741 Colonel Ledyard Highway  
Ledyard, Connecticut 06339  
TOWN OF LEDYARD  
Planning & Zoning Commission  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Chairman  
Wood  
Marty  
Special Meeting  
Thursday, February 20, 2025  
6:00 PM  
Council Chambers - Hybrid Format  
I.  
CALL TO ORDER  
Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Ledyard Town Hall Annex  
Council Chambers and on Zoom.  
II.  
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  
III.  
ROLL CALL AND APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATES  
Chairman Marcelle Wood  
Present  
Town Council Liaison Howard Craig  
Alternate Member Matthew Miello  
Commissioner Beth E. Ribe  
Alternate Member James Harwood  
Alternate Member Rhonda Spaziani  
Excused  
In addition, the following were present:  
Director of Land Use & Planning, Elizabeth Burdick  
Land Use Attorney, Matthew Willis  
Land Use Assistant, Anna Wynn  
IV.  
OLD BUSINESS  
A.  
Discussion & Decision: PZ#24-8SUP & PZ#24-9CAM - 1737 and 1761 Connecticut  
Route 12 (Parcel IDs: 76-2120-1737 & 61-2120-1761), Gales Ferry, CT - Agent, Harry  
Heller, Esq., Heller, Heller & McCoy - Applicant/Owner, Gales Ferry Intermodal, LLC for  
Special Use Permit/Site Plan Approval and Coastal Site Plan Review to modify an existing  
mixed-use (commercial/industrial) development for the addition of an Excavation Operation,  
Major. (Submitted 07/9/24, Date of Receipt 7/11/24, PH must open by 9/13/24, PH set for 9-12-24, PH must  
close by 10-16-24, PH Cont. to 9/26/24, PH Cont. to 10/10/24, PH Cont. to 10/24/24, PH Cont. to 11/14/24,  
PH Cont. to 11/21/24, PH Cont. 12/5/24, PH Cont. to 12/12/24, PH Cont. to 12/19/24, PH closed 12/19/24,  
Tabled to 1/23/25, Tabled to 1/30/25, Tabled to 2/6/25, Tabled to 2/13/25, DRD 2/21/25).  
Attorney Willis stated that he has prepared a motion to deny and a motion to approve and  
that a copy of each has been distributed to the Commissioners.  
Chairman Wood entertained a MOTION to deny application PZ#24-8SUP & PZ#24-9CAM.  
Commissioner Harwood moved, seconded by Commissioner Craig.  
Discussion:  
Chairman Wood asked that Director Burdick read aloud each item of the draft motion to  
deny and the Commission would discuss line by line.  
Director Burdick read item 1 into the record: “The Applicant has filed for a Special Permit  
for an ‘Excavation, Major including the processing of earth product and rock prior to its  
removal from the property.’ Per Zoning Regulation Section 8.16. The proposed application  
is for a minimum of ten (10) years. The Zoning Regulations only allow such approvals to be  
three (3) years per Regulation Section 8.16.L. The Regulations only provide for ten (10)  
acres to be excavated at a time per Regulation 8.16.N.5 and this application is for excavation  
far greater than the acreage envisioned.”  
The Commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 2 into the record: “The Applicant has not met its burden in this  
application for the Special Permit criteria. In general, see Exhibit 313-1 and 313-12,  
submitted by Attorney Wilson Carroll on behalf of Intervenors Gales Farry Fire District and  
LeeAnn Berry, which has further description of some of the reasons as set forth herein and  
which reasoning is incorporated herein.”  
The Commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 3 into the record: “The Application would cause traffic  
congestion and undue traffic generation in violation of Regulations § 11.3.4.B. as there will  
be the stopping of traffic on Route 12 during blasting and back up at lights causing  
congestion; the study does not address additional traffic on secondary roads and the impact  
of new development, i.e. the Great Wolf Lodge and other large developments; there is the  
possibility of an altered school schedule and request for a lower speed limit that only  
provides further evidence of undue traffic congestion; and there is the possibility of  
additional congestion due to large trucks transporting heavy loads. In addition, dust will  
leave the site during times of no operation, weekends and holidays, as winds will distribute  
dust where it is not being treated with water during working hours.”  
The Commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 4 into the record: The Application would be a detrimental source  
of dust and silica in violation of Regulations §§ 8.16.D.1, 8.16.D.2, 9.2.C, and 11.3.4.C.  
Lack of evidence has been provided for dust that would be created when trucks go offsite,  
from equipment, and from blasting. The dust may have been minimized to some degree, but  
it doesn’t meet the standard as set forth in this paragraph. Dust and fly rock will leave the  
property during blasting in violation of Section 9.2. C.1. The Applicant has not met the  
burden of establishing that dust will not leave the property. Under § 8.16.D.1, the landscape  
will be needlessly marred during and after operation”  
The Commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 5 into the record: “The proposed use would transmit  
unreasonably loud noise and sound beyond the boundaries of the property for, at times, at  
constant level during working hours in violation of Regulations §§ 9.2.C.3 and 11.3.4.C.  
Within the information provided by the Applicant, the L50 and L10 noise levels will exceed  
the self-imposed dB levels of 56dB.”  
The Commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 6 into the record: The proposed use would transmit vibration  
beyond the boundaries of the property in violation of Regulations §§ 9.2.C.4 and 11.3.4.C.”  
The Commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 7 into the record: The application did not meet its burden in  
establishing that the immediate neighborhood would be preserved in terms of scale, density,  
intensity of use in violation of Regulation § 11.3.4.E. The project would unreasonably  
impact the neighborhood due to its scale, density and duration.”  
The Commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 8 into the record: The proposed use would have an adverse effect  
on the property values of neighboring properties in violation of Regulations §§ 8.16.D3,  
9.2.C.1 and 11.3.4.D. The applicant did not meet its burden to establish that property values  
in the immediate neighborhood would not drop during the time the work was being  
performed on the property and the property would be unsightly.”  
The commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 9 into the record: The application and proposed use does not  
meet Regulation § 11.3.4.A as described within this Motion.  
The commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 10 into the record: The proposed use would adversely affect the  
character of the immediate neighborhood with respect to scale, intensity of use, and existing  
historic and natural assets, in violation of Regulations § 11.3.4.E.”  
The commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 11 into the record: As described in this Motion, the proposed use  
would cause unreasonable pollution, impairment, and destruction of the air, water, and other  
natural resources of the state, in violation of Regulations § 11.3.4.F. and CGS Section 22a-19  
and there are no feasible and prudent alternatives exist without examining a totally  
differently sized scope of an application.  
The commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 12 into the record: The Application is inconsistent with future  
development as identified and envisioned in the Ledyard Plan of Conservation and  
Development. See Exhibit 313-11.  
The commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick read item 13 into the record: Regulation § 8.16.N.7 will not be met because  
not all the topsoil and subsoil will be stockpiled for future site restoration.”  
The commission concurred with this statement.  
Director Burdick asked Attorney Willis if the Commission should read the motion to deny in  
its entirey into the record. Attorney Willis stated no. Chairman Wood called for a vote on the  
motion.  
DENIED  
RESULT:  
James Harwood  
Howard Craig  
MOVER:  
SECONDER:  
5
1
Wood, Craig, Miello, Ribe, and Harwood  
Spaziani  
AYE:  
EXCUSED:  
V.  
ADJOURNMENT  
Commissioner Ribe moved the meeting be adjourned, seconded  
by Commissioner Craig  
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.  
VOTE: 5-0 Approved and so declared  
Respectively Submitted,  
_______________________________  
Secretary Howard Craig  
Planning & Zoning Commission  
DISCLAIMER: Although we try to be timely and accurate these are not official records of the  
Town.