Allowing this Project to proceed as planned, would set a horrendous precedent for the Island. Small properties, inadequate for houses, could be sold for the sole purpose of building huge docks with lifts.  Residence on the island would not be necessary. Residents with existing homes would have their view blocked while the owners of the docks would not. There are no mechanisms in place for local or state authorities to limit boat length or height. If approved, others can argue they they should be allowed to do the same thing. Is this really possible?

Some background. Waterfront property owners only own land to the Mean High Water (MHW) mark. All the land beyond that is Public Property; They don't own any of the beach that is exposed when the tide goes out, and they don't own the view. The public has a right to use the water for activities like swimming, fishing and kayaking.

1. Zoning. Stonington Zoning establishes different property categories(zones) and how they can be used. There are Permitted uses and Accessory uses. For a residential zone the Permitted use is being allowed to build a house. There are typically many Accessory uses or structures. However, the definition of Accessory is that is must clearly be subordinate to the principal building. This prevents somebody from by the lot next to you and and using it for something other than a house; Like a giant garage. Stonington zoning does not have language that would allow an accessory to "stand alone" which means a property with a dock and no house not be permitted. This project would give accessory uses a green light. Here are some of the Accessory uses that would no longer need a house:

Barns, silos, greenhouses, solar and energy conservation equipment, garages, produce stands, parking lots, commercial truck parking, tennis courts, and up to 2 grazing animals

It is easy to see why in a residential area you need a residence before you can add an accessory.

However, Stonington Zoning and Planning have permitted accessory uses despite the fact that the Zoning Regulations to not authorize it.

2. Harbor Management. This project violates the Mystic Harbor Management Commission (MHMC) Plan that states:

“The architecture, size, materials, color, and texture of new structures should be blended with the existing qualities and characteristics of the surrounding manmade and natural environments.” 

“Visual access to the water should be maintained, improved, or enhanced.” 

"Excessively long docks for example might unnecessarily block fairways outside marked channels or ​infringe upon mooring areas or other reasonable uses of the water by the public."

"Site planning and design features which limit or avoid negative visual and aesthetic impacts or which create positive visual and aesthetic impacts on the site and on the surrounding area should be incorporated"

"The scale of the proposed facility should be the minimum necessary to secure a legitimate water-related function."

These statements are completely inconsistent with a 100 ft dock, 15 ft high with lifts capable of hoisting a 50 ft boat above the highest tides and waves. the total height of a 40 ft Sport Fisherman could easily exceed 40ft!

If the MHMC approves this project, it will be compelled to allow all similar projects. Virtually no dock proposal would be too extreme.