the tribe and Blue Camp CT also argued Graff had erred in finding there was ample evidence to support the commission’s denial of the special permit based on traffic concerns.

Responding to the petition, Slater argued in a court filing that Beale’s remarks prior to her vote “do not constitute a formal, collective statement of the commission.” Beale, who cast the first of the four “no” votes, “plainly was neither the sole deciding vote or the tie-breaker ...,” he wrote.

Slater also argued Graff correctly found the commission was within its authority to disregard a traffic expert’s report in favor of credible statements provided by neighborhood residents.

b.hallenbeck@theday.com