Ledyard ― Proposed amendments to the town’s zoning regulations that would ban large-scale quarrying operations and limit the size of housing development was heard Thursday by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The proposed amendments were submitted by Eric Treaster, a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but were not supported by the town planning staff in a written statement.

“It is our opinion that the proposal is shortsighted, and, if approved, will have long term adverse impacts on both the Ledyard and regional economies,” said the Ledyard planning staff statement signed by Michael D’Amato, principal of Tyche Planning & Policy Group LLC and a land-use department consultant.

The report went on to cite the need to “import” the quarry material from elsewhere, “further exacerbating the high cost of living, including housing, in the Town of Ledyard.”

The amendments would affect a quarry project that was the subject of a hearing Thursday after facing strong opposition earlier this year. They were also aimed at a proposed 320-unit housing application on Military Highway that also has rattled residents.

As about 75 people filed into Ledyard Middle School for the commission’s public hearing and dozens more checked in on Zoom, proponents of the controversial 40-acre quarry project that would level portions of historic Mount Decatur took center stage to outline the third iteration of their plan to remove rock from the former Dow Chemical site.

Property owner Gales Ferry Intermodal LLC, a division of Cashman Dredging & Marine Contracting Co. of Quincy, Mass., opposed the amendment that would prohibit extraction of stone from the site, calling it “reactionary” to its two pending permits.

“Reactionary legislation is often shortsighted and has far-reaching and long-lasting unintended consequences,” said attorney Harry B. Heller, attorney for Gales Ferry Intermodal, in a written response to the proposed amendment limiting excavation activity to housing developments. “It is our client’s position that the proposed text amendment should be denied, in to, as it does not further the best interests of the Town of Ledyard.”

During the hearing Thursday, Heller went on to state “This will be damaging to property owners ... and it will be harmful to the municipality itself because it will stifle economic activity.”

Heller later on urged the commission to consider the effect of regulation changes on investors and property owners who have a right to expect consistent regulations. He said the proposed amendments appeared to be “retaliatory” in that they appear aimed at applications currently in front of the commission.

But Bruce Edwards of Gales Ferry said it was incorrect to call Treaster’s amendments retaliatory.

“What’s retaliatory is Mr. Heller’s statement about Eric Treaster’s application,” Edwards said.

Treaster said he had suggested his multi-family dwelling rules when the town last overhauled its regulations in 2022, but the commission at the time did not give his ideas proper scrutiny. He added that one of his impetuses for proposing the regulation changes was because he had been “horrified” by a recent proposal to build 10 mobile homes on a little more than 2 acres in town.

Attorney Brian R. Smith, of Robinson + Cole in Hartford, said via Zoom that he was representing C.R. Klewin LLC in opposing the zoning amendments, and questioned whether the proposed changes might affect the ability to provide affordable housing in town.

In written testimony, he added, “Nearly 65 percent of respondents of the community survey think that the town should ‘seek to focus new, somewhat higher housing density in specific areas.’ However, (Treaster’s amendments) would eliminate existing provisions of the Zoning Regulations which encourage the development of higher density housing in specific zoning districts intended for just such purposes.”

Treaster said he personally didn’t like affordable housing applications because they are “not consistent” with Ledyard’s master plan of development.

Several residents on Thursday defended Treaster’s proposed zoning changes.

“I don’t find them reactionary and I don’t find them often short-sighted,” Gales Ferry resident Eleanor Murray saying, adding the town shouldn’t be responsible for providing rock for most of Connecticut.”

She also said the regulations would not stifle economic activity.

Gales Ferry Intermodal’s quarry proposal was to be reintroduced later in the public hearing, after press time, and was expected to address concerns residents expressed in a series of public hearings last winter that brought out as many as 200 people. Among the new ideas floated in paperwork leading up to the hearing were financial incentives to the town for every cubic yard of material extracted during excavation.

The community group Citizens Alliance for Land Use has continued to oppose the quarry project, citing issues such as environmental damage, health effects, the loss of property values and the impact of stormwater runoff from the quarry project.

Backers say the quarry will help support the offshore wind industry and provide fill material for roads and climate-change resiliency efforts.

Among the most worrisome issues for local residents is the possible health effects of silica dust released by blasting and rock removal, as well as potential contamination of wells and the destruction of the Mount Decatur area, which contains remnants of a War of 1812 fort.

Gales Ferry Intermodal has said it would attempt to deal with silica dust by treating small particulates released by the operation with water to reduce the chances of dust flying into the air and being inhaled.

The town’s new planning director, former Montville Town Planner Elizabeth Burdick, has come into this battle mid-stream after former planning director of planning Juliet Hodge was dismissed by Mayor Fred B. Allyn. Allyn has never explained the firing in a public forum.

The commission was not expected to make any decisions on Thursday night.

l.howard@theday.com